# Professional and Educational Organizations > Professional and Educational Organizations Discussion Forum >  Advantages of Licenses

## chip anderson

What advantages do we really feel licensing will give us?
1) Get rid of them that's not as good as us?
2) Provide a method of keeping our compeditor from presenting some sort of service that we cannot?
3) Cut down on the amount of competition out there.
4) Stop mail order competions?
5) Make sure that we are all we should be?
6) Give us some sort of control over the competion?
7) Make us all equal so we won't be so cut-throat amoung our peers?
8) Make the help in the doctor's office have to comply with our rules (fat chance).
9) So we can be sure that our help will be up to stuff when we hire them?

Forget all of the above,  as long as the government feels that trade and particularly lack of restraint of same is the most important issure, it ain't gonna happen.  We will just get more restrictions (sponsored by the compeditive "O's" who have a lot more money and politcal clout than we will ever obtain), and suprise, the restrictions will be on us, not those we hoped to thwart.


Now I hope I said enough to get something stirred up this time.

Chip:hammer:

----------


## Homer

to the post just below (at this writing) which is the POF statement from Miller.

Chip, having always worked in non-licensed states (except for California 66-73) I tend to agree with you.

It would appear that there is no chance for unlicensed-state opticians to get what they dream of in a  perfectly licensed world.

My guess is that most who long for licensure want some of the following things, perhaps in the following order.

1)  a little respect
2)  a little respect
3)  a little respect
4)  a little job security
5)  a little more money .... OK a lot more
6)  a little better benefit package
7)  a little more powerful bargaining position
8)  a little more respect
9)  a little more respect
10)a little more respect

So before they push real hard for licensure, or awaken from the dream,  they should think about**:

1) Who, among my peers, do I want to be checking on my ethical practice of opticianry?

2) Who, among my peers, do I want to decide the price of staying in business (tax rates called license fees)

3) Who, among my peers, do I want to dictate what is the proper amount and type of education I should have in order to maintain my practice?

Well, my old-man's opinion is that if you didn't have respect before licensure, you won't have it afterwards.

----------


## wmcdonald

The key word! We all use that term, but what do we practice. The average "Optician" is a sales person or "frame stylist". Real Opticians do a lot more and a license will allow for recognition of what we do. I come from a strong licensed state, and yes, the state board does review a few things like making sure an Optician is on premises and current licensure is upheld. They hear complaints from consumers, and they act to protect the public. It is a worthwhile endeavor that would benefit all, not just limit competition. Even with licensure, it still doesn't take much to become an Optican. That state license would justify our existance a bit. I encourage all to think deeply about the issue. Soon it will be too late, if it is not already.

----------


## BobV

A real doctor performs surgery and a general practitioner is worthless because he/she does not.

Come on, now, wmcdonald, a license does not prove the worth of anything except that you were proficient in passing an exam.  It's just like people knocking those that have taken the "recent" ABO exam...just because you passed the certification exam doesn't mean you are an "optician".

What is an optician?  A lab owner told me that all his employees technically were opticians, even though they never may have touched a frame in their lives. So, does it make a difference if you are a salesperson or a "frame stylist" or lab personnel or licensed optiician?  We are all "opticians", some with the goal of patient care, some with the goal of making a million bucks in this profession and some trying to combine the two.

A license gets you wallpaper, an education and hands on gets you experience.  Now, go tell the GP that their 8 to 10 years in med school were for nothing because they have no desire to perform surgery..

Bob V.

----------


## wmcdonald

I do not mean to imply in any way that Opticians from an unlicensed state can't or aren't good at what they do. I know some truly excellent Opticians from unlicensed states. But that is the problem Opticianry faces. It is not us we need to impress. If we can wrangle our way through some legislative body to get state recognition, that means we have passed an outside review of what we do. That can be significant. It does give us more stature in the eyes of the public. Keep in mind that that GP you mention has a significant education behind him or her. It will be an issue that will never be truly settled however, because we do come from such diverse backgrounds. You are correct in the assertion that lab personnel call themselves Opticians, as do the sales staff at some chains. We need to agree on what we are first and then move forward. Then we need to train for our sphere of knowledge in formal education programs. It may be a political issue, but education is where the foundation MUST be started. It can mean far more than wallpaper. It amazes me though, most of those against it are from unlicensed states. I don't understand. In the early days the older Opticians fought education because they didn't want to appear "less than" those young guys/gals coming out. If Henry Ford thought the way we do, there would still be horses and buggys as the primary means of transportation. Come on, a state license in every state would be important for us all if it were all across the country. It may be pie-in-the-sky, but if you don't try you'll never succeed.

----------


## Texas Ranger

the thing is that for many, many years our state opticians assn fought for licensing, and would have had it, had we been willing to dump contact lens dispensing from our bill, we wouldn't, so we didn't get it; finally, when we did pass a bill, the chains big boys, got our good ole guv, Bill Clements, to veto the bill. the ODs, MDs and retail chains have spent zillions of $$$$ to prevent new licensing laws and to try to rescend old ones, such as in alaska. All, so that they can hire unqualified, unskilled, and underpaid labor to staff mall stores, dr's dispensaries, etc, all so that the salaries of skilled, and qualified opticians go to the doctors pockets...it's called "capture rate".. keeping the patients dollars in house, sell their company VSP, create a pipeline only they can participate in.  they live by the golden rule,"those with the gold, make the rules..."  promise Bill Clements to aid his re-election campaign the next year with all that retail chain money, sure he's gonna veto a bill, what's it to him? maintain the status quo, that's just politics. my wife is an RN, her attitude was that, "why do you care so much about licensing?, without it, you don't have anything to take away..." not my attitude, but she's known a few cases where a peer lost their license because they obeyed a doctor's verbal order, something went wrong, the dr. lied about giving the order, the RN's looking for a new career and defending a law suit....

----------


## chip anderson

I have voted for spent money on and campaigned for licensure for 35 years.  I do admit that at this point in life I am getting to were I don't give a damn.  And I have seen every attempt in our state thwarted by one and now two of the other "O's".

But it just occured to me that this is another "BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU WISH FOR"  thing.  We could very well get it and wish to God that we had not.  One should always look for a negative side.  Like looking for the lowest payments and then realizing how much you paid for the thing after you have made all the payments.   I have seen so many licensing bills that had hidden bombshells in them, had amendments added to them that were deadly, after everyone had agreed to the bills.  You have no idea how much it cost and how much sweat can be involved in killing a killer bill with amendment in the eleventh hour.   

Sucking up and giving in to things that don't interest the majority can be  a bad thing (some of us may make 90% of thier living on contact lenses, while most of us may make only 5% of thiers from this source)  it may seem like a good thing for "the good of the majority" to leave this out of a bill "because we would never get it passed with everything we want".  Then some one, maybe just a few are through making a living in thier chosen endevor "For the good of the majority right."   Tell that to Suzie who has to wait tables now to feed the baby.

Look at the whole picture before you decide you want it and bend over.

Chip

----------


## wmcdonald

I understand Mr. Anderson. It is frustrating. I have been there for many years myself. I appreciate the efforts you have made and feel strongly that it is high time for us to be rewarded in some way for our efforts. We must develop a game plan. Probably not for us, but for those who follow. After all, what kind of legacy are we leaving behind? We need to model ourselves after pharmacists, probably. They are similar in many ways, although they may serve as more of a direct risk to patients. Nursing has some parallels as well. I am currently beginning and indepth study of what training Opticians will need in the future, and I hope you will participate. I am completing an additional PhD and my dissertation will be focused on that issue. I hope I can provide some answers to our questions. Do we need more education and training or none at all? An emphasis will be placed on new technology and my hypothesis is that Opticians need to be trained at a much higher level to actually understand the tools available to them. There has been no research to my knowledge other tham Tom Woods in NY and his study (with a number of others) on the perceptions people have regarding Opticians level of training. That I think is where we must begin to develop and re-define ourselves. Once we do that then we must move for recognition from SOME outside agency, whether it be mandatory licensing or certification (no not a 100 question multiple choice exam). These issues are important, so please don't give up. We MUST regain some semblence of organization to move forward and develop a game plan. I hope to provide some answers soon. I am developing a survey instrument that I hope Steve will place on Optiboard. I encourage you and anyone to participate. My hypothesis may be false; we may be where we need to be. But I don't think so, and I don't believe you do either. I look forward to additional discussions with you and anyone else who has an opinion on the issue.

----------


## chip anderson

I really believe a year or two in the lab is far better training than four or more in college.  Possibly one year of theory in school and two in the lab would be the best prepartation.  Of course you would miss all the parties, frats, college comradee, and hollidays, but you would be a damn good optician (at least if the lab would allow you multi-task training.

Chip

----------


## wmcdonald

You cannot learn the theory required to be a well rounded Optician in the manner you describe, and it will no longer serve us politically. Opticians should be doing much more than making glasses, and could if we had some educational background. We MUST move towards mandatory education. We need to increase our level of service in contact lenses, which means more training in anatomy and physiology, and clinical training in fitting. We need to learn more about low vision. I could go on and on. I am sorry there is so much disagreement on this issue, but if you study every other profession that was once trained via apprenticeship, they are now requiring education as an entry point. Someone will now say, "but we aren't everyone else". True, but I hope my study will show something to guide us for the future.

----------


## Mark Brezvai

Licensure is a two edged sword.  To be a legitimate profession one needs to be licensed and have the acedemic credentials to back it up.  Unfortunately most states did not perceive the need for stringent educational rerquirements and allowed apprenticeing when they fought for and won licensure.  Because of the difficulty in getting licensure, we became complacent and abandoned any long range plans.  Today we still approach licensure on a piecemeal basis, one state at a time.    

In Ohio we have tried to amend our licensing bill to make it mandatory to have a two year degree before sitting for licensure.  We tried to cover all the bases by receiving pledges from colleges around the state to start an optical program.  Due to the cost of implementing a program from scratch, they would when the licensing bill passed.  Besides the usual opposition to our amendment, the legislature wanted the programs in effect before the bill was passed.  Needless to say we lost on this basis.  We have not given up, we are approaching this issue each legislative session.    

Licensure is not an end all proposition.  We need to continually upgrade our knowledge and education if we hope to expand our scope of practice.

----------


## Texas Ranger

There are serious differences in "working in the lab" and a structured educational program. but a lot can be said for dedicated apprentice programs. when I was preparing to take the ABO exam in '70, you had to document three years of experience. that said, you'd likely be over 21, I was 23. my youngest son started coming into the shop after school, at 15, graduated HS at 17, sat and easily passed the ABO at 18, at 21, he's a pretty good optician, for what we do, he has no experience in surfacing or contact lenses, since we do neither. the field is pretty diverse. 35 years ago, if you worked in the lab, you likely knew how to run one machine, and the lab might be shut down if the guy next ot you was out sick. some more progressive labs learned to cross-train folks, so it wouldn't shut everything down. a lot of older opticians came out of that environment into retail; but found out that dealing directly with the doctor's patients didn't require any of those lab skills. my optician uncle told me in '69, that I needed to pick and focus on either spectacles or contact lenses, but don't ever try to do both, that they were not compatible skills. in '95, i took the OAA 100 hr, refractometry course, and it was very enlightening, filled in a lot of the blanks and helped me grow as an optician, gain respect for those who do refract all day, and better serve pts., what I do know is that if I had had the opportunity to have a "formal" education in opticianry, including contacts and refracting, I'd have done a better job for people, analyzed situations better, and been a whole lot less frustrated with eye doctors and pts. it was very helpful to spend time in the lab, surfacing and finishing, I'm a lot more considerate of folks who do that for a living. As for licensing, it would be nice to interview someone for a position, who had some standard of basic knowledge that they were accountable for through testing and continuing education. As it is, I don't believe anyone can judge the applicant in a non-licensed state, they can have 10 years of experience, and know just about zip about what we do in our shop....

----------


## Judy Canty

So long as we accept apprenticeship as a viable means of training and educating Opticians, no matter how well the program is designed and administered, we will remain a "trade" rather than a "profession."

----------


## chip anderson

Once a young man came in to a man who had a successfull business and applied for a job. After a bit of discussion the businessman said: "O.K. you're hired." 

The young man said: "Great, what would you like for me to do first?" 

The businessman replied: " Go in the back room and sweep it out." 

The young man replied: "But I'm a college graduate!" 

The businessman said: "O.K. I'll teach you how." 

Chip

----------


## Dannyboy

The worst student in medical school... the last in his class... but once he/she  graduates .. he/she is called doctor.  So if you do not have the credentials you should not be called an optician. Meeting a licensing requirement does not mean you are a superoptician...but it does the following:
1. More $$
2. Protected public from the greedy b....who hire optireceptionists.
3. assures that the public has some place to complain about the "bad psudoopticians" and yes they may take the license away.

As far as the bill in in Alaska it is a shame. To bad but the cards can be turned around....if opticianry can be delegated...maybe refraction can be also delegated....., just a thought. Try a sneaky maneuver like that.



Dannyboy:shiner:

----------


## chip anderson

Dear Dannyboy:

Don't know how you have escaped noticeing but refraction and a lot perlimnary eye exam is already designated.   Many, many doctors offices have the doctor only coming in to "check the tech's results.".      

Chip

Have even heard of some  doctors deligateing surgery to sales person for a new machine (sometimes even pacemaker surgery.

Chip

----------


## Judy Canty

Chip,

Once upon a time, your barber also pulled your teeth.  What's your point?

----------


## BobV

The issue of whether this is a trade or a profession will never end.

I've worked trades and I've worked as a professional, virtually no difference except the professional usually stays cleaner.

Pay wise, we could say we are professional and try to get as much as we can, or we can consider ourselves tradespeople and 
get journeyman wages.  We are professional to our patients/customers, and are tradespeople when we handle glasses.  

Why do we have to continue to try and label ourselves?  Isn't just doing the job correctly enough of an honor than going through this petty **** day after day????

Bob V.

----------


## MVEYES

Would you go to your barber to have your teeth pulled or to a dentist?
Your barber may have better skills at dentistry then your dentist. My next door neighbor who is an engineer might be able to adjust glasses for comfort better then most opticians but that doesn't qualify him to analyze the doctors prescription and solve visual problems that are eyewear related. Labels aren't the issue with licensing, accountability in performance that has consequence is the issue. If you loose your job because the laid off engineer who adjusts glasses better than you takes your job for less money then I suppose you might feel the importance of being recognized by the people of your state as a Licensed Optician.




Jerry
 :Confused:   :Confused:

----------


## BobV

At one time barbers were also surgeons and furniture makers were undertakers.  And the point you are trying to make...?

My skills ARE appreciated by both the patients I serve and the doctors I am employed by.  As I have posted in the past, I do not consider myself as an expert, even after 17 years in this field.  But I like to think that I DO know what I'm doing.

I am always learning, so I keep up to date on mostly everything in this field.

I went to the doctor about a month ago with a rash...asked the doc what it was...his answer was "you have a rash."  Amazing!!!
This from a person with the smarts to make it out of med school, who is licensed, and doesn't even offer to perform a test.  At least  I will tighten screws and evaluate what adjustments I will need to do.

So if your engineer neighbor needs a job in an unlicensed state, send him to Missouri.  We'll show him how to be a competent optician and earn respect from his patients.

Bob V.

----------


## MVEYES

I don't doubt your skills. I know after 30 years in this business that I still have people question me about where I went to school and what was my training. You might feel secure now in what you do but some day those "professions" in your state that say you can't use a lensometer or advise a patient about a specialty tint, through legal changes in your state law will make you wander why you didn't see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm glad your happy with the status quo but I think you should consider all the possibilities of its consequences.



:cheers: Jerry

----------


## wmcdonald

It is not a question of the individual and his/her ability, it is the credibility of the profession that is the issue here. If you are satisfied, then so be it, but please look at the growth and development of Opticianry as a profession.

----------


## MVEYES

how we think. Those of us who have the profession as a whole in our plans for growth and advancement think outside our individual sphere.  It only takes an attack on the status quo to change a mind. Strategic planning of the growth of our profession is important  for all of us to get involved in for the success of our future.






:cheers: Jerry

----------


## BobV

It's amazing how narrow minded all of us can be when we all have a certain agenda we either want to follow or have others try to follow.

To say that those of us that are opposed to licensing have no concern for the rest of the profession is dead wrong.  Why do you think I am opposed to licensing???

Since we cannot figure out who we are or what we are, how do you think licensing will do that?  Ask three opticians how to adjust a frame and you will get three different answers.  Same with licensing.  Not all of you who want it will be in total agreement with all the rules and regulations.  Be prepared for political backstabbing.

Bob V.

----------


## wmcdonald

Bob, you are absolutely correxct in your assertion that frame adjustment and almost every other task in the scope of the Optician may be done a number of ways. In fact, many who call themselves Opticians have little understanding of much that they do. That is a training issue and at the root of all problems we face. I have stated my opinion that licensure is at least some outside recognition, and I stand by that. I do feel that it is an important issue. I do not mean to appear narrow-minded either, completely the opposite. In encourage you to open your mind as well. An analogy- I was very active in the Jaycees. We gave copious numbers of awards to members of the organization to recognize accomplishments that impacted our community. The presentation was long and often dull, but only for those who did not receive anything. The recipients appreciated the recognition from others. Opticianry needs some outside recognition that what we do is significant and important. Now you will say that the satisfaction of the patient/customer is the most inportant reward we can receive for our services, and I agree. But if we are ever to advance beyond our spectacle peddler image then we must have more stringent standards, one of those being a license to practice, and the other a formal education in some form.

----------


## MVEYES

Pinpointing a definition and recognition in society of what an "Optician" is determines the validity of the profession. Otherwise an optometric or ophthalmic assistant  could blur the distinction. I think that fighting to make that distinction clear is critical for the future. Bob I respect your opinion but I hope you think about what  "firewalls" you have to protect your right to continue your job as a dispensing Optician.



:cheers: Jerry

----------


## Need2focus

Hello Everyone,

If Opticians want to be recognized for their skills (whether it be Professional or Trade), there needs to be some way of showing the public as well as your co-workers that you have met a level of standards that allow you to call yourself an Optician. Not saying that opticians in Unlicensed states are not qualified to practice opticianry, but how can we be for certain on who to trust!! 

I am currently working in a lab and I am attending school to become an optician in FL. FL has a very strong licensing board, and even we have come underfire by politicians. But we stuck together and the public got involved and saturated the governors office with letters expressiong concern of deregulating this profession. We have the big chains here also, so that is not a good excuse. Guess what, we won!!! 

I believe that there is an easy solution. The tough part is getting all of us to ban together to fight for our profession. As far as education. I think it should be a four year endeavor. No not a B.S. degree, and not a 4 year apprenticeship. But a mixture of the two: a 2 year degree program in Opticianry (including Refractometry); and a 2 year apprenticeship or externship with a requirement to show competencies in all facets of opticianry. Upon completion of all the requirements, then you may take the ABO/NCLE and a state licensure exam. 

If that were to happen we could definitely prove to our peers (and more importantly to the public) that we are skilled and qualified to practice opticianry.  

If we could organize then we could give the public the assurance and confidence that they will be helped with their eye care needs by qualified people. If you would rather keep things the way they are and bicker amongest ourselves and be divided then go ahead. But I personally want to "uplift" the profession and give us the respect we deserve.

PS If we do all of this then we can start discussing the higher salaries we are all looking for!!!!!!!!

Need2focus

----------


## Homer

How about we separate education from licensure?     All of us have had various kinds of education and most of us not from the "Ivy League" schools.

One can get an MBA from an Ivy League school and another from an obscure university, nevertheless the public only generally knows that the person has an MBA degree and somewhat of the meaning but only the MBA's who are saying "mine is bigger than yours" knows the subtle differences.

The public does not "hire" only 4.0 Lawyers, Dentist, CPA's or Optometrist, but they do look for those titles.

Where we dropped the ball is by not making the ABOM the standard for opticianry in America.    We could change the name to CPO (Certified Public Optician) or something like that. Nevertheless,  it needs to be sold to the public and NOT to the legislators - those greedy ***'s are by an large too vote hungry to really care about the actual  good of the public.   Too bad that opticians, both licensed and unlicensed, continue to sit on the ABOC's and think that passing an MINIMUM COMPENTENCY EXAMINATION makes them a valuable optician.

The consumer still pays all of our salaries and they choose by name recognition and not license.  We need an nationally recognizable symbol that can be sold DIRECTLY to the consumer.  
After that, who the hell cares if we have a license?   If we have the confidence of the customer by our consistant service then we have the higher "salary" we might have been looking for ... plus job satisfaction.  

This, however, can not be accomplished without education, formal or otherwise.

----------


## wmcdonald

Need2Focus:
We need to develop our own schools and move in the direction of the 4 year program you describe. But we should provide the student with a 4-year degree upon completion. We could design the program in the model of Optometry and Medicals School and give academic credit for the seconmd 2 years of clinical instruction. We would have then a BS Degree, which would serve us well. We just wouldn't require the liberal arts/sciences of the traditiopnal undergraduate curriculum for entry. Students would come directly from high school. It is done in many other professions and that clinical training, if well structured, is valid and academically acceptable. Look at the OD and MD programs, most of their last 2 years are clinical. It can work.

----------


## stephanie

One question in regard to the 4 year program....and I am NOT saying I am against it. What is our pay going to look like? If it is what I am making now I would have to say why bother. If I am going to be making an excellent wage than I say yea I would go for it. I am sure there are a few of us that probably feel that way. 



Steph

----------


## Homer

I agree with your evaluation.   I am all for education.   I am all for AS and BS degrees, however, it will not work for me since I would 63 when I finished and would realize no benefits except the feeling of accomplishment and the joy of increased knowledge.

For you young things, the question is, as you stated, "what could I expect to make" after the degree.   The school I have talked to about setting up some kind of opticianry program ask the same question.   They have turned down the program, not because there is no need but because there is no definable earnings increase.

Until we can demonstarat that, we will see the continued demise of opticianry schools.    We need ABO to require education before the MINIMUM COMPENTENCY EXAMINATION (which is the only nationally recognized criteria to date) and then require more education (which they have just recended) for the Advanced and Masters certifications.   This combined with the licensed states requiring the same level of education to maintain a license could be a huge step in the right direction.      Do you think you will see the licensed states or ABO move in that direction?   Fat Chance!

----------


## wmcdonald

Stephanie,
    I would think pay would eventually increase along with the scope of practice expansion. But it will not happen over night. Education in itself will not "pay" you. It is the application of knowledge. Look at overall levels of income for degree holders versus non-degree. It is significant.

Warren

----------


## Excel-Lentes

Hi Warren, 

I agree with you about the salaries gradually increasing. While working @ Waterman training iinstitute in San Mateo, CA (6 month optician program) we saw our students starting salaries increase significantly within 6 months. 

Once the word got out that our students had a solid foundation to build upon many employers were calling us trying to get workers. We literally could not keep up with the demand. After graduates of the program got their feet wet and began gaining some "real world" experiences their careers took off much faster than those who were trained on the job. The students also found their jobs (careers) more interesting having the optical theory background. 

I truly believe strong licensing is important to protect the public by forcing opticians to perform at a certain level. Licensing also creates an organized system of professional development if continuing education is implemented. 

-Brendan Walsh

----------


## Homer

Are the wages really going up or is that just your impression.

State Statistics??

How much more than the average wage increase are you seeing for educated opticians?

----------


## Excel-Lentes

Hi Homer, 

These are not state stats or anything. It was just an observation with the school I used to teach for. When it first opened up new grads were being offered only about $8-$9 per hour. Once word got out that our grads were generally well versed in optics, dispensing and lab they were being recruited for $11-$14 per hour. 

Keep in mind that this was SF bay area and the cost of living is very high (notice I am living in CT now) Apartments could range 900-1100 for a studio or 1 bedroom. The above wages were generally typical for starting wages for someone with the 6 months schooling and a 1 month externship. 

It was difficult to sell the program without promising high wages but those that completed and stuck it out generally got rewarded. 

I saw some stats a while back regarding salaries for opticians with a 2 year degree VS. apprenticeship and the schooled opticians earned significantly higher wages. I am sorry I cannot locate the data right now(I believe it was eyecare business). In many situations it is hard to find opticians that are willing to teach the apprentice/ the managers seem to want just worker bees. 

-Brendan

----------


## Jeff Trail

I followed this thread and some of the statements are pretty interesting and some I thought were kind of off base, I started out in optics in a lab, and NO not all lab people are "opticians," and as it becomes more automated "lab" people become less educated in theoretical optics.. A lab claiming all our lab techs are "opticians" are living in a dream world :-) We used to have to take a test to be a "bench optician" and it was a fairly hard test, I have taken the ABO and the lab test was a LOT harder, you had to know theoretical formula's inside and out.
   I went back to school, through Hillsborough Com.Col., via the web and driving back and forth for finals and such and found it to be very interesting. Some of the things that I found interesting was the range of things covered to get the degree...You are required to have anatomy and physiology .. a place where I see a lot of opticians lacking, which comes in very handy if you dispense contacts. You had to take refraction, also comes in handy understanding some problems that come up and help understand when someone walks in with a script and you can spot some problems.. I already knew refracting, both on a minus and plus phoropter as well as trial framing but I still think it is a needed part of becoming lic., EVEN if you do not or can not refract in your office...classes in lab theory and fabrication, classes in strict optical theory, contact lens fabrication and dispensing and the medical side of fitting and dispensing.. classes in dispensing.. etc., etc..
     I always looked at optics as a house of cards... you have the theoretical side to build upon than it all falls into place and starts to make more sense and you understand why something is working or not working...
     I also think that a lot may depend on what you are doing in the field, you just selling glasses, getting them in the door out the door with a limited choice of designs available to you and materials, than no, being lic. or not lic. is not going to matter ... you OWN a store and have a stake in the sales, than if you are Lic. or not, you better understand as much as you can about optics if you want to survive..
    Does it make a difference, sure it does, I became a teaching site (my lab) for people in the lab portion of the degree, and I could see the definite result of people who understood the theoretical part behind what they were doing have a direct result on the $$, I saw these guys start using their knowledge to benefit the patients..and benefit themselves through the type of sales.. I saw those guys who were depending on "ad slicks" telling them how "great" a design was and or how "great" this material was ..learn to evaluate the things on there own...
      I WAS very surprised by the lack of knowledge people in the "industry" had when we started taking the classes, you find a big difference in ones that are "chain" trained who have a limited choice of options by the corporations than those who had freedom of choice, and even those ones who were in private practice were limited as well,  I poked around and asked a lot of questions and found that the VAST majority of them have only tried a hand full of designs, a lot of them when asked were quick to say "oh that design does not work" but the majority of them had not even tried it :-) ..
      Is being Lic. important? I think so, will it improve wages..yes.
Job security? yes... now will it make a difference in education? nope (as I seen mentioned up in the thread) SHOULD we require a further education for the Lic. ? yes ...You remember that Optometrist started out as a "optician" and than it moved into requiring a degree .. things are a changing, for the better (?) not real sure, but the insurgence of Ins. taking over optics and third party plans than things are going to have to change.. the vast majority of OD's I know are doing more work now for less money or to equal the money they were making, they are putting the wagons in a circle and fighting everything about anybody extending the scope of practice.. in this case the OD's and chains happen to share a common interest, keeping the opticians down :-)
      Might as well get ready, the ins. companies are devaluing the OD's and as technology increases and you get less hands on to get the answer than they will want a "new" level of people to fill the void... 
Sort of a "full circle" ... back to "opticians" doing the refracting..like it was originally :-) It's a quick changing world and it's going to have some growing pains and be pretty bumpy, if anything, you need a platform to be battling from, atleast if we were ALL lic. we would be on the same field to battle from :-) When it does start, the chains are going to jump ship and start hooking up to the circle where they can save the most money.. I'm afraid the Od's are the ones going to get caught out in the open..but the more "fractured" they can keep the opticians the better off they are :-) Sometimes ya got to look at the big picture and what the FUTURE might be..

Jeff "just my penny worth" Trail

----------


## jediron

This is the same old argument that I have seen on this board for years. I agree with Chip, Wmcdonald,Homer and the wrest of you.
Problem is all we do is talk and argue instead of trying to do something. I believe the first thing is to get everybody to agree on something. Whether national lic. or pulling the states together into a mega lic. Lets find out what the next issue that needs to be accomplished and do it. Hey states agreed on a mega lottery why not Mega Optician Lic. I know lottery pulls in tons of money, but it least it's a start. Or maybe Im just dreaming.



Remember when you look in a mirror you don't always see what you want to see.:bbg: :( :bbg:

----------

