What do we hope to accomplish?

[chip anderson]

Just some random thoughts but what do we want to accompish with all our ranting and raving about education and licenseing?

Do we want :

Status? (Might help but we are not going to end up "Optical Doctors and drive Bentley's)
Elimination of the competion? (Ain't gonna happen).
Just be smarter? (We could all use that)
Do we want the public to recognize that we are somehow more talented than the guy at the chain, or cutie in the doctor's office?
Money?

Now think about this:

There are relatively uneducated opticians that came up through lab apprentice ship that are quite knowledgeable, some very successfull, some very, very successfull. Some that are not.

There are some who work cheap and some who won't concider a job that won't put new leather in the mercedes.

There are probably opticians with a PHD that can't solder a frame, or even adjust one.

There are opticians that are socially successfull and those that are slobs.

Just what are we after? Do we want everyone to be just like us or what we think we would like to be?


Chip

[rep]

Chip

I have a few opinions based on experience.

Licensing brings more money to opticians. ( CT and Florida are prime examples) Try $800 per week IF you can find one.

Licensing slows the growth of large and small chain store operation. ( Florida, TN, CT and others. It is not coincidental that large chains have shut down operations in these states because of a lack of licensed personnel.

Dispite the perceptions to the contrary most OD's and MD's in licensed states have licensed opticians working in their dispensaries. Most doctors don't want to be caught out of the office without a licensed dispenser or have the perception by the public that their dispensary is less qualified than the one down the street.

The only way to be recognized by other professionals, para professionals, the legal community and the public is through licensure.

Tennessee will be attacked on two fronts not just one. Optometry with its optometric legislator will carry the ball to end the quest for formal education by eliminating licensing. The second player will be NAOO who has been trying to weaken TN laws for quite some time at the bequest of their members.

Rep

[chip anderson]

Thanks rep, but I think $ 800.00 is about average here and we are an unlicensed state, some do a lot better than that.

Of course I don't know what the chains pay.

Chipc

[wmcdonald]

Chip:
To attempt to defend the value of education is ludicrous and not worth a response. If Henry Ford had felt that way the Model T would still be horse powered by real horses. Since there are only 3 Opticians I know of with PhDs (myself, Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Muth), I can safely assure you that we can ALL do the technical tasks you describe quite nicely thank you very much! You may consider us snobs, but let me assure you that many of the smartest people I know have no degree, but certainly encouage others to get one. All I want is for my profession to be better off when I leave than when I began. You and those like you feel the status quo is acceptable, according to what I read here. Richard Hamilton, former Assistant Professor at Duke Medical School had only a high school diploma, but was a Licensed Optician and taught the residents contact lenses and optics for many years. Opticians are in a serious decline in many areas. If we don't get ourselves better educated, it willl continue. Knowledge is always a good thing and I encourage you to be objective regarding the profession's quest for it. Why are you so opposed? It seems that only those from unlicensed states are against licensing, and I can't for the life of me figure out why someone would be against their own profession moving into new areas of endeavor. I am well aware of the fear of additional government regulation, but I can tell you from personal experience that licensing is not a bad and education is necessary for our survival. Think about it. I would enjoy spending a hour with you someday to talk about it. I did that with my friend Harry Jilson some time back and he saw the big picture. I hope onthers can as well. Regarding the salary levels you mentioned: I have talked to large numbers of folks in your area who don't make nearly $800.00.

Best regards,
Warren

[Joann Raytar]

chip anderson said:
Thanks rep, but I think $ 800.00 is about average here and we are an unlicensed state, some do a lot better than that.

Of course I don't know what the chains pay.

Chipc

Chip, that's after federal and state income taxes are taken out - that's not too bad here; we give up a big chunck of our gross pay to taxes and benefits. It translates to around $17/hr for new LO's and mid-$20's/hr for experienced LO's.

What do I want?

I want a consumer to walk into any dispensary in any state and stand better odds of being taken care of by an educated, trained professional who meets some form of national standard. Sure, many of you guys can run circles around us but remember the dispesary setting is different today, apprenticeship is different today and young people are different today. If the time and means for experienced opticians isn't there to train up and coming opticians, then that education must come from another source.

I'm not going to lie to you; part of what I want also has to deal with public perception. The public will respect a degree more than they will apprenticeship hours. Of course, when it comes down to it your skill will make or break your reputation.

[rep]

I know where you live Chip and I can assure you that I don't know of any optician making $42K NET plus full benefits including insurance, profit sharing and pensions as is the case in Ct and in some parts of Florida.

That is true for anyone licensed regardless of experience. Are you paying everyone in your shop the wages above?

That is also the reason that a majority of firm owners do not want licensing and never will. They are willing to testify and support being unlicensed, an additional nail in the licensing coffin.

[hip chic]

Honestly....I want licensing because I care about people.

I don't care if people obtain their licensing following formal education in ophthalmic dispensing or through a GOOD apprenticeship program (one where the apprentice really is working under the careful close supervision of a licensed optician or optometrist) followed by appropriate testing (that proves not only the ability to perform daily optican tasks but, also the knowledge and reasoning behind it).

I am concerned by the people who come in to my shop telling stories about their bad experiences in other optical shops...telling about the way they were treated, the information they were given regarding lenses and frames etc.

I believe that if a person has to work for what they get, they value it more. I believe that if people have to work to get a license, there is a better chance they will treat it (and the public) with the respect it deserves. I think that these licensed professionals will be more likely continue to educate themselves than those who did not have to go through some strict licensing procedure and this will be an advantage to the public....and that matters to me.


hip chic

[mjh]

Warren, Jo, and Hip Chic, I agree with you all. Warren especially nailed home the points I was attempting to make when I wrote another thread "a nice little story". As for this thread of Chip's: just insert the word "pharmacist" everywhere you wrote "optician" and re-read what you wrote. I agree with Jo's comments that it IS partly to have the pride that comes with attaining education. As someone said elsewhere on optiboard, but some people still don't get it: "Would YOU go to an unlicensed or uneducated surgeon?" or pharmacist or even a realtor for that matter. I also agree with Warren (didn't know you hold a PhD; do you mind being called by your first name or what? I don't want to show any disrespect.) with his statement that it almost isn't worth even replying to someone who is questioning the need to improve oneself through education. Michael.

[hcjilson]

Everything I know, I learned. Most of what I know was taught to me. We call this process education. My education has brought me to where I am today, and your education has brought you to where you are today. We are what we are by virtue of our education.

As good as I am, I KNOW I can be better. I am still learning everyday.

I came up in this industry through the apprencticeship program in Massachusetts. I consider myself a good, albeit average optician. Although it is an honorable way to learn, I am convinced that it is the reason our profession is constantly under attack. We may have the knowledge we need, but we lack the creditability for recognition as a profession.We also lack the vehicle to grow as a profession and to broaden our horizons. A formal education is what will provide for our future.

I did not always feel that way. I used to argue strongly in favor of apprenticeship. I had the good fortune to spend some time with Dr's, McDonald and Ferguson and for once decided to listen instead of talk.(EXTREMELY difficult for me) I would stronly suggest that anyone who opposes formal education in practice, spend some time with either of those gentlemen and hear what they have to say. One or both of them should design a 2 hour course explaining why it is necessary and how it can save the profession.


Regarding Licensure. I find it curious that the folks from non licensed states don't seem to favor it and the folks from licensed states would die to protect it. I sense there more than a little envy invlolved in one of those positions. Licensing may be a tax as Chip has said, but more importantly it is a

CREDENTIAL!

Does a license make a good optician- the answer is not necessarily but at least it is proof of meeting entry level talent. Again, more importantly a license makes an optician accountable, to the public, and to the state.

I have yet to hear ONE valid argument in favor of abolishing licensing. If you go to Roy Ferguson's post about the assault on Tennessee Licensing, particularly the reasoning of one Dr Odom, I defy anyone to give logic to his written remarks.Remember when you read them that Dr Odom wants his barber to be licensed.

Believe it or not I started this four hours ago.I was interupted many times so if the post is disjointed please forgive!

hj

[mjh]

...Dr. Odom must not have realized it, but his barber IS licensed. He must be. It's the law regardless of what state he works in. Doesn't mean he's a better barber than someone practicing illegally without a license. It just means he was able to demonstrate basic, entry-level talent and knowledge to a licensing board. True stuff. All 50 states requirea hairdresser or barber to be licensed. Now if only............

Michael.

[hcjilson]

That Barbers are ACCOUNTABLE to some entity other than self. It also means the public is assured of not getting butchered!

Remember what they used to do!:D

hj

[Chris Ryser]

hcjilson said:
That Barbers are ACCOUNTABLE to some entity other than self. It also means the public is assured of not getting butchered!

Remember what they used to do!:D

hj

bar•ber-sur•geon

Pronunciation: (bär'bur-sûr'jun), [key]
—n.
(formerly) a barber practicing surgery and dentistry.




Must have been the first licensed profession. :hammer:

[chip anderson]

Henry Ford never went to college except to donate, speak, or accept accolades. He did apprentice in a machine shop and he was later employed as an engineer. Kind of odd that Bill Gates was found unqualified to teach computers in the ivy league isn't it?

I do respect and honor those Ralph Drew's, Russel Stimsons, and Virgle Hancocks who have honored our profession with their presence. I also have great respect for those like, Pete Hanlin, and others with much greater mathematical knowledge than I.

But for dispensing eyeglasses, fitting contact lenses, and even making artifcial eyes, I feel that these are learned skills that only on the job, or preferably in the lab experience can provide well.

If we are to have educational requirements they should be on different types of frames, ears, noses, bifocal types, soldering/repairing etc. Not on selling, reading Plato, or Socrates (Great men of great value but of lilttle practical use in an optical shop) and Voltare. None of it should include selling.

Chip:bbg:

[wmcdonald]

Opticians utilize far more than mere technical knowledge. Yes, many early professionals were apprentice-trained, but the smarter professions did away with apprenticeship many years ago. I agree as I stated earlier, that many smart folks in Opticianry trained that way, but for myriad reasons, it is time to move on! Henry Ford and his corporation also donate millions annually to various universities, as does the Bill Gates Foundation headed by he and his wife. I know both Ralph Drew and Russell Stimson and had the privilidge of sharing time with them both. They were great men, but they also supported the formal education initiatives early on in Opticianry. The Stimson Library was housed (and still is) at Can~ada College in California, even though the program is no longer open. Drew was trained in a formal program in England. Technical competency is and always be a part and parcel of what Opticians do, but a more comprehensive program to develop cognitive skills in areas such as management or even communication and a broader knowledge base of theoritical optics should be taught. I do not think I misunderstand you at all, I simply do not agree and encourage you to give the educational process more thought. You cannot teach theory today as it was taught in the past. There is simply few who can do the training. I know that you can expound on your knowledge and abilities and I'm sure you must be very good at what you do, but you are not the norm. That is the point I am trying to get past many. We need consistent and focused education training to do what we do or we will not be able to maintain even our current weakened position in the eyecare delivery system. I would love to sit down with you and discuss this at some point. Again, I am not against any individual, just for the further development of Opticianry. We cannot accomplish that with the same old tired arguments.

Best regards,
Warren

[jediron]

Chip said:
If we are to have educational requirements they should be on different types of frames, ears, noses, bifocal types, soldering/repairing etc. Not on selling, reading Plato, or Socrates (Great men of great value but of lilttle practical use in an optical shop) and Voltare. None of it should include selling.

That is very nice Chip, but how do you pay your bills? By barter?
Some one bring you a chicken and you give him a frame? Come on
Chip selling is an art. Selling should be taught. Then you would have less high pressure selling and more of the art of selling. Selling is greeting a person, getting to know them, listening for there needs and yes selling to those needs.
As far as Plato and Socrates goes I agree. THEY were philosophers commenting on there society and life. Maybe we could use a few more Plato's and Socrates to comment on the plight of the OPTICAL Community.

[mjh]

Chip said:
If we are to have educational requirements they should be on different types of frames, ears, noses, bifocal types, soldering/repairing etc. Not on selling, reading Plato, or Socrates (Great men of great value but of lilttle practical use in an optical shop) and Voltare. None of it should include selling

My comment: Any optician-to-be should contact Erie Community College (Williamsville, NY-- oldest optician school in the nation, and my alma mater) or any other accredited opticianry school in the country. They teach exactly what Chip wishes opticians education to include. It's called an Associates of Applied Science degree in Ophthalmic Dispensing. So, we all finally agree. Chip included. What Chip wants is already offered as part of the optician curriculum. I remember an entire semester learning about old types of lenses that aren't used anymore. Not for nostalgic reasons, ...well, kinda, but mainly to learn about the basic things that all opticians should know. My first day of school I remember learning about "kryptok lenses cemented with canadian balsam" and thinking "I'm really gonna love this".....Michael.

[BobV]

having gone to a mortuary college, I would recommend everyone obtaining a book on the subject of restorative art. If you want to learn about the types of noses, the parts of the ear, etc., this would be the best source.

Bob V.

[Chris Ryser]

Looking back when we where learning the basics of opticianry which is was and still is a full understanding of the mechanics of the profession.

How can you sell glasses, without knowing how to make perfect adjustments, repair a hinge, solder a frame, grind a lens without a patternless edger and on and an. To be a good optician you have to master all operation of the trade.

By just going to courses or schooling you will never have the practical expierience that should an opticians trade. (Usually opticians claim that Optometrist's do not have practical expierience when they come out of schooling)

If you are just an advocate of taking courses you will be the perfect object for the new wave of the big companies who want opticians that have no more interest in manual work and education.

The goal of the big international companies is to own and create optical laboratories and supply houses that take orders by computer and supply you the finished pair of lenses that by anybody, even with little expierience, can be passed on to the consumer.

When that moment arrives, the opticians profession will be a dead issue and the OD's and the MD's will be the survivors.

An optician is a high tech artisan, but still an artisan who should be a master in all technical aspects of his profession which are not learned from books and in courses. (you have to have it in your fingertips) This actually means, one has to know the ropes from the bottom on up.

And the ones who do not, become store clerks which take orders and deliver the glasses to consumers. The perfect future setup for large corporate ambitions.

[mjh]

Will someone like Warren please explain to people like Chris and Chip exactly what goes on in the 2 years of opticianry school? A person with no experience can go throught the Associates degree program and graduate having learned all about optical theory, physics in relation to optical principles, physiology of the eye, actually fitting and adjusting eyeglasses on fellow students as part of a semester-long lab, actually using lab equipment to fabricate (and have a teacher inspect) a pair of lenses based on a prescription provided by the teacher. There's so much more, 2 years worth, that I cannot even start to post here, ...but that is the basis of our profession, and part of the reason why myself and soooo many others on optiboard and elsewhere wish to have an educational requirement for opticians-to-be. How many times do I have to keep referring to my "nice little story" (other thread), illustrating what it would be like if pharmacists didn't have an educational requirement, before people like Chris and Chip see the comparison bewteen our two professions? Michael

[mjh]

in a simpler way, I'll say it like this:

we fill prescriptions written by a doctor; we dispense prescription eyewear.

we are the optical equivalent of pharmacists.

pharmacists must go to school to learn to do what they do.

the public would not like it if some pharmacists went to school and some did not.

the public should know that some opticians have learned their profession by going to school, but some have not.

pharmacists must pass state licensing tests to demonstrate to a licensing board that they know certain basic things that is part of a pharmacists job description.

the public should know that, depending on what state they buy glasses in, their glasses/CL prescription may or may not have been filled by someone who has had to demonstrate his knowledge to a licensing board.

Again, doesn't mean that one pharmacist or optician is better than another in their profession compared to others, it just means that if they are licensed, they have demonstrated basic competency.

Michael.

[Chris Ryser]

mjh said:
Will someone like Warren please explain to people like Chris and Chip exactly what goes on in the 2 years of opticianry school? A person with no experience can go throught the Associates degree program and graduate having learned all about optical theory, physics in relation to optical principles, physiology of the eye, actually fitting and adjusting eyeglasses on fellow students as part of a semester-long lab, actually using lab equipment to fabricate (and have a teacher inspect) a pair of lenses based on a prescription provided ....................................

..................pharmacists didn't have an educational requirement, before people like Chris and Chip see the comparison bewteen our two professions? Michael

Michael,

All the respect for what you are saying.

A long time ago I did 3 years of apprentiship, learning all apects from scratch. Too long to go into details.

From there I went to a renowned optical school in London, mainly to learn refracting. We used to have besides excellent theoretical lectures also our laboratory courses as you describe them for today's times.

Looking back at it, after 3 years of practical learning I actually was a hell of a lot better than any of our teachers and could show them many tricks of the trade.

You do need practical expirience to support all the theories in this world.

[wmcdonald]

NO ONE is suggesting we do away with frame adjustment or edging! Come on now, how can anyone argue against education? I will never understand. I feel strongly that Opticians need to do the mechanical things and do them well. You never heard me say different. It is the other things like KNOWING how a lens effects the eye and how to problem solve from a theoretical standpoint are the issue here. We need to ADD to the technical knowledge that Opticians are suppossed to have with additional components. It is almost like some of you feel that if this educational component is instituted, you will be left behind. That is simply far from the truth. No one will take anything from you, but you will enjoy the sense of belonging to better educated and I fell (some of you obviously don't seem to feel it important) more respected profession if education and mandatory licensing or certification is required. I go to state after state where the leadership, the suppossed knowledgeable members of this profession, can't find a power of a lens in a meridian. I was in 1 state and mentioned Prentice's Rule and one woman said she had one in her purse.....do you? They do 1 thing....sell glasses, that is it. I refuse to belong to a group that will not advance itself and I am dedicated to making certain that those who call themselves Opticians in the future will damn well need to earn something to use that title! Some of you can continue to try to hold this profession back if you will, but remember "if you think education is expensive, try ignorance". You can find the curricula of most schools at www.nfos.org. Take a look and you will see what actually goes into the education of a well-rounded Optician.

[jediron]

Chris said
An optician is a high tech artisan, but still an artisan who should be a master in all technical aspects of his profession which are not learned from books and in courses. (you have to have it in your fingertips) This actually means, one has to know the ropes from the bottom on up.

But the point still stands, you can be a great artisan but you still need to sell to pay the bills. I was not denigrading the high tech Optician. The thing Chip said was " keep selling out" which I believe is wrong. You still need to sell to pay your bills after you have learned to be as you say a high tech artisan.:bbg:

[jediron]

Chris said:
Looking back when we where learning the basics of opticianry which is was and still is a full understanding of the mechanics of the profession.

How can you sell glasses, without knowing how to make perfect adjustments, repair a hinge, solder a frame, grind a lens without a patternless edger and on and an. To be a good optician you have to master all operation of the trade.

You missed the point. I assumed because I m from a lic. state (N.Y.) that the education part was understood. I know the mechanics and I have a full understanding of the Anatomy and Physiology of the eye because it was required for my state boards in 1973. But as I soon found out all my understanding of mechanics and Anatomy meant a hill of beans when it came to paying the bills. The creditors only wanted to see good ol US greens backs. Now as far as helping the patient my formal education worked exactly the way it should of. Helping the patient.
:bbg:

[jediron]

Chris Said:
A long time ago I did 3 years of apprentiship, learning all apects from scratch. Too long to go into details.

From there I went to a renowned optical school in London, mainly to learn refracting. We used to have besides excellent theoretical lectures also our laboratory courses as you describe them for today's times.

Looking back at it, after 3 years of practical learning I actually was a hell of a lot better than any of our teachers and could show them many tricks of the trade.

You do need practical expirience to support all the theories in this world.

SO WMCDONALD, MJH and MYSELF:
Let Chris have the forum because as he has said himself:

Looking back at it, after 3 years of practical learning I actually was a hell of a lot better than any of our teachers and could show them many tricks of the trade.

You do need practical expirience to support all the theories in this world

Education does not mean a hill of beans to Chris. Maybe he can teach us. I mean I only went to a two year college and had one year of apprenticeship and only have 30 years in the business.
You don't thing I relied on my schooling especially to figure out a
slab-off or ect,ect. You bet I did. I agree with wmcdonald education is needed an valued.

"The persuasion of a friend is a strong thing."
Homer (The Iliad)
:bbg: