Future Texas Optometry School Question

[hello07]

IndianaOD,

Your exactly right. CAPITALISM. Free enterprise. Democracy. They have a fundamental and ethical right without anyone's resistance to open up another school. That is Capitalism my friend.
Have you heard physicians MD's or dentist's telling your story. No more med schools? because of oversupply? while thousands upon thousands of physicians graduate each year here and abroad and Caribbean.
Be realistic. The pie is for everyone, not just for you and Ben.
The AOA does nothing for you and I. They only care about themselves. Greed and power. I am sorry I had to put it in those words.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ben Chudner]

Have you heard physicians MD's or dentist's telling your story. No more med schools? because of oversupply? while thousands upon thousands of physicians graduate each year here and abroad and Caribbean.

I can't speak about every specialty, but I do believe that the OMD's control the number of residency spots each year so that they don't train too many ophthalmologist. And didn't the ADA oppose new schools from opening? Hmm, maybe they know something we don't.

Be realistic. The pie is for everyone, not just for you and Ben.
The AOA does nothing for you and I. They only care about themselves. Greed and power. I am sorry I had to put it in those words.

I'm being lumped in with Indiana because of my views on oversupply! What has the world come to?

 

[IndianaOD]

I can't speak about every specialty, but I do believe that the OMD's control the number of residency spots each year so that they don't train too many ophthalmologist. And didn't the ADA oppose new schools from opening? Hmm, maybe they know something we don't. I'm being lumped in with Indiana because of my views on oversupply! What has the world come to?

Sorry about that Ben!

 

[IndianaOD]

IndianaOD,

Your exactly right. CAPITALISM. Free enterprise. Democracy. They have a fundamental and ethical right without anyone's resistance to open up another school. That is Capitalism my friend.
Have you heard physicians MD's or dentist's telling your story. No more med schools? because of oversupply? while thousands upon thousands of physicians graduate each year here and abroad and Caribbean.
Be realistic. The pie is for everyone, not just for you and Ben.
The AOA does nothing for you and I. They only care about themselves. Greed and power. I am sorry I had to put it in those words.

In case you haven't heard or live on the moon, there is far from an oversupply of dentists and MDs. Even the AMA has admitted there is a shortage of primary care MDs. Most dentists are booked out 3-4 weeks and don't need to advertise to do this.

How are more schools better for anyone except wally and lux and those students who aren't good enough to get into the current schools? (in this case shouldn't be getting into a school).

Its bad for ODs and bad for patients, who else matters?

 

[Ben Chudner]

Sorry about that Ben!

No apologies necessary. I don't think you and I are alone on this issue contrary to what Hello thinks. However, wouldn't it be nice if the pie was only split by you and I?

 

[qwopty99]

i'm in shock at the ******ation demonstrated by this person who claims to be an optometrist. he is presumably educated, but without having ever met him, i am sure hello07 is one of those optometrists that truly embarrass our field, both intellectually and professionally.

Please, please, do not tell me about supply and demand again. I don't buy this argument.

The pie is for everyone, not just for you and Ben.

uh, hello?

hello07 implies that if a limited resource (a pie) were limited to only two players (Indy and Ben), they would be in a position to benefit from its restricted access.

my point is made.

 

[ddown]

Forget for the moment the financial implications of an OD oversupply (which there definitely is), what about applicant quality. Will these new schools be able to fill their seats with highly qualified applicants, or will the whole applicant pool be diluted down for all the schools. It seems some schools even now have to put several students on the so called 5, or even 6, year plans so they can keep the seat warm and graduate them after failing several courses.

As ODs we already have to struggle against the perception that we are 2nd class health care providers. The last thing we need are more and more graduates who are lacking in basic fundamentals/skills, especially in the medical optometry arena.

In my opinion, we should be setting the standards higher for entrance and for passing the national boards. This is one way to limit supply irregardless of the number of schools.

 

[hello07]

IndianaOD and anyone else -what makes you believe that opening another optometry school in Texas or California will start admitting sub par or shoddy applicants? The state of Texas which has 1 OD school holds high standards of admission. What makes you think another OD school in that state will accept anyone not qualified? You are assuming this? California has 2 schools with rigorous enough admissions, what makes you believe a third school will lower their standards? Give me proof this will HAPPEN.

 

[hello07]

Furthermore,
Nova in Florida opened up not long ago. Does it produce incompetent optometrist? I don't think so. You know why? I know some of them. They are great clinicians.
ddown, "lacking fundamental skills, especially in the medical optometry area" is a bogus statement. Please, you think admissions committee of each every OD school will let anyone in? Common be real. As far as your argument goes, PLEASE- medical optometry- become an MD and treat all you want. Your argument is worthless.
qwopty99- I am really a nice person and trust me I am very professional with my patients. Sorry, I embarrass you as my colleague.

 

[eyestrain]

IndianaOD and anyone else -what makes you believe that opening another optometry school in Texas or California will start admitting sub par or shoddy applicants? The state of Texas which has 1 OD school holds high standards of admission. What makes you think another OD school in that state will accept anyone not qualified? You are assuming this? California has 2 schools with rigorous enough admissions, what makes you believe a third school will lower their standards? Give me proof this will HAPPEN.

If there are 1000 open seats any given year, and 2000 applicants, the top 1000 will get those seats. Applicants 1000-2000 aren't qualified enough to cut it. Now, if you have 200 more seats open up, logically they'd be filled by applicants 1000-1200, who, before the schools opened, weren't qualified enough to make it. All of those wouldn't be at the new schools only, they'd likely be spread throughout the schools. The point is that with more seats opening, you have to be admitting less qualified candidates. There is no way around it. Pretty soon you're admitting the 2.5GPA, "really hard worker" kids, and nobody wants that.

 

[IndianaOD]

Furthermore,
Nova in Florida opened up not long ago. Does it produce incompetent optometrist? I don't think so. You know why? I know some of them. They are great clinicians.
ddown, "lacking fundamental skills, especially in the medical optometry area" is a bogus statement. Please, you think admissions committee of each every OD school will let anyone in? Common be real. As far as your argument goes, PLEASE- medical optometry- become an MD and treat all you want. Your argument is worthless.
qwopty99- I am really a nice person and trust me I am very professional with my patients. Sorry, I embarrass you as my colleague.

Nova was put on probation for awhile.

Sorry, but where is the need for more ODs? There isn't any. Please answer my question about who benefits from new schools besides unqualified candidates, Wally, and Lux?

 

[eyesarecool]

I think that patients should come first, not the money.

 

[Ben Chudner]

I think that patients should come first, not the money.

Your statement is too simplistic. As a clinician, of course the patients come first, but I am also a small business owner. I am not only responsible for my employment, but the employment of 10 other people. Because of that, I must also look at the financial side of things. The trick is to make sure that financial issues do not affect clinical decisions.

 

[KHE]

If there are 1000 open seats any given year, and 2000 applicants, the top 1000 will get those seats. Applicants 1000-2000 aren't qualified enough to cut it. Now, if you have 200 more seats open up, logically they'd be filled by applicants 1000-1200, who, before the schools opened, weren't qualified enough to make it. All of those wouldn't be at the new schools only, they'd likely be spread throughout the schools. The point is that with more seats opening, you have to be admitting less qualified candidates. There is no way around it. Pretty soon you're admitting the 2.5GPA, "really hard worker" kids, and nobody wants that.

This presupposes that applicants 1000-1200 were not qualified. Many professional and graduate programs decline admission to qualified applicants every year.

However, looking at admission statistics of the various schools and colleges of optometry and the ranges of GPAs being admitted at the various schools it is safe to say that people on the lower end of the admissions spectrum are not exactly shining stars academically. As such, it stands to reason that adding another 200 seats worth of optometric capacity is not going to "increase" the overall brain power of the profession. At worst, these new schools were attract the rejects from the others, and at best, they will dilute the number of excellent students at the current schools.

Either way, not a good scenario.

 

[eyestrain]

This presupposes that applicants 1000-1200 were not qualified. Many professional and graduate programs decline admission to qualified applicants every year.

I think we agree those students would have to be "less" qualified.

 

[Ben Chudner]

This presupposes that applicants 1000-1200 were not qualified.

It also assumes that applicants 800-1000 were qualified. As you point out in your post, looking at the entering class stats every year proves that the schools have to already go a little deeper than the creme of the crop.

 

[still_confused]

really, the stats ive seen at my school showed a increase in stats, if anything they are MORE qualified.

maybe it is the past classes that are unqualified in today's standards.

 

[Ben Chudner]

really, the stats ive seen at my school showed a increase in stats, if anything they are MORE qualified.

maybe it is the past classes that are unqualified in today's standards.

Out of curiosity, what was the average entering GPA, GPA range, and average OAT scores for the most recent class? Just so we can have a discussion with actual numbers.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Out of curiosity, what was the average entering GPA, GPA range, and average OAT scores for the most recent class? Just so we can have a discussion with actual numbers.

The mean GPA for our entering classes has varied from 3.4 to 3.6 in the past few years. The mean OAT scores have fallen in the 300 to 340 range.

OAT = 335, GPA = 3.44 for 2007 http://www.sco.edu/admissions/quickfacts.html

OAT = 357, GPA (pre-req only) = 3.5 for 2007

OAT = 324, GPA = 3.46

Couldn't find GPA ranges nor a cumulative for Berkeley, but since these are all fairly close to each other I think it a good sampling.

 

[still_confused]

http://opted.org/info_profile.cfm


there are the numbers for the last two years. my school has taken off the numbers from their website but there is a sheet that dates back to the class of 2007, I will hunt for it.


now for some Indiana in the top 2 arguments:

schools with higher GPA and OAT include:
UCB, UAB, MCO, missouri (same gpa, but higher oat), ohio.

in fact, with respect to the OAT, the most objective factor, Indiana's average of 329 only beats out Puerto Rico, PCO, and Oklahoma. Favorite punching bag targets like NECO (332), NSU (330), and ICO (335) all scored higher.

indiana also accepted 39% of thier applicants (159/411) compared with 33% (224/682) for NECO, 34% (313/912) for ICO and 28% (206/742) for Florida which are always bashed around this forum.

when comparing all the state schools (UAB, UCB, indiana, MCO, missouri, SUNY, Oklahoma, Ohio, SCO, UCHO), Ohio (98), Texas (105) and SCO (123) enroll more students then indiana (enrolling 78).

Base on strength of entering class alone it appears that Indiana College of Optometry is in the bottom half of OAT and GPA scores when compared to all schools and accepting more (CONTRIBUTING TO OVERSUPPLY) when compared to its "peer" state schools. Indiana is also accepting a large proportion of its applicant even when compared to the "money making" private schools.

 

[IndianaOD]

Looks like Arizona is on its way to a new school as well....2009.

We have california, arizona, and texas coming online. Anyone need anymore proof we are going to have a problem?

Good luck for those living out west, you're about to feel our oversupply pain!

 

[hello07]

IndianaOd,
what makes you believe that applicants with 3.5 and 3.75 will become better clinicians and practicing optometrists than those with a 3.1 and 3.25? Can you show me proof those who were admitted with lesser GPA's and OAT scores failed out or are horrible clinicians?
Our profession in general will benefit with new schools. Again, what makes you and others believe that admission committees in the new schools will start giving acceptances to everyone with a 2.5 or under or 3.0?
You should all be ashamed of yourselves putting $$$ ahead of everything else. That's what it comes down to MONEY and GREED. It has nothing to do with qualifications. You think the Director of Admissions/ and those who have been around and lived our profession with these new schools will want to become outcasts or looked down upon with what you are all saying?
Ben- get yourself an MBA and go work for Corporate America. Go to Microsoft, GE and other technology giants. You sound like more of a businessman than a doctor.

 

[qwopty99]

undergrad GPAs are inflated these days. it's been a trend that has become obvious in recent years.

ask admissions councillors in professional schools.

seriously.

 

[Ben Chudner]

Ben- get yourself an MBA and go work for Corporate America. Go to Microsoft, GE and other technology giants. You sound like more of a businessman than a doctor.

I guess that's why I run a successful private practice. I'm not embarassed by that. I am also respected enough as a doctor to get asked to lecture at dinner meetings throughout the country as well at our national meetings such at SECO, Vision Expo East and West, and AOA. I think I wear both hats pretty well.

 

[hello07]

Ben. I applaud you and your efforts. I still believe you should support any new Optometry school that wants to open up.
I don't understand how undergraduate GPA's are inflated these days? in addition, I agree with what someone said in this post admission to OD schools has gotten harder compared to the previous 10- 15 years. Beased on GPA's and OAT's. Am I reading that correctly?

 

[still_confused]

undergrad GPAs are inflated these days. it's been a trend that has become obvious in recent years.

ask admissions councillors in professional schools.

seriously.

source?

 

[eyestrain]

You should all be ashamed of yourselves putting $$$ ahead of everything else. That's what it comes down to MONEY and GREED.

Funny, I think the exact same thing could be said about the people opening the new schools. Do you think they care about anything other than the money?

 

[IndianaOD]

Ben. I applaud you and your efforts. I still believe you should support any new Optometry school that wants to open up.
I don't understand how undergraduate GPA's are inflated these days? in addition, I agree with what someone said in this post admission to OD schools has gotten harder compared to the previous 10- 15 years. Beased on GPA's and OAT's. Am I reading that correctly?

You are hopeless. How can you call ODs greedy when on average we make about half of dentists who have the same amount of training?

ODs don't deserve pay for 8+ years of schooling?

Ophthalmologists must be even greedier for all the money most of them rake in.

I'm sorry you don't believe that an OD should paid fairly.

The only people to benefit from new schools, are the schools themselves, underachieving undergrads, wally and lux. Oh wait, the insurance companies also will do even better. Glad their CEO's will make $500million instead of $400 million.

Who loses, again PATIENTS AND ODs. Two groups you seem not to care about.

Less pay per patient from oversupply means more exams per doc to stay alive. This means less time to help the patients and easier to miss things. You are ridiclous. Are you a troll?

 

[Oculomotor]

IndianaOD,

Enough is enough. I have read your posts bashing all the private optometry schools and kissing the state school's proverbial behinds. You seem to be singing the praises of Indiana (not suprising) and bashing all the private optometry schools. Hmmm did you read opted.org's statistics? "http://opted.org/info_profile.cfm


there are the numbers for the last two years. my school has taken off the numbers from their website but there is a sheet that dates back to the class of 2007, I will hunt for it.


now for some Indiana in the top 2 arguments:

schools with higher GPA and OAT include:
UCB, UAB, MCO, missouri (same gpa, but higher oat), ohio.

in fact, with respect to the OAT, the most objective factor, Indiana's average of 329 only beats out Puerto Rico, PCO, and Oklahoma. Favorite punching bag targets like NECO (332), NSU (330), and ICO (335) all scored higher.

indiana also accepted 39% of thier applicants (159/411) compared with 33% (224/682) for NECO, 34% (313/912) for ICO and 28% (206/742) for Florida which are always bashed around this forum.

when comparing all the state schools (UAB, UCB, indiana, MCO, missouri, SUNY, Oklahoma, Ohio, SCO, UCHO), Ohio (98), Texas (105) and SCO (123) enroll more students then indiana (enrolling 78).

Base on strength of entering class alone it appears that Indiana College of Optometry is in the bottom half of OAT and GPA scores when compared to all schools and accepting more (CONTRIBUTING TO OVERSUPPLY) when compared to its "peer" state schools. Indiana is also accepting a large proportion of its applicant even when compared to the "money making" private schools. "

I attend a private optometry school that had better OAT scores and a lower percentage of acceptance 33% vs 39% for Indiana. Your insinuation that those new schools are going to be "low tier" is ridiculous as it is a statement lacking intelligence. I went through the application cycle 2 years ago and got turned down with my 3.5 GPA and 330 OAT at many schools before I got admitted to a couple schools. I don't know what world Indiana OD lives in but my guess would be "clueless about optometric admissions."

 

[IndianaOD]

IndianaOD,

Enough is enough. I have read your posts bashing all the private optometry schools and kissing the state school's proverbial behinds. You seem to be singing the praises of Indiana (not suprising) and bashing all the private optometry schools. Hmmm did you read opted.org's statistics? "http://opted.org/info_profile.cfm


there are the numbers for the last two years. my school has taken off the numbers from their website but there is a sheet that dates back to the class of 2007, I will hunt for it.


now for some Indiana in the top 2 arguments:

schools with higher GPA and OAT include:
UCB, UAB, MCO, missouri (same gpa, but higher oat), ohio.

in fact, with respect to the OAT, the most objective factor, Indiana's average of 329 only beats out Puerto Rico, PCO, and Oklahoma. Favorite punching bag targets like NECO (332), NSU (330), and ICO (335) all scored higher.

indiana also accepted 39% of thier applicants (159/411) compared with 33% (224/682) for NECO, 34% (313/912) for ICO and 28% (206/742) for Florida which are always bashed around this forum.

when comparing all the state schools (UAB, UCB, indiana, MCO, missouri, SUNY, Oklahoma, Ohio, SCO, UCHO), Ohio (98), Texas (105) and SCO (123) enroll more students then indiana (enrolling 78).

Base on strength of entering class alone it appears that Indiana College of Optometry is in the bottom half of OAT and GPA scores when compared to all schools and accepting more (CONTRIBUTING TO OVERSUPPLY) when compared to its "peer" state schools. Indiana is also accepting a large proportion of its applicant even when compared to the "money making" private schools. "

I attend a private optometry school that had better OAT scores and a lower percentage of acceptance 33% vs 39% for Indiana. Your insinuation that those new schools are going to be "low tier" is ridiculous as it is a statement lacking intelligence. I went through the application cycle 2 years ago and got turned down with my 3.5 GPA and 330 OAT at many schools before I got admitted to a couple schools. I don't know what world Indiana OD lives in but my guess would be "clueless about optometric admissions."

Yup pretty cluless. Considering I actually interviewed applicants and you are a student! You are comparing 1 year of statistics and the differences are statistically insignificant. IU is surrounded by OD schools. Schools like Florida are not.

The problem is private schools have no one to keep them in check. Take a look at the research contributed by private schools vs public schools.

Also, it isn't public schools that are flooding this profession and destroying us with oversupply. You'll face this reality when you get out.

The 2007/08 stats do not support you with GPA, take a look.
NOVA at 3.28 VS IU at 3.48 is a HUGE difference.

 

[still_confused]

Indiana Optometry:

looking at the year before, despite a higher gpa, its OAT score of 325 is only higher then Oklahoma, PCO and Puerto Rico.

Of course since we have someone on the admission committee here then of course Indiana is in the top two and everyone else is contributing to oversupply.

Everyone is free to look at the number and the argument of the data being "statistically significant," I wont insult everyone's intelligences since im just a student, but one can easily see that the data is derived from the population and not a sample for the incoming class of 2007.....stats 101 anyone???

Since certain people in this forum likes to stress how great Indiana is, I thought it would be nice to finally have some numbers. After all there is no ranking of any sort for the schools and all we have are the admission numbers (and pass rates for certain schools). I certainly hope that other students that know nothing like me are not fooled by some one repeating the same thing over and over again (communism propaganda?). Look at the released numbers and draw your own conclusion on the strength of each school (of course inevitable, some doctors will claim the AOA is sabatoging the numbers, up to no good, cooking numbers to line their own pockets...etc, there is really nothing we can do about the evil AOA).

 

[still_confused]

Out of curiosity, what was the average entering GPA, GPA range, and average OAT scores for the most recent class? Just so we can have a discussion with actual numbers.

when you get a chance to look at the numbers, can you tell us lowly students what you think?

 

[KHE]

when you get a chance to look at the numbers, can you tell us lowly students what you think?

I don't think there is much point in comparing the different schools because they are all good, or at the very least, they are all "good enough."

At it's core, the reason these new schools are not needed (and almost universally opposed by the majority of ODs out in the trenches trying to service patients and meet a payroll for their staff) is because we already have enough data from multiple sources (including the AOA itself) already showing that supply is exceeding demand, and is projected to continue to do so for the near and far foreseeable future. Adding on 3, or 4 new schools of optometry is simply only going to put fuel on what is already a fairly decent sized fire.

The arguments for adding schools given by the schools themselves hold little if any water. The notion that an aging population is going to spike the demand for OPTOMETRIC services is a virtual non-starter. The baby boomers have been presbyopic for years and have been in the optometric pipeline for years. As they age further, they will have little increased need for optometric services.

Another common argument given by schools for needing more is that there is a maldistribution of practicing ODs. The (quaint) idea being that graduates of these new schools will flock to "underserved" (I'm not sure there is one) areas is also a non-starter. Schools are opening in Pamona, Glendale, and San Antonio. Are any of these places underserved? How likely is it that a graduate of a school in Glendale or Southern California is going to immediately run off to eastern Washington state or the middle of North Dakota to serve all the needy people? Slim to none. When I was in school, I recall reading a survery in the ASCO journal that showed that something like 85% of ODs end up practicing within 50 miles of where they grew up, or where they went to optometry school. I sure hope these new schools do a good job recruiting a flock from North Dakota.

Fact is, we have an oversupply. It's not a catastrophic oversupply in the sense that we have ODs on breadlines but we have huge chunks of ODs unable to find meaningful work in their careers and are left to toil away at the mall, the local big box discounter, or super teching for an ophthalmologist or LASIK mill. Adding an extra 200 grads a year is not going to help that situation, but like Dr. Chudner says....I guess I'll be able to hire an associate for $200 per day instead of $300.

 

[IndianaOD]

I don't think there is much point in comparing the different schools because they are all good, or at the very least, they are all "good enough."

At it's core, the reason these new schools are not needed (and almost universally opposed by the majority of ODs out in the trenches trying to service patients and meet a payroll for their staff) is because we already have enough data from multiple sources (including the AOA itself) already showing that supply is exceeding demand, and is projected to continue to do so for the near and far foreseeable future. Adding on 3, or 4 new schools of optometry is simply only going to put fuel on what is already a fairly decent sized fire.

The arguments for adding schools given by the schools themselves hold little if any water. The notion that an aging population is going to spike the demand for OPTOMETRIC services is a virtual non-starter. The baby boomers have been presbyopic for years and have been in the optometric pipeline for years. As they age further, they will have little increased need for optometric services.

Another common argument given by schools for needing more is that there is a maldistribution of practicing ODs. The (quaint) idea being that graduates of these new schools will flock to "underserved" (I'm not sure there is one) areas is also a non-starter. Schools are opening in Pamona, Glendale, and San Antonio. Are any of these places underserved? How likely is it that a graduate of a school in Glendale or Southern California is going to immediately run off to eastern Washington state or the middle of North Dakota to serve all the needy people? Slim to none. When I was in school, I recall reading a survery in the ASCO journal that showed that something like 85% of ODs end up practicing within 50 miles of where they grew up, or where they went to optometry school. I sure hope these new schools do a good job recruiting a flock from North Dakota.

Fact is, we have an oversupply. It's not a catastrophic oversupply in the sense that we have ODs on breadlines but we have huge chunks of ODs unable to find meaningful work in their careers and are left to toil away at the mall, the local big box discounter, or super teching for an ophthalmologist or LASIK mill. Adding an extra 200 grads a year is not going to help that situation, but like Dr. Chudner says....I guess I'll be able to hire an associate for $200 per day instead of $300.

I agree completely. I don't see any benefit at all to future or current students.

BTW entering GPA doesn't make the school great, if so the Canadian school would be one of the best health science grad program anywhere. Much higher entering GPA that almost any OD, DDS, MD school anywhere.

What makes public schools good IMO is what they do for the profession. They usually have smaller class sizes on average and in-state tuition is better. The quantity and quality of research is also much better on average.

There is much more oversight in a large university than a private institution who's only real goal is to make money. I mean 160 students is insane.

 

[still_confused]

BTW entering GPA doesn't make the school great, if so the Canadian school would be one of the best health science grad program anywhere. Much higher entering GPA that almost any OD, DDS, MD school anywhere.

Waterloo is one of the top schools in Canada and there is plenty of research going on there. Who is to say they are not one the best programs?

I know that GPA and OAT means nothing for the school. The only thing that matters is if the school has a high pass right, because that means the school did its job.

What I have a problem with is that people constantly bash schools like NECO, IU, and NOVA just because they are "private" as if the students there are not deserving. They are just as smart and will make just as good doctors as those that went to public schools. America is weird in that its is actually the private schools that are better then the private ones as a whole (the ivies vs say the UC schools), while in other countries, it is usually the public school that are superior.

Criticize the new schools all you want, but when they open, the students there deserve as much credit and respect as students anywhere else.

And the main point of pointing out the number is to show that there is no "top two" schools. It is all based on bias (SEVERE bias in some cases).

as a disclaimer I am at a public school

finally i would like a source for "better and more" research. Unfortunately at my school, while public, I dont see that many papers being published.

 

[IndianaOD]

Waterloo is one of the top schools in Canada and there is plenty of research going on there. Who is to say they are not one the best programs?

I know that GPA and OAT means nothing for the school. The only thing that matters is if the school has a high pass right, because that means the school did its job.

What I have a problem with is that people constantly bash schools like NECO, IU, and NOVA just because they are "private" as if the students there are not deserving. They are just as smart and will make just as good doctors as those that went to public schools. America is weird in that its is actually the private schools that are better then the private ones as a whole (the ivies vs say the UC schools), while in other countries, it is usually the public school that are superior.

Criticize the new schools all you want, but when they open, the students there deserve as much credit and respect as students anywhere else.

And the main point of pointing out the number is to show that there is no "top two" schools. It is all based on bias (SEVERE bias in some cases).

as a disclaimer I am at a public school

finally i would like a source for "better and more" research. Unfortunately at my school, while public, I dont see that many papers being published.

IU is public all the way! Indiana University School of Optometry

As far as research, IU offers a MS and PhD in vision science. Do any private schools?

 

[Ben Chudner]

when you get a chance to look at the numbers, can you tell us lowly students what you think?

I'm not sure where you ever got the impression that I think of you all as lowly students. That couldn't be further from the truth. I will look at the numbers and tell you what I think but as others have said, I don't think it will make any difference. Regardless of what I believe, the schools are comming and time will tell what that will do to the stats of the entering students and to the profession as a whole.

 

[still_confused]

I'm not sure where you ever got the impression that I think of you all as lowly students. That couldn't be further from the truth. I will look at the numbers and tell you what I think but as others have said, I don't think it will make any difference. Regardless of what I believe, the schools are comming and time will tell what that will do to the stats of the entering students and to the profession as a whole.

sorry, ben chudner, i know you dont look at us that way, it was a sarcastic remark directed toward others that are always chiding all the students on this forum.

 

[still_confused]

IU is public all the way! Indiana University School of Optometry

As far as research, IU offers a MS and PhD in vision science. Do any private schools?

congrats you have a MS and PhD program. so? people go to optometry school to get an OD. if i want a MS or PhD ill go to MIT or Harvard and definetly not IU.

Sure having a MS and PhD program makes it seem like you are doing some research to benefit the program. But does that make that school any better then any other school? I dont think so. If that was the case my school will be #1. We not only have a MS and PhD, we also have a joint MBA and MPH.

 

[Ben Chudner]

Your insinuation that those new schools are going to be "low tier" is ridiculous as it is a statement lacking intelligence. I went through the application cycle 2 years ago and got turned down with my 3.5 GPA and 330 OAT at many schools before I got admitted to a couple schools.

I don't know if the new schools will be "low tier", but don't you think they have the potential to take something away from all of the schools? The fact that you got turned down by many schools before you were admitted to a couple should help prove that point. Let's take the extreme opposite situation. If there were 5 less schools of optometry, it stands to reason that you probably wouldn't have gotten into optometry school 2 years ago. With less available spots and the same number of applicants, no school would have had to go down to the 3.5 GPA/330 OAT student. If we were making the same arguement with only 12 schools, and then those five opened, it would prove our point because you would get accepted. Now with additional schools and the same number of applicants some of the schools would have to go down to the 3.5 GPA/330 OAT student. Not necessarily the new schools, but some of them would. By the way, I happen to think the California school will have no problem attracting top applicants because of it's location. SCCO will still do better because it has an established reputation, but Pomona will be fine. But when you open 4 more schools, isn't it possible that some of the schools, either new or established, will have to go down to the 3.3 GPA/310 OAT student to fill its spots? This is our theory, and time will tell if we are correct.

 

[Ben Chudner]

sorry, ben chudner, i know you dont look at us that way, it was a sarcastic remark directed toward others that are always chiding all the students on this forum.

I looked at the numbers, and it's too bad there isn't data for five years ago. That being said, the average GPA stayed the same from 2006 to 2007, while the average OAT AA increased by 0.9% and the average OAT TS increased by 1.5%. I doubt these numbers represent statistically significant changes from 2006 to 2007. Let's revisit this once the 4 schools open. I predict the average GPA, OAT AA, and OAT TS will all decrease. Hopefully I am wrong.

 

[ODduck]

I think that patients should come first, not the money.

That is absolutely true,the patient should be the most important. That is why OD's need to make money so that their practices can stay open and actually serve the patient.

If the OD goes out of business, then the patient loses in the end because there is no OD to administer care.

This isn't dentistry or medicine where people are conditioned to go to the dentist every 6 months or to the MD every year. Maybe 10% (MAYBE) of my peers in my age group have had an eye exam in their lives. An even smaller percentage have been more than once. Maybe 1-2% get them every 2 years like the AOA recommends for people in their early 20's. If people were conditioned to get exams when they really should, then optometry would be better off.

Also, if people understood that the eyestrain and headaches that they get from doing 8-10 hours of computer/near work every day could be alleviated with some low plus lenses and visual hygeine (20-20-20 rule) and not just popping ibuprofen, then maybe, just maybe a larger patient base would be around for optometrists.

Maybe if the public was educated that if their young kids are having trouble focusing in school or learning to read it's not because they have "ADD" and need Ritalin. Maybe the print is blurry or their eyes aren't lining up correctly.



Here's an idea, how about someone with a national voice (AOA?) starts teaching the public to appreciate their VISION. Not just visual acuity, the whole world is tied up in getting that "20/20 vision" when visual acuity is only part of vision. Start educating the public about all the aspects of vision and maybe (hopefully) they can come to appreciate what it is like to see as well as they can, all of the time. America is so used to treating everything with a pill or a medication, when a lot of problems that people have that are visual in nature could be fixed with a pair of lenses and some knowledge.

Educate the public and optometry could see its client base grow exponentially...

(sorry about the rant...)

 

[IndianaOD]

Ben, I will predict that not only will GPA and OAT averages go down, but that the ratio of applicants to positions will decrease. This I believe may be 10 years down the road after the problems of making a living as an OD become apparent to applicants.

The problem is, none of the students arguing about this fact will be around for us to say: "I told you so". They will be spending all their time trying to steal patients from the 3 other ODs on the block.

It really is amazing around here. The only docs that strongly advertise are ODs, the MDs and dentists just have patients flocking to them because the supply is about equal to demand. Most of the MDs aren't even taking new patients.

 

[qwopty99]

finally i would like a source for "better and more" research. Unfortunately at my school, while public, I dont see that many papers being published.

i'm not going to dispute whatever other arguments you have, but you've suggested in your threads there's no "proof" that private schools do less research than public schools. all you do by saying that, is prove you are completely ignorant with respect to optometric literature. stop blowing hot air about something you know nothing about. the even remote suggestion that private optometric school "research" is on par with public optometry school research is ridiculous. and your *****ic statement about PhDs being only "worthwhile" if done at either MIT or Harvard demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of academia.

if you wanted to prove your ignorance on this subject, you could have said it more directly (i.e. "I'm still_confused about everything related to research and academia, even in my area of optometry"), but i suppose what you have written communicates the same asinine proof.


there are people on these boards who know a bit about academia and research, both within and outside the area of optometry and vision science. so don't even try to pretend u know what ur talking about, until u actually do.

 

[qwopty99]

the following is a cut-n-paste from some of the content from the following link:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=5013547#post5013547

i've researched what graduate programs are available at all the schools - they vary a lot - from MS/PhD, to having none at all.

first of all - i said reputation at the "academic" level is not the same as "academically recognized". ALL the OD schools are "academically recognized". go to harvard medical school hospital and see if they have an OD practicing in there - it's probably a NEWENCO (new england) grad. so when it comes down to it, u can have a strong OD come from any program.

at the vision science "academic" level, however, not all the schools are equal. here's a short database i came up with:

Programs Offering the PhD

Univ Alabama at Birmingham
http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=4967
Financial aid 23000/year
http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=16336
Deadline Jan.15

UC Berkeley
Deadline Jan.5

Indiana University
http://www.opt.indiana.edu/programs/graduate/index.htm
Grad Student Profiles
http://www.opt.indiana.edu/people/grads.htm
Fee Remission, 20000/year
Deadline Feb.1

University of Houston
http://www.opt.uh.edu/go/academics/grad-prog
Toefl 550, GRE 1150
Student Profiles
http://www.opt.uh.edu/go/academics/g...dent-directory

Ohio State Univ
http://optometry.osu.edu/graduate/
Requires an interview, needs OD or equivalent
Seems to require MS before PhD.

State University of New York
http://www.sunyopt.edu/academics/grad.shtml
Deadline Mar.1

University of Waterloo
http://www.optometry.uwaterloo.ca/gr...estudents.html

Masters Only Schools

Pennsylvania College of Optometry
http://www.pco.edu/acad_progs/grad/grad_prgs.htm

University of MIssouri - St.Louis
GRE 1100, Toefl 550
http://www.umsl.edu/divisions/optome...physoptic.html

New England - MS in VS
http://www.neco.edu/educational-prog...D_Program.aspx
(they are apparently trying to get a PhD program in collaboration with Boston U Med School)

Nova Southeastern - Distance MS
http://optometry.nova.edu/cvr/index.html

No Vision Science Programs (?)
SCCO
Pacific
Illinois
Ferris State Univ Michigan
Southern College
Northeastern State University


the presence of a PhD program obviously trumps any school that has no such offering. as such, one can make a pretty compelling case there exists a "top-6" (top-7 if u count Waterloo) optometry school grouping in the area of optometry academics.

 

[qwopty99]

another way to judge the level of academics at a school, is to see the degrees held by their senior faculty.

at universities in general, academic promotions are based on research and publications.

at many private OD schools, due to the lack of optometrists with academic "skill", they must do promotions based on clinical teaching (i.e. seniority).

at SCCO, i see Professor Emeritus "John Doe", OD. at most universities, u can't become even a tenured Professor unless u've published A LOT, and Prof Emer is reserved for the most distinguished academics among professors. let's not even talk about getting an entry-level assistant-professor academic position (which requires PhD and 2-3 years post-doc MINIMUM, at say, Waterloo School of Optom, UCB, and i'm sure other schools such as Houston, Ohio State, IU, SUNY, etc.). yet at SCCO, u can get there without even possessing a research degree!

within the arena of academia, something like this is shocking and almost, quite frankly, embarassing, that someone holding only a clinical degree could be an Emeritus Professor. at most schools, that wouldn't even qualify u to compete for an entry-level faculty position. in this specific circumstance, the fact that such a person exists would suggest to most, that professorial academic designations granted by SCCO carries no academic "legitimacy" at all.

Professorial ranks are supposed to be institutionally cross-recognized. i.e. if u promote to tenured Professor at SUNY, then u should be able to carry that rank if u were to switch to another university. i'm absolutely sure that no "universities" with standardized systems would recognize the emeritus professorial ranking of that SCCO individual.



anyhoos - for "proof", go visit some OD school faculty pages. u'll see that "many" faculty at the public schools have M.S and PhDs. at the private schools, the only school with any significant number of academic faculty is NEWENCO, (they've got a lot of private funding in recent years, which has jump-started their research program). the rest (such as SCCO, but not trying to pick on them necessarily), are comprised of virtually no OD/PhDs.

 

[eyestrain]

This public vs. private, research vs. no research argument is making me sleepy. Wake me up when we can talk supply and demand or undergrad GPAs. ZZzzzzzzzzzz

 

[JeffChou]

IU is public all the way! Indiana University School of Optometry

As far as research, IU offers a MS and PhD in vision science. Do any private schools?

NECO offers an MS (dual OD/MS and standalone) and conducts research. http://www.neco.edu/research-programs/default.aspx

 

[still_confused]

i take it qwopty99 is part of the research/academia world (maybe did some residency?).

im not saying research is not important, im just saying there is no need to put down schools that dont do alot of them.

and yes i dont know much about academia and research, in fact i hate academics and research, it bores me, and forgive me i cant read that much of your rambling about how great MS and PHds are as I have ADHD.


and since everyone gets to blow hot air around here, i dont see why i cant.

 

[qwopty99]

everything aside, none of the above suggests that an OD school with research is a better training facility, or produces better clinicians than an OD school without research. heck, one may even anecdotally say its the opposite.

but to suggest that private OD schools contribute to research as much as public schools, then that's patently false, irregardless of what viewpoint u take. it seems some of the private schools literally do NONE.



as for the one school (NEWENCO or NECO), don't imagine it was out of the kindness of their hearts that they started a research program. initially, there was private industrial interests who funded it, which has led to where it is now (NECO's administration is as mercenary as they get). so research at the school exists, and that's legitimate, but if there ever was a moment it wasn't profitable, you could kiss it goodbye.