Opticianry Summit?

[tx11]

Perhaps the most positive way to advance the field of opticianry is to put all of our efforts toward getting a minimum requirement to dispense. Minimum because it is entry level, requirement because it thins the hiring pool..thus increased demand for those who meet the minimum requirement. The minimum requirement should be based on how much harm optical incompetency can cause John Q. Public not on how much knowledge you can accumulate. In the meanwhile business goes on as usual people without any knowledge of optical dispensing what so ever are being hired for lower wages and passing themselves off as opticians.

Im sorry if Im out of place Wes.. perhaps these are the wrong comments for this thread.

[wmcdonald]

The NOCE is an extremely basic exam. Suggesting that it is sufficient as a measure of competency is foolishness. Further comparing someone with that simplistic credential to a Pharmacist (PharmD) is even more foolish.

Wes, that was not what he was doing, in fact it was the complete opposite.

[tx11]

The NOCE is already in place. Sure it does not take into account evary aspect of ophthalmic optics but can work as a minimum requirement to dispense ,that maybe,just maybe could be used as a state regulated starting point . The advancement of opticianry as a professionally recognized field will only happen when not just anybody can practice it.

[Wes]

Wes, that was not what he was doing, in fact it was the complete opposite.

Sorry TX if I overreacted. I've avoided posting on this thread for about a week because nearly every other post is pissing me off. I'm tired of people pushing for the "barefoot and pregnant" optician. That's what we have by not pushing for formal ed and continuing to accept a too-basic exam as our standard.
We will progress or disappear. It's our choice. I have options outside the field, and yet I fight for it. Warren has more options, and he fights harder. Many opticians I know don't have many other viable options, yet they remain apathetic about their profession. I really just don't get it.

[tx11]

Sorry TX if I overreacted. I've avoided posting on this thread for about a week because nearly every other post is pissing me off. I'm tired of people pushing for the "barefoot and pregnant" optician. That's what we have by not pushing for formal ed and continuing to accept a too-basic exam as our standard.
We will progress or disappear. It's our choice. I have options outside the field, and yet I fight for it. Warren has more options, and he fights harder. Many opticians I know don't have many other viable options, yet they remain apathetic about their profession. I really just don't get it.

No problem Wes I understand. I entered into this field in 1985. tested for my ABO in 1989. I was trained by Genuine GUILD OPTICIANS that started their careers with American Optical and Bausch & Laumb. My ABO was not and easy test. Back then it was a little over a 30% pass rate. Things have changed... They were just beginning to talk of the Advanced certification, maybe becuase they were about to make the enrty level test easier...I don't know. I have not persued my AC or ABOM because MOST employers could care less about it. And many will not pay for the effort or knowledge that has to be put into it. The letters after my name on a business card are impressive only as long as I can perform finish work and "upsell unsuspecting patients" that trust I have their best interest at heart.

I have a B.S. in a field outside of opticianry as well (other options in this economy, not so much). I enjoy helping people see better. I want people to want to do business with me because I care about them. Our best hope is to push as hard as we can for some sort of mandatory state regulation that is just high enough to weed out the incompetence of "so called opticians" . Entry level is still entry, alot will not qualify. That way no just anybody can do what we do without putting forth a decent amount of effort to gain the skill set and certification needed. And most importantly only those meeting said requirement can actually be hired to do the job. This would change things dramatically. :)

[tx11]

I might add that opticianry is a noble field and that we actually do help make peoples life better. Selling a designer labeled frame that makes someone feel special is cool,but should not be what qualifies us as good opticians.Obviously people would not need frames if they did not need vision correction. many average priced non designer frames are fashionable and of great quality. Perhaps, just perhaps, a happy patient that can see well and looks good,is a job well done. As long as an optician can get RX's a well managed dispensary that offers medium priced frames will be profitable.

[Wes]

Almost any degree will make you more employable than having none.

Back to licensing. Puerto Rico is not a state. It is a territory of the US. Many people do not realize this, and many consider Puerto Rico to be undeveloped, in relation to the US. But, Puerto Rico regulates the opticianry field, while 29 states do not. Maybe Puerto Rico is more advanced that we are?

Oregon won't let me pump my own gas, but they'll let anyone practice as an optician, with no requirements. Odd. Being an optician seems more difficult than pumping gas to me, but maybe not in Oregon.

Let's face it, the NOCE is so easy because most opticians' skills are insufficient for the job. It HAS to be easy to be considered a valid exam, and it's because of how this profession has failed itself.

The people concerned enough about the field to post on here tend to be the more knowledgable people in the field. Yet, I find myself reading the posts on here and I am appalled at the acceptance of the inferior, with the "we don't need no education" attitude, and the defeatism of "we can't do anything about it". I have changed my position as to what comes first. Legislate. The optician is going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the classroom. Otherwise, he will not go. The optician will have to have education and professionalism forced upon him, or he will become extinct. Choose.

[tx11]

Almost any degree will make you more employable than having none.

Back to licensing. Puerto Rico is not a state. It is a territory of the US. Many people do not realize this, and many consider Puerto Rico to be undeveloped, in relation to the US. But, Puerto Rico regulates the opticianry field, while 29 states do not. Maybe Puerto Rico is more advanced that we are?

Oregon won't let me pump my own gas, but they'll let anyone practice as an optician, with no requirements. Odd. Being an optician seems more difficult than pumping gas to me, but maybe not in Oregon.

Let's face it, the NOCE is so easy because most opticians' skills are insufficient for the job. It HAS to be easy to be considered a valid exam, and it's because of how this profession has failed itself.

The people concerned enough about the field to post on here tend to be the more knowledgable people in the field. Yet, I find myself reading the posts on here and I am appalled at the acceptance of the inferior, with the "we don't need no education" attitude, and the defeatism of "we can't do anything about it". I have changed my position as to what comes first. Legislate. The optician is going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the classroom. Otherwise, he will not go. The optician will have to have education and professionalism forced upon him, or he will become extinct. Choose.

I don't think that it is genuine opticians that are the problem it is the RX suppliers who are able to hire those who do not have certification. Those interested in what we do will do what it takes to be able to do it. As long as labor is cheap and anybody can do it well ... cheap untrained labor will do it. Legislate qualifications before ability to dispense and things will change.

[Wes]

Another thing I have yet to figure out is why anyone would go to school for 8-10 years to learn their profession, and then hand the RX off to a schmuck. I also don't understand why companies that invest millions in lens development and design wouldn't raise hell that unqualified schmucks are incorrectly dispensing their devices, thus giving them a bad name by association.

[tx11]

Another thing I have yet to figure out is why anyone would go to school for 8-10 years to learn their profession, and then hand the RX off to a schmuck. I also don't understand why companies that invest millions in lens development and design wouldn't raise hell that unqualified schmucks are incorrectly dispensing their devices, thus giving them a bad name by association.

$$$

[Barry Santini]

Another thing I have yet to figure out is why anyone would go to school for 8-10 years to learn their profession, and then hand the RX off to a schmuck. I also don't understand why companies that invest millions in lens development and design wouldn't raise hell that unqualified schmucks are incorrectly dispensing their devices, thus giving them a bad name by association.

Currently, as far as I can see, the only lens (type) brands that have any recognition/clout with the eyewear buying public is Varilux & Transitions (Crizal is slowing gaining on the outside).

As "optics" brands go, Nikon has/had no peer, but they blew it and their chance in the early part of the last decade. If I want a name associated with optics that's guaranteed to impress, I look no further than Zeiss. Typical client responses when I drop the Z word is: "Finest Optics in the world!" or "Best lenses money can buy."

FWIW

B

[Uilleann]

If one was brave enough to mandate PhD opticians (as an example), you'd still have a percentage that would royally botch even the simplest dispense, or most straight forward edge bevel. Sure, they'd be book smart, but might still lack even the basics to do perform at an exceptional level. It's certainly no surprise nor secret that these "well educated" types exist in just about any "educated" field. We have a state here run by hordes of them here in fact. :) But if someone can demonstrate true competency -irrespective of hours logged in a lecture hall chair- then you'll see the field advance rapidly.

As always, despite several fellow posters refusing to recognize that I have never been, nor never will be waving a banner "anti-educate" I am not saying that higher ed has no place in dispensing or whatever "opticianry" is as a whole today. However, to keep pushing a currently non-existent, non-standardized, non-competency driven, non peer-reviewed national educational agenda doesn't make sense. Yet. If opticianry can come to some consensus about what minimum competencies should realistically be and define it clearly and simply, then I believe this whole current pseudo movement might just gain some sort of traction nationally.

Further, I believe we need to stop treating the term "minimum competency" as profane. It isn't - nor should be. But the level which "minimum competency" represents in the field of opticianry in the United States is in need of revision - this I believe we all agree upon. Once opticianry is able to clearly define this level in a present and future tense, we can begin to form a testing program to match. Further, educational programs designed to directly compliment the nationally recognized new standard would then make much more sense. But even then - requiring some specific educational track alone, or even a given program at a given opticianry school (agendas there?) etc. is more likely to fail in today's market, rather than succeed.

[tx11]

If one was brave enough to mandate PhD opticians (as an example), you'd still have a percentage that would royally botch even the simplest dispense, or most straight forward edge bevel. Sure, they'd be book smart, but might still lack even the basics to do perform at an exceptional level. It's certainly no surprise nor secret that these "well educated" types exist in just about any "educated" field. We have a state here run by hordes of them here in fact. :) But if someone can demonstrate true competency -irrespective of hours logged in a lecture hall chair- then you'll see the field advance rapidly.

As always, despite several fellow posters refusing to recognize that I have never been, nor never will be waving a banner "anti-educate" I am not saying that higher ed has no place in dispensing or whatever "opticianry" is as a whole today. However, to keep pushing a currently non-existent, non-standardized, non-competency driven, non peer-reviewed national educational agenda doesn't make sense. Yet. If opticianry can come to some consensus about what minimum competencies should realistically be and define it clearly and simply, then I believe this whole current pseudo movement might just gain some sort of traction nationally.

Further, I believe we need to stop treating the term "minimum competency" as profane. It isn't - nor should be. But the level which "minimum competency" represents in the field of opticianry in the United States is in need of revision - this I believe we all agree upon. Once opticianry is able to clearly define this level in a present and future tense, we can begin to form a testing program to match. Further, educational programs designed to directly compliment the nationally recognized new standard would then make much more sense. But even then - requiring some specific educational track alone, or even a given program at a given opticianry school (agendas there?) etc. is more likely to fail in today's market, rather than succeed.

well stated

[Johns]

If one was brave enough to mandate PhD opticians (as an example), you'd still have a percentage that would royally botch even the simplest dispense, or most straight forward edge bevel.

Even highly trained, well educated professionals aren't perfect. Heart surgeries have been botched, and planes crash. How about a 200 question, multiple choice test for surgeons and pilots?

(And no, I'm not suggesting that we are in the same category as heart surgeons.)

[Wes]

...to keep pushing a currently non-existent, non-standardized, non-competency driven, non peer-reviewed national educational agenda doesn't make sense. Yet. If opticianry can come to some consensus about what minimum competencies should realistically be and define it clearly and simply, then I believe this whole current pseudo movement might just gain some sort of traction nationally.

Further, I believe we need to stop treating the term "minimum competency" as profane. It isn't - nor should be. But the level which "minimum competency" represents in the field of opticianry in the United States is in need of revision - this I believe we all agree upon. Once opticianry is able to clearly define this level in a present and future tense, we can begin to form a testing program to match. Further, educational programs designed to directly compliment the nationally recognized new standard would then make much more sense. But even then - requiring some specific educational track alone, or even a given program at a given opticianry school (agendas there?) etc. is more likely to fail in today's market, rather than succeed.

As I see it, this (in bold) is the mission of this summit. I know we butt heads quite often here, but you hit the nail on the head.

Pm sent

[Wes]

Even highly trained, well educated professionals aren't perfect. Heart surgeries have been botched, and planes crash. How about a 200 question, multiple choice test for surgeons and pilots?

(And no, I'm not suggesting that we are in the same category as heart surgeons.)

A CPOT did heart surgery on me one time. ;)

[drk]

(Provoking the ire of Wes)

I'm still in the "barefoot and pregnant" camp.

Here's what I learned from watching a video about medieval guilds (how's that for looking towards the future?): they enforced their own standards in everything from wages, prices, tools, how to conduct business, etc. They self-policed, they self-ruled.

This is no different from you guys trying to unify opticianry under some organization, and getting governmental assistance in laying down the laws.

My "barefoot and pregnant" way...you don't have to be Don Quixotes waiting for non-opticians to go along with your agenda...you can start tomorrow.

[Wes]

Here's what I learned from watching a video about medieval guilds (how's that for looking towards the future?): they enforced their own standards in everything from wages, prices, tools, how to conduct business, etc. They self-policed, they self-ruled.

This is no different from you guys trying to unify opticianry under some organization, and getting governmental assistance in laying down the law.

I appreciate the humor, but this is what every successful profession has done.

[drk]

I beat dead horse. Go far away now.

[tx11]

Even if a REALISTIC minimum competency is decided upon,things will only change when that minimum can be enforced . We must have laws in each state and use the new competency as the test. However if the current national test is already in place,and the means by which to administer it, why not use it as the MINIMUM? It must have really changed changed...since 1989

[Bill West]

I enjoyed some of this and endured the rest. Let's see now, we better educate all future Opticians and who pays them more based on more education? Certainly not ANY eye doctor or retail chains or customers, you'll notice I didn't say patients. For the last 52, yes I said 52 years I have made a very good living doing what I do better than most and that is, selling and fitting eyeglasses to the public. I have changed how I market my wares at least 6 times and fined tuned it many more. I have opened 12 successful locations and employed many good Opticians. I was taught the basics and took it on myself to become the best I could be. I have observed many Opticians down through the years many good ones and some not so good.
My take on this is the same as it has always been. Until Opticians become INDEPENDENT retailers they will never attain the status or reach the economic levels they wish to attain. The trainig is only as good as the person getting it and let's face it some of them will never put forth the effort to become good. Here is the key to success, becoming an expert at Opticianary and it is more of a hands on job making and fitting eyeglasses, so train by doing it, drk has it right, next learn to MARKET, when opening a store DONOT feel you have to spend $100k on displays and EDGERS. Only STUPID people buy a $35k machine to edge a couple pair of lenses a day. People are looking for expert advice backed up by expert work and most of all a PRICE THEY CAN AFFORD. Take NO INSURANCE, I HAVE NEVER TAKEN A DIME OF INSURANCE and never will. Find a good location at a good price and drive a hard bargin with the landlord. I have joked many times that "I could open in a phone booth and make a good living". I may try it yet. I am afraid many of us spend too much time wishing we were something other than what we are, not what we should be, a skilled craftsman that fits and fabricates the most comfortable, attractive, accurate eyewear on God's green earth. Do this and you will succeed, I guarntee it.

[Wes]

Even if a REALISTIC minimum competency is decided upon,things will only change when that minimum can be enforced . We must have laws in each state and use the new competency as the test. However if the current national test is already in place,and the means by which to administer it, why not use it as the MINIMUM? It must have really changed changed...since 1989

If, say, a formal ed component were mandated for licensure across the board, competency would no doubt go up, and with it would go the minimum standard, and the difficulty level of the exam, as it rose to reflect the competencies of the profession.

[tx11]

Perhaps a 12 month certificate program similar for that of pharm techs. Upon completion it could be transferred and applied toward an AA that would incorporate some of the entrepenural business sense that Bill West spoke of.

[tx11]

To actually help the professional opticians the certificate would need to be obtained in every state by anyone who wanted to do any kind of business involving Rx eyewear. Including OD and OMD and Chain employees and independants

[tx11]

Just to clarify I meant OD employed opticians and OMD employed opticians. The Doctors themselves would not need to obtain it BUT the direct supervision of the doctor would not be sufficient to dispense .The optician would need to complete and pass the certificate course in order to do anything with eyewear. What do you think? too much?