Originally Posted by
sharpstick777
I agree with you entirely Warren, there must be education... but I think there needs to be effective testing at the end of that education. Much like the Bar Exam.
The reason the Bar exam exists is to ensure a commonality and and consistancy among many institutions that teach Law. Without it, those institutions would simply diverge in quality and quantity of legal education. Since a JD is essentially worthless without passing the Bar, educational institutions must prepare their students for that exam. It unites many colleges in the same goal without dictating directly to them what and when they teach. If their students stopped passing the bar (those results are published) those colleges would simply lose students to other colleges. They have INCENTIVE to create programs that help their students pass, the students have INCENTIVE to Pass, their needs are in line. We need to bring incentive into this equation and align the needs of varying interests.
There are many Opticians that think they don't need any education (even continuing) and they have sufficient skills according to their own self assessment. Without a test nothing can give them a "level" and they have no ability to accurately self assess except for using the Optician next to them. And I look pretty good using that method I might add. If I had a test, with results in specific areas, I can focus on what I need to learn. The problem with those Opticians who want to learn is that they have no idea where to go, and what they need to focus on. If we had a way to assess their skills, they would be able to both feel good about where they did well, and have direction on where they did not. Each section could contain a list of supporting materials and CE classes. We can't expect people to head a direction without signage, a test can give that signage.
Testing is another way for Opticians who have learned on their own effectively to earn the respect they deserve as well. I am big fan of structured formal education, but it has not been available to everyone in this industry as their are only a handfull of schools. For example 25 years ago in California when I started there was not a single Opticianry school in the worlds 10th largest economy. Many of these people have a done a great job, read books, studied, enthustically taken CEs and learned on their own. Despite their circumstances they have been committed to self education and have acquired a valuable wealth of knowledge. Although its not the future of Opticianry, it is our past. And through testing we can bring that knowledge and skill base into the future and let future Opticians learn from thier great knowledge. We cannot go forward until we bring our past and future together in some way, and testing the only way to do that.
Even when we are a world where schools in every state offer both 2 and 4 year Optical Management and Science degrees testing is still the only way to ensure the quality of education at those institutions.
My hope is that the ABO would refine and reassess their role in this industry, and see the potential influence they can have to shape this industry for the better.
Testing is really an answer to a lot of the debates we have here on Optiboard, but currently there is not an institution that provides it effectively. The ABO could fill that role but they will have to change their strategy. Until then we will flounder.
Testing is simply the only way to unite diverse backgrounds and incentives to build a foundation for education that I see.
What the American Bar Association did over time is similar what we need to do. Attorney's came from a diverse background, from Apprentices to colleges, some with law studies, some with not. Some simply put up shingles and called themselves lawyers. Many lawyers worked as clerks and paralegals, and then became attorney's. Some went to college, but not in law. So they created a standarized test. It didn't matter what your background was or where you got your skills at first, if you passed that test you were an Attorney. This allowed people to be grandfathered in who were practicing law. However, over time, the test got slowly harder. People NEEDED more classes, and law schools were born, all to pass the test. Now the test is so difficult in some states, after 7 years of school, students still spend $20K on special test prep-classes to pass the Bar (some states only have about a 20% pass rate the first time). Passing the Bar is required to practice law now, but it wasn't always. They didn't wait until the laws changed to create the Bar Exam, the provided the Bar Exam THEN the laws began to change.
What I propose is a multi-level Optical test, from Frame Stylist to Master Optician, with steps in between. I think I am good? Then I should test well. If I don't my test results will give me specific areas of study I can work on to pass to the next level. This both honors what people already know, and gives them help for what they don't. As the test gets harder over time, formal education will increase in need. Once its needed more, the number of schools will grow. Once the numbers of schools grow, more people will choose formal Optical education. There is a reason that colleges exist in every major city, higher education is extremely localized. People overwhelmingly attend colleges near where they live, sure some people go out of state, but its only about 22% of students I think but you probably have better numbers than I.
Bookmarks