# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  Should Opticians Refract - The Poll

## Pete Hanlin

Let's see if we can all just vote on this without getting into a debate on ethics or something- just to get an overall glimpse of where most of us are coming from...  I've tried to include a choice meeting all the thus far described positions (at least as far as I understand them :) ).

Pete

----------


## hcjilson

Properly trained opticians get a yes vote from me.If problems arise, a properly trained optician will know where to go for help!
best from Harry j

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Harry makes a good point.  By clicking "unequivocally yes," you are assuming that the Optician has gone through an established training regimen.

Pete

----------


## John R

Well from our sides point of view its a big yes as thats what we call the guy or gal (optician) doing the eye tests.

btw i have not voted as you yanks have a diffrent way of expressing job titles.

----------


## Maria

As I understand it John, the way it would relate to here is getting rid of the OO, have a DO do the refraction, and a GP check the back of the eye etc etc. Our DOs are trained to refract already, but they don't actually do it. However, all the GPs would complain, becasue you voted for no NHS funding ever again (Labour), so it wouldn't work :)

----------


## Ney Rojas-Mejia

I second Harry's opinion.

----------


## Ney Rojas-Mejia

OK, Maria.   :Cool:

----------


## Sara

I vote big yes.I am trained to refract and recognise abnormal eye conditions in my dispensing opticians course.

I second opinion of John R. I find american syllabus to be different in training from ours which is based on british system.

Thanks,
Sara

----------


## John R

> _Originally posted by Maria_ 
> *Our DOs are trained to refract already, but they don't actually do it. However, all the GPs would complain, becasue you voted for no NHS funding ever again (Labour), so it wouldn't work :)*


Interesting i never knew that as a Dispensing optician you got trained to test eyes, as for going to the  GP to have my eyes tested "no way" takes a week to get in when your dying so god knows how long just to test your eyes...

as for who i voted for, does it matter as in the end they are all the same,  all i care about is MY pocket.. but i think that the NHS should get rid of the faceless suits and give the power to treat who, where and when back to the white coat's and sod the cost...

----------


## Maria

I think we'll all have private heathcare eventually, there'll be no NHS.

----------


## Sean

Im w/harry on this one.

----------


## Bradmain

Meaning no disrespect for any of the eye care professionals, I look at this as an "either / or" situation.  1. Opticians should be trained to refract while Optometrists and Ophthalmologists are trained to fabricate spectacles, or 2. ODs and MDs should get out of  dispensing and Opticians won't refract. 

With #1, Opticians should also get access to 3rd party and stay competitive with MDs and ODs.  This, unfortunately, will never happen because Opticians will never get that organized.  In situation #2, we distinctly draw the line between the 3 O's roles and the public is better served (hopefully).

In my dreams,

Brad

----------


## mullo

I'm with Harry and Sean on this one...Mullo

----------


## rfish777

I'm with Pete, opticians should be allowed to refract. :Cool:

----------


## Jackie L

I vote to refract with restrictions assuming the Refractionist has gone through formal education.

----------


## Phil

This debate is nothing but a turf war,  refraction is bending of light, nothing more , nothing less, lets face it, Opticians have always been responsible for consumer satisfaction of their specs, and refraction logically should be in our scope of practice, as we have to deal more intimately with these problems.  I have worked with the other two O's and honestly eye disease is very rare and usually manifests itself rather obvious, there is more danger in fitting a contact lens improper, sure glaucoma can silently cause vision loss, but a yearly exam by an Optometrist or Ophthalmologist still cannot rule out glaucoma(low tension).  As refracting Opticians working under M.D's we are considering visual field analysers and sending the results to an Ophtho, now that's pretty good care eh!

----------


## ziggy

Someone correct me if I'm wrong,, and I know you will LOL!
Untill, the early 1900's there was no such thing as an OD, In many ways (in my humble assesment), The job of an OD is a bit redundant(that is if LDO's could refract). If there is any major eye problems, they refer on to the MD's. As it stands now the only reason that we can't refract is the OD's dont want to share the money! In OK, from what I gather, OD's just won the right to do lasic, as that becomes the standerd natiion wide, we will be able to refract, they will be to busy getting $800.00-$1500.00 in the same time it took them to get $50.00- $75.00. Just my 2 cents. Paul

----------


## mikev

I think opticians should be able to refract after receiving appropriate training.

Jackie L. was right on target! Lack of organization and co-operation has prevented opticians from progressing in the scheme of things.

----------


## Dannyboy

I was just reading the CLSA mailing and find it interesting that the NCLC- AC certification exam provides a waiver for COT/COMT  and graduates of opticianry programs of the prerequisites courses and other requirements prior to being able to sit for the advanced exam. Dont you folks think that another certifying agency is needed to accomodate the refracting optician. Maybe they could offer a grandfather clause to all those COT/COMTs and paraoptometrics that already do refraction. Then we would have a stronger voice.

Dannyboy:)

----------


## Jackie L

The OD's defined their own trade (at the time) and legislated (with grandfathering) to define thier title as Optometrists.  Opticians began as jewlers.  Optometrists as Occulists that peddled corrective eyewear.  Yes, there could have been a time when Optometrists would have gone by the wayside.  MD's to examine and LDO's dispensing.    The big difference today (and history has shown) is that the OD's are extremely organized and we have not been.  

So, until Opticians, Lab Techs, Para-Optometrics, Frame stylists, COT'S, COA'S  and others that have an interest in Optics unify and stop debating as to who is better, here we sit.    

Just my opinion.

----------


## pedseye

I'm with Phil and Dannyboy on this one.  When I worked as a COA after 10 years as a LDO, I learned how to refract from an OD that was in the practice.  She was an excellent teacher and I would refract for the MD's every day.  MD's were skeptical at first, but everytime they would check my refractions, they were right on the money, no over-minusing either. My refractions became so accurate that MD's were telling me I was refracting better than some of their 3rd year Ophthalmology residents.  This inspired them to teach me retinoscopy.  I became good at that and started doing cycloplegic refractions.  Then I woke up and said...
what the H--- am I doing?  I'm doing EVERYTHING an OD does except using the indirect and checking for eye diseases!  Yes, I used the Slit-lamp too.  I'm thinking, I should be getting OD salary.  But, reality hits.....I didn't go to Optometry school after college.:hammer:    So, now I am back to working as an LDO managing an Optical getting called a great "salesperson" almost everyday  :o.    The very 1st day the Optical opened, a regular patient walked in and when I told her I would not be assisting the Doc anymore, she said "Oh, so your doing SALES now." My response...:o .

Now, what do you think refracting would do for LDO's?

----------


## rfish777

Phil did you really mean when you said:

 "I have worked with the other two O's and honestly eye disease is very rare and usually manifests itself rather obvious, there is more danger in fitting a contact lens improper" 

Eye disease is rare! What about conjunctivitis, pink eye which is 
pneumococcal conjunctivitis this not rare but quite common. What about viral conjuctivitis or herpes simplex? Granted you may not 
see many but these are not rare. I was certified as a COA and state licensed in New York as an optician. I was going to take the COT but the MD preferred to have his regular staff certified instead of his licensed opticians. But we saw many cases of pink 
eye and herpes too. Again these are not rare and are part of an 
Md's normal practice. What would you do if you saw keratoconjunctivitis sicca or pterygium, pneumococcal ulcer or a myrid of other complications that could be seen in an office. 
Again out of all these maybe the ulcer might be considered rare,
but to come out with a statement that eye disease is rare is 
misleading and erroneous. This is why the the other two O's
don't take us seriously, because of statements like this. I believe ideally the situation that would benefit the optician would be to work hand in hand with the doctor. The optician doing all the work up including refraction and having the MD sigh off. Now we 
would have to be compensated for this with much higher wages
and that's where the rub would be.  :D

----------


## Joann Raytar

rfish:

I agree with you on all points except corneal ulcers being rare.  In the past two months we have had three patients with ulcers come in.  Of course this may just be limited to our area; we are part of the Boston/New York corridor and people seem to be in too much of a hurry to take care of their lenses and their eye health.

This is one of the reasons I wouldn't want to refract right now.  The liability issue.  Also, any of the above cases would be considered *medical*; on to the insurance circus.

pedseye:

It is only "sales" if you see it that way.  You say "Sales" I say "Fitting."  In fitting, you offer the Px the techology they need to fit their lifestyle and Rx requirements.  It is up to your own judgement to make sure that you fit according the the patient's needs and not a sales chart and you communicate what you are doing to the patient.  If you come across like a car salesperson reading off a list of options that is how the Px will see you.  If you offer the Px, let's say, an average of two recommendations backed up by product knowledge and a little bit of confidence then you will come across as fitting.

*Note:*  The preceeding was not directed only at pedseye.  It was intended for anyone feeling they are "salespeople."

----------


## rfish777

Wow Jo three corneal ulcers that is amazing. I think I have seen maybe one or two. But that is my point, we cannot go an refract 
with out a medical license there or our butt will be on the line. I tellyou right now I worked to hard for my New york Optical license to loose it over the issue of general ophthalmology. I still say work along side the MD, then this way the medical issue is no issue. :bbg:

----------


## PAkev

I'm going slightly against the grain on this one due to the publics perception of an opticians responsibility.

Once our PROFESSIONALISM is recognized and understood by the consumer I would certainly be in favor of refracting. 

If I am spending my time to develop the most appropriate RX for a client, I would expect to get  paid for my time, effort, investment in training, and experience.   However, is this something many consumers  are willing to part with a few extra sheckles for when they are already epecting you to replace their nosepads, screws, temple tips, etc. for free?  

I believe there is a niche place for refracting opticians and believe it will be a good opportunity to regain professionalism and confidence of consumers by separating an "optician" from a "screwdriver turner."  However, I think we must first do a lot of work on the national and state levels to change the consumers perception of an optician. 

My Two Pennies
Kevin

----------


## bta89

I would say that if Opticians want to refract they should have to do some schooling for it. If optometry school is four years, part of it is understanding the science behind refracting. I'm sure most opticians would not enjoy taking a calculus based physics. I personally found my physics class like that very helpful. I think certain on the job training is useful, but that can only go so far. Almost all my engineers friends understand all the optics because they have the schooling and almost all my coworkers don't. Now if there was only a way to convince my friends to take a pay cut, I think I could make them good opticians.

----------


## rbaker

If you want to learn refraction on you own, in the dark of night, I suggest that you get a copy of:

_Refraction, A Programmed Text_ by Robert D. Reinecke, MD and Robert J. Herm, MD

They also have a Programmed Text on Strabismus.

Good stuff. Highly recommended.

----------


## Uilleann

> I would say that if Opticians want to refract they should have to do some schooling for it. If optometry school is four years, part of it is understanding the science behind refracting. I'm sure most opticians would not enjoy taking a calculus based physics. I personally found my physics class like that very helpful. I think certain on the job training is useful, but that can only go so far...


Funny thing is, this is precisely the way many (perhaps even most) COAs and COTs learn refraction.  It's on the job.  Minimal training.  Sure the MD comes in to "check" things, but rarely makes changes in my experience.  Refractions aren't billable medical codes of course, so they just don't put much stock in them at all broadly speaking.  Many opticians see that and will question the need/utility of formal education in that regard.

It [quality education] obviously makes sense of course, but playing the devil's advocate here, I think that genie is already out of the bottle.

----------


## idispense

First you need to define “optician”. Many in my mind would not qualify for that title, never mind refracting.

----------


## Excel-Lentes

> First you need to define “optician”. Many in my mind would not qualify for that title, never mind refracting.


Good point, unfortunately

----------


## Miggell

My position is No, because there's no need for Opticians to refract. Where do we leave those newly minted and tenured Optometrists? In this industry (being as it is) ODs don't get much respect from Ophthalmologists.

----------


## wmcdonald

And give Opticians little either. That is understandable. High school educations, primarily, and little real technical knowledge. ODs took the right path. Opticians stood nd watch and that continues. Both of these last couple of poster........I wonder i you have ever seen the rudimentary refractions. CHeck out You Tube and your mind may change. Refraction is not rocket science. I've trained hundreds since 1979 all workin in neat places and able to contribute far more than a simple PD or seg height.

----------


## wmcdonald

Keep on with your PD and Sag Height measurements. Consider CL fitting.

----------


## Barry Santini

The “problem” is that it doesn't take passing through a formal curriculum to make eyewear buyers reach 20/Happy.

The real metric, IMHO, would be to remove VCPs as the primary driver for patronage and create a metric around repeat business and a survey as to why they choose to repeat at an optical establishment.

B

----------


## KrystleClear

Our MD has the technicians refract during the workup and he finalizes is. At some point, I feel like the techs end up doing a large part of what an optometrist does, but without the pay rate. I don't think I personally would want to do refractions. I can't stand when people can't give a straight answer - better one or two? Well one looks brighter, but two may be a little crisper? Well, then again...." etc. etc..

----------


## Kwill212

> Our MD has the technicians refract during the workup and he finalizes is. At some point, I feel like the techs end up doing a large part of what an optometrist does, but without the pay rate. I don't think I personally would want to do refractions. I can't stand when people can't give a straight answer - better one or two? Well one looks brighter, but two may be a little crisper? Well, then again...." etc. etc..


I think you have made a gross underestimation of what an optometrist does, and an equally massive overvaluation of a tech. 

Even speaking strictly about the refraction, between a tech/OMD and and OD, I will take the OD's refraction 10 out of 10 times. I won't even fill Rx's from most MD clinics near me anymore without auto-refracting and trial framing.

----------


## KrystleClear

> I think you have made a gross underestimation of what an optometrist does, and an equally massive overvaluation of a tech. 
> 
> Even speaking strictly about the refraction, between a tech/OMD and and OD, I will take the OD's refraction 10 out of 10 times. I won't even fill Rx's from most MD clinics near me anymore without auto-refracting and trial framing.


I am just speaking from my experience. I came from an office where the techs just worked the patient up and prepped them for the doc, but were not involved in refracting, diagnosing, or educating patients on their new diagnoses. Working with an OMD, techs do the workup, instill drops, administer testing and interpret, prep the charts with the diagnoses they think are appropriate and hand off to the OMD, who then takes a look with the slit lamp and goes over the notes from the tech and has the final say on the diagnoses. He has them look through the phoropter with the tech's MR and finalizes. I imagine it is pretty similar with most OMDs. I have known some that don't even put the MR in the phoropter to check if the patient is actually seeing well.

Our techs don't remove foreign bodies or put in punctal plugs, or any of the many other things that optometrists do. I did not mean to say that refracting is all the do. Our optometrist does a lot. I just meant that in my opinion, the refraction is the doctor's job. Just my opinion though. Our optometrist is excellent. He is extremely thorough. He works most days with no assistance from the techs, as they are all tied up with the OMD's patients. He is the most thorough doctor I have worked with, honestly. Some optoms just roll with the autorefractor and don't even dilate patients unless they're kids or diabetic - I have worked with many who finish the exam in five minutes or less. I worked with one in particular who only ever wrote the RX as per what the autorefractor said. We ended up with A LOT of remakes after rx checks.

----------


## Judy Canty

We've been debating this question on this thread for 21 years and opticians still haven't been able to get organized enough to require licensure in all 50 state. We can't even agree on what it is that we do.

----------


## idispense

That’s 21 years of ineffective, non-existent, leadership that’s been incapable of penetrating the apathy and other problems that permeate
 the issues. IMHO.

----------


## Judy Canty

> That’s 21 years of ineffective, non-existent, leadership that’s been incapable of penetrating the apathy and other problems that permeate
>  the issues. IMHO.


Easy to blame someone else. Either you do the work or you don't.  Personally, after nearly 50 years in the industry I'm just tired of trying.

----------


## Kwill212

At this point we should probably change the poll to "should opticians dispense"

----------


## idispense

those that want change should learn a few things :
- the efforts to change are unequal and less than the efforts to remain unchanged 
- the present efforts to change don’t and never have worked , therefore they fall into this category “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”
- next those that want change should learn from those that have effected huge change in the same industry because those who were successful in less or the same time were effective leaders 

- these are not words of criticism or to lay blame , these are words of guidance

----------


## Fezz

> We've been debating this question on this thread for 21 years and opticians still haven't been able to get organized enough to require licensure in all 50 state. We can't even agree on what it is that we do.



Crabs in a bucket!

----------


## Judy Canty

> crabs in a bucket!


yup!

----------


## idispense

Speak to this:
- who are the greatest leaders of change in this industry ? 
- what efforts were made to understand how they accomplished their goal ?

----------


## idispense

The poll “Should Opticians Refract “ is silly and needless . Any education of opticians should simply include refraction as a prerequisite. Why would it be polled ? It should just be taught. Everything an optician does is hinged on a refraction . The better question is: Why isn’t the most necessary course taught ?

----------


## Judy Canty

> The poll Should Opticians Refract  is silly and needless . Any education of opticians should simply include refraction as a prerequisite. Why would it be polled ? It should just be taught. Everything an optician does is hinged on a refraction . The better question is: Why isnt the most necessary course taught ?


Refractometry is taught in several COA accredited schools in the US.  But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that it's easier to sit on the sidelines and complain than it is to actually do the work in every state.

----------


## idispense

How many optician schools are there in the USA and of those how many teach refraction as a prerequisite ?

----------


## Judy Canty

> How many optician schools are there in the USA and of those how many teach refraction as a prerequisite ?


Visit the NFOS website and do your own research.  I'm still working.

----------


## idispense

It wasn’t necessary for the greatest leaders of change in the optical industry to be opticians to control the direction of opticians. 
It was only necessary for them to believe they could. 

Would  it make sense to identify and study those leaders ?

----------


## Judy Canty

> It wasnt necessary for the greatest leaders of change in the optical industry to be opticians to control the direction of opticians. 
> It was only necessary for them to believe they could. 
> 
> Would  it make sense to identify and study those leaders ?


Do this. Google the Vision Monday list of 50 Most Influential Women. Single out the opticians who are not affiliated with a manufacturer or vision insurance company.  Who's left? Not many.  Opticians can't or won't even promote or even nominate their own. Opticians talk a good game and talk is cheap. We either gather our forces and work toward a common goal or sit back and accept our fate.

Like I said, January will mark 50 years in this industry and very little has changed. We are as fractured as ever. Our state associations are dying for lack of interest, which paralyzes our national organizations. I'm tired and frustrated and ready to call it quits.

----------


## idispense

And so you have identified part of the problem but not the solution . As Edison was attributed with saying : “I have not failed , I know 10,000 ways that don’t work. “ on the next attempt he made the light bulb. 

Judy, you should be tired because you have been batting your head against the same brick wall , the same way , for 50 years . Now study in earnest those that changed that brick wall and quit thinking like an old school optician, because your competition , foe or enemy is not old school boys club opticians. 

Start thinking like a billion dollar capitalization on line founder.  Their thinking is not limited by what confines and restricts the thinking of old school opticians.

----------


## Judy Canty

> And so you have identified part of the problem but not the solution . As Edison was attributed with saying : I have not failed , I know 10,000 ways that dont work.  on the next attempt he made the light bulb. 
> 
> Judy, you should be tired because you have been batting your head against the same brick wall , the same way , for 50 years . Now study in earnest those that changed that brick wall and quit thinking like an old school optician, because your competition , foe or enemy is not old school boys club opticians. 
> 
> Start thinking like a billion dollar capitalization on line founder.  Their thinking is not limited by what confines and restricts the thinking of old school opticians.


Let me be clear. I am tired of dealing with people like you who refuse to identify yourself, love to argue and still offer no solutions. I've done the work here in VA.  I've taken leadership positions whether I wanted to or not, because someone had to do the work. We fought for and retained our license. 

What exactly have you done for the profession?  I'll wait...

----------


## idispense

This isn’t a personal attack Judy, I’ve been in this as long as you and believe in licensure too.  What I’ve done and who I am doesn’t matter. What matters is to recognize that a different approach is needed to motivate and engage those you wish to influence.

----------


## Judy Canty

> This isn’t a personal attack Judy, I’ve been in this as long as you and believe in licensure too.  What I’ve done and who I am doesn’t matter. What matters is to recognize that a different approach is needed to motivate and engage those you wish to influence.


Once again, no specifics. It's so very easy to say "something different must be done" without actually presenting an idea.

----------


## idispense

What would motivate those that do nothing to stand up and back your desire for licensure ? Why are those people in this business at all ? If they are already working in the field without licences then what’s going to be better for them ? 

If they already have licenses but won’t stand up when they might lose it then what’s their fear ? Why aren’t they motivated ?

----------


## idispense

- make refraction a mandatory course 
- make the failure rate higher , raise the bar , lower the supply , increase the demand, increase the motivating dollars 
- get rid of the lower bar entry points 
- remove licensing fees, quit taxing earned and learned education - higher education rewards = no license fees - that’s a motivator 
- get rid of self serving regulatory bodies they are stifling opticians 
- make shows and CE days on work days not weekends - the public needs to be unable to receive services during CE days during the week to be inconvenienced enough to realize the educational requirements expected of opticians

----------


## HOWARDP

Yes just refraction only with supervision and in NY optiian should have a contact lens licence also..

----------


## CNG

If you are an independent Optician there is no need to refract. In Florida it was a dream but with technology and telemedicine it is cheaper and more efficient to do teleoptometry. It is well taken and almost all the big boxes do...

----------


## drk

I think there is an optician existential problem more so than a scope-expansion problem.  Optometry should help.

----------


## CNG

Opticianry has an identity problem. We are not the big boxes or the online sellers nor the employee that multitasks as a receptionists and files insurance. We wanted to refract because it was hard to fill the void now the void is easily filled. We have now another competitor that does not follow state laws in states where license is required and that is PE companies. That is opticianry and to some extend independent optometry pebble on the shoe...they just do not know that yet.

----------


## Barry Santini

Opticians dont need to know refraction
They need to know how to be an optician

----------


## Fezz

> Opticians dont need to know refraction
> They need to know how to be an optician



Gold! Pure gold!

Most opticians don't have a FUNDAMENTAL understanding of prism or how to read/measure it when doing lensometry! Heck, most can't grasp basic fitting concepts!

How the hell are they going to understand refraction?

----------


## drk

This world is going to suffer an acute shortage of optician services like never before.  McTicianry is NOT going to cut it.  Technology is NOT going to replace the human, here.

What's more, ODs aren't going to fill the gap.  I doubt they teach optics anymore.

----------


## CNG

Opticians lack identity. Basic certification without practical testing is to blame. Title protection useless.

----------


## mervinek

I'm in a state where certification and license is not required.  Barry is right.  Opticians need to know how to be an optician.  When opticians get minimal training and are paid minimum wage, you can forget about having them refract.  When opticians are paid low wage, they don't care about learning to be a good optician.  It's just a job.  More and more, I am seeing new people in the field that have zero interest in getting certification.  It's just a job and not a career.

----------


## drk

That means opportunity.

----------


## CCGREEN

Opticians should be good at what they do. Assist the pt in selection of proper frame and lens materials and coatings. Be aware of the latest goods on the market and know where to send the pt if they are not able to help them. 
They should also be able to trouble shoot and understand a Rx and what a pt should expect from that Rx. Far as I am concerned they should be able to refract because when they can do that they SHOULD of learned to be a damn good optician. We do not need to recognize and diagnose all eye conditions. Just the power of the needed lens is enough.
Seems everyone wants a Optician like that but they want to only pay for a beginner Optician. Not for one who is well seasoned and experienced and knows their stuff book and practical. When the pay for a seasoned good Opticians starts reflecting their worth that will then motivate others to gain knowledge and experience. 
In a state that needs a license, a employer is only interested in a licensed person, not a experienced well qualified Optician....and that right there is were the the interest stops at learning. 
I went to college and got a Associates Degree and have had my Florida license and Board Certification, ABO & NCLE Certifications for the last 40 years, never went for the Masters because I have yet to see where that would of benefited me monetarily. After all, is that not why we work? I was in the first class here in Florida to be certified to do what I want with a contact lens and I have yet to have anyone ask me if I was board certified or even offer more money because of it.
Its disheartening to see new Opticians come along and get paid really chump change and a seasoned good dependable Optician get just a few bucks more.
Pay should commensurate with experience and knowledge gained and education accomplished along with dependability that the pt will be cared for but for some reason it has yet to do that. 
I am not saying that we should get OD pay but we should get more then we do and if any of you out there think you are being over paid for no more then you do....lets talk. I want in on your gig.

----------


## mervinek

You're right.  When the person who is the "optician" can actually make more working at the grocery store or a Target (not optical), something is wrong.  You're right, we shouldn't be making what an OD makes, but a good experienced, certified optician should make more that someone at Target!  It all comes down to the owner and managers.  So opportunity is there... but the opportunity is for the owner to encourage the proper environment (pay, education etc).

----------


## Beeped

> You're right.  When the person who is the "optician" can actually make more working at the grocery store or a Target (not optical), something is wrong.  You're right, we shouldn't be making what an OD makes, but a good experienced, certified optician should make more that someone at Target!  It all comes down to the owner and managers.  So opportunity is there... but the opportunity is for the owner to encourage the proper environment (pay, education etc).


I agree completely. Where I am currently residing, optician is a profession in which no credentials or certification is required. There is however a 3 year course that definitely teaches and hones skills relating to refraction. 

After that it's mostly up to the person. Pay in the low 2k Euro) salary is not uncommon, so rarely is there a fool like I am that steps forward and tries to really immerse in optics. The salary just does not motivate people unless there's a (sometimes slightly unhealthy :Tongue: ) passion for the field of eyecare.

----------

