Please return to your X-box. Mom will bring you a PB&J sandwich down to the basement soon.
Optometry is DEAD!
- Thread starter Tippytoe
- Start date
- Status
Please return to your X-box. Mom will bring you a PB&J sandwich down to the basement soon.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 432
- Reaction score
- 5
Optomoman, I've only been a year out.
But when I was 3 months out...I thought the same thing. Very excited..plenty of opportunities. Optometry is great.
You were a student with no income...now you're making money and student loans are deferred for 6-9 months. Wait a year later..and get back to us to see if you think the same thing. You'll see most of what Tippytoe says is unfortunately true.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,378
- Reaction score
- 391
I love that. Especially with a frosty glass of chocolate milk.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 12
Oh yeah? All of my friends graduated 6 years ago and they now make 500K per year, get free massages every day at work given by Swedish bikini models, and three of them actually had their loans paid off by an impressed patient. I hear new grads now days can get free European sports cars just for signing an associate's position. I'd probably take a DB9, but for now, I'll just keep on driving my Honda with the big dent in the side. It's awesome that optometrists are so much in demand that they can pretty much write their own ticket, isn't it?
.........See? Anyone can make up claims that don't make sense and post them here.
Exactly how much marijuana did you have to smoke in order to be able to convince yourself that new grads can come out "all over the country" and command 100K salaries? Put down the bong, hoss, those figures are ridiculous unless you're talking about America's Worst - hardly a position that would be considered enviable by most.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
Screw corporate optometry. Nobody I know works for "America's Worst". I'm real sorry you hate your life too. I love mine. And I love my job. I have never done anything but speak the truth on this website. Oh, and I don't do drugs.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 1
I never knew professionals could be so whiny. It REALLY is quite embarrassing.
The negative sentiments on these boards, made by unsuccessful optometrists are merely personal anecdotes, transpired by their own unwillingness to better their practice/profession.
Since most of these negative claims are not backed up by facts, I along with most readers should assume that they have their own personal agenda, which is exceedingly obvious/pitiful.
The negative sentiments on these boards, made by unsuccessful optometrists are merely personal anecdotes, transpired by their own unwillingness to better their practice/profession.
Since most of these negative claims are not backed up by facts, I along with most readers should assume that they have their own personal agenda, which is exceedingly obvious/pitiful.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 12
I'm happy that with your wealth of experience (all 2 months of it) that you are satisfied with the plethora of opportunities that optometry affords its new grads. Enjoy your student loan grace period.
Also, I don't hate my life, I hate my job. There's a difference.
My point stands. New optometry grads can, on average, expect about 70-80K for a PP associate position, IF they can find one. That's the going rate right now. Your statement to "future optometrists" seemingly indicating that they can get of school and roll right into a 6 figure salary is a dangerous one and prospects to the profession should understand that.
As a final note, did you ever work as a private optometry school recruiter? If not, you may have missed your calling. And I still wonder if there may have been some 2nd hand bong smoke in the room when you made that claim - it was almost amusing.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree imemily. It's a shame to have eye care professionals out there acting like this.
I wouldn't be overly concerned with feeling sorry for anyone here as the sentiment is probably wasted in this case. Nor would I apply the term "professionals" so liberally in this case either. These entities may in fact be optometrists which would be a terrible shame in and of itself, but the personas being presented are most certainly only partially real at best. They're here to keep the focus on the common agenda.
Really...thats it... your on a mission to reach "at least one person" you put a lot of time and effort into this.
I'm really trying to understand you.. as I've said before you seem intelligent and knowlegeable but I just don't get your motivation with these incessant posts.
What about all the 3rd, 4th year and newly graduated who have heard all the negatives over and over again.. should they just throw it in now..
you really think they are all idiots who have no idea what lies ahead.
Its like you get off on being a discouraging force,
if everything you say is true... its not necessary, those who have not calculated the down side will find out soon enough.
You don't have to dish out strawberries and cream..but if you tone it down and use a little more tact...
maybe a balanced approach and your message would reach more than just one.
You could offer more than a doomsday report...thats as easily had as the opposite AOA sunshine forecast.
Just sayin...
Last edited:
Fair enough. I'll tone it down if you get that dog-ugly avatar off your profile.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 706
- Reaction score
- 4
Don't tone it down TOO much though. The truth is the truth. Its like swallowing a spoonful of vinegar: it burns and tastes nasty but its the good honest TRUTH.
Read Art Epstein's newsletters. No, he's not god, but he sure as heck is not talking out the side of his neck. The saturation and other issues with this profession are REAL. Will there be some successful students who graduate? Yes, of course. But on a whole scale, they should do more post-grad surveys about where people ended up going to work and for how much. Then you will see the reality of what these posts meant.
If I were a pre-opt student in 2011, I would want someone to be as real as possible with me. Its only a $400-500K choice you'll be making (remember there's interest on school loans)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 12
Yes, such a shame. I'm the only person on this forum who employs sarcasm from time to time - how terrible of me.
Wow, I don't know which poster to be more amused by - imemily, who's still in diapers, but seems to have figured the whole profession out before she even started or optomoman, who's been out for two whole months, but has claimed victory with optometric success. Give it a few years, you'll come around.
It's worth noting that many of the "negative" ODs on here, if you read through their posts, will turn out to be future versions of you two. Funny how that works out, isn't it? No one starts out in pre-optometry or 1st year with a chip on their shoulder. With a few exceptions, we're all happy-go-lucky, clueless students who can't wait to become ODs and we're thrilled about all the exciting opportunities that the profession holds. Some figure it out by graduation, but the majority take a couple of years to really learn the nuts and bolts of the problem and see the ugly truth. I only wish I could be a fly on the wall when you guys figure it out for yourselves. Enjoy the ride, imemily, when you get out, things will be far worse than they are today, but I'm sure there will be a fantastic Walmart store out there for you.
...actually, maybe not. By then, refracting opticians might gain widespread independence and have taken over that practice niche so even those landing spots will be dried up. It's a good thing we have so many OD schools up and running, though. When you get out, your OD might cost 250K (please, please go to a private school, you'll miss out on the full OD experience if you don't) but only have the earning power of an associate's degree in Early American Quilting. We might even see ODs being hired as front desk attendants and pretesting techs. Established ODs might advertise "Come see my entire staff of doctors, in and out of the exam room!" It would be great for the hiring OD. Imagine the skill that a good, newly minted OD might have compared to a scantily-trained 17 year old who only knows how to do NCT, autorefraction, optos, and fields. Why not? There will be plenty of us to go around. Oh, the future of optometry will be filled with excitement! I can't wait for you to be a part of it.
I know what the problems is. We, doctors making $80,000-$150,000/yr are telling people making $12,000-$20,000/year not to follow us.
I know that doesn't make logical sense. I know because I was one of those people. I grew up very poor. I remember being in college and not having a clue what kind of job I wanted. I remember the day I decided to "go for it" into some type of health care career. I was leaning under the hood of my 20 year old Toyota trying to get it started.
I remember looking into not only MD programs but also podiatry, dentistry, chiropractic and, of course, optometry. I remember thinking, 'wow, what I could do with $100,000/year. I'd be rich (I mean I thought I'd be rich like Obama thinks doctors and small business owners are rich).
I would have absolutely been saying the same thing these other posters are saying, "quitcha whining" as I dug my ditch, or waited on my table or rang my register. (Although I would not have had to balls to say it to a doctor out loud).
Like me, and many of us, they are focused on that "number". Makes no difference what they have to do to get to that number or the fact that that number is going down each year.
I understand. Being a doctor in a dying profession is better than being a school teacher or car salesman. Just understand that it is a dying profession. Not because vision problems are disappearing. But because the delivery method is changing drastically.........in a why the middleman OD is simply not going to be needed as much (at the same time we are increasing the number of ODs AND developing ways for each OD to see more with greater efficiency).
But again. It still beats working the road crew in summertime.
P.S. My neighbors seem to live as nicely as me. One is a yellow page salesman, one has a sweet gov't job as a plumber and the other in a school vice-principal (has summers off and I'm VERY jeleous of THAT!)
When you factor in their work schedules, pay and benefits, I'd say they are doing just as well as most ODs (2 with bachelors degrees and one with H.S. diploma). Go figure.
I know that doesn't make logical sense. I know because I was one of those people. I grew up very poor. I remember being in college and not having a clue what kind of job I wanted. I remember the day I decided to "go for it" into some type of health care career. I was leaning under the hood of my 20 year old Toyota trying to get it started.
I remember looking into not only MD programs but also podiatry, dentistry, chiropractic and, of course, optometry. I remember thinking, 'wow, what I could do with $100,000/year. I'd be rich (I mean I thought I'd be rich like Obama thinks doctors and small business owners are rich).
I would have absolutely been saying the same thing these other posters are saying, "quitcha whining" as I dug my ditch, or waited on my table or rang my register. (Although I would not have had to balls to say it to a doctor out loud).
Like me, and many of us, they are focused on that "number". Makes no difference what they have to do to get to that number or the fact that that number is going down each year.
I understand. Being a doctor in a dying profession is better than being a school teacher or car salesman. Just understand that it is a dying profession. Not because vision problems are disappearing. But because the delivery method is changing drastically.........in a why the middleman OD is simply not going to be needed as much (at the same time we are increasing the number of ODs AND developing ways for each OD to see more with greater efficiency).
But again. It still beats working the road crew in summertime.
P.S. My neighbors seem to live as nicely as me. One is a yellow page salesman, one has a sweet gov't job as a plumber and the other in a school vice-principal (has summers off and I'm VERY jeleous of THAT!)
When you factor in their work schedules, pay and benefits, I'd say they are doing just as well as most ODs (2 with bachelors degrees and one with H.S. diploma). Go figure.
I have read all these posts on this topic and am really puzzled. Are the prospects for optometrists really that poor out there? Most ophthalmologists are very happy with their professional choice. I can;t imagine it being so bad. My cousin was originally pre med but that didn't work out for her so she is looking at optometry. I told her she should go for it but after reading this I told her to talk to some practicing ODs to find out the real deal... The reason for my surprise is that how different can an OD practice be from a general ophthalmologist? I recognize yes the MD is doing surgery and may see more clinical pathology etc which may be more interesting, but I have never heard my comprehensive friends complain once..other than saying insurance companies suck or malpractice reform is needed etc..These posts just don't seem to be accurate intuitively however it is entirely possible that the OD practice and the MD practice may be completely different. Maybe someone (who knows and not conjectures) can explain the differences that would allow for such a huge difference in opinion of prospects.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 1
Again, these are all anecdotes, which makes your whole argument about Optometry being a bad career choice, weak.
Its funny how all the ODs demoting Optometry are doing so via anecdotes and not facts.
OD's will become the middle men? Optometry is a dying profession? I'll believe you when you provide some facts. Until then, I think most readers should regard naysayers such as yourself as whiny professionals who do not enjoy their own profession due to their own shortcomings.
Moreover, how can Optometry be a dying profession, when states like Kentucky have made it law to allow ODs to perform minor surgeries? http://eyedocnews.com/004945-kentucky-governor-signs-law-allowing-optometrists-to-perform-eye-surgery/
Its only a matter of time that other parts of the country follow suit, which is still uncertain. My point is, with the advancements in Optometry procedures and law, Optometry cannot be a dying profession. Its only those ODs who are struggling that make it seem as such.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 12
Anecdotes come from both sides of the argument so please don't claim that all of the people on here who claim optometry is dying are doing so backed only by anecdotal evidence. I'd list all the "facts" you are after, but I don't think the server would allow me to list that much data at one time. It really doesn't matter, however, you could be presented with hard facts which point to the demise of the optometric profession and your only response will be "So, what about medicine? What about chiropractics? What about Law? What about pharmacy?
Oh my god, your posts never fall short on entertainment value. This one was a real gem. Your cluelessness comes out in many of your posts, but sometimes it actually borders on hilarious. You think that because ODs in KY won the right to do a couple of simple laser procedures and lid excisions, that all must therefore be well in optometry? And she even posted a link for everyone - awesome!
I really and truly hope you continue your path as a lemming and go buy yourself a very expensive OD.
Last edited:
I can offer a few reasons that the OD degree is fading compared to the general ophthalmologist.
#1 Is patient access as I've alluded to before. Unless the OMD is just plainly a bad doc, he will quickly garner the referrals from primary care docs, internists and many of his brother MDs as well as nurses, PA, NPs and the like. (Nothing wrong with that by the way. I'd be the same way.)
# 2 ODs, via alot of asskissing and sucking up, can get a few MD referrals here and there. But OMDs, by their very degree, automatically have the inroads. Just the way it is.
-OMDs are asssumed competent until proven otherwise.
- ODs are assumed incompetent until proven otherwise (in the medical world that is).
# 3. The referral/consult process goes "upchain". ODs refer to OMDs MUCH more frequently than visa-versa. I'm guessing 10,000 to 1 but I maybe be off a few...might be 10,000 to 3).
All of the cat surgeons I refer to now have very nice opticals right in their reception area. It doesn't take long for referred pts to come to the conclusion they might was well just go to the OMD office where they can get everyone done. Why go to the OMD for surgery, then back to the OD for post op, then back to the OMD for a YAG capsulotomy, then back to the OD for glasses. Many really are just staying in one place. And that one place service center is many times the full-service OMD office. (can't really blame them myself).
#4. Many insurance panels still ban ODs from participating. So even if the patient wants to see us, they are not going to pay out of pocket when they are covered to see a general OMD.
#5. Most important lastly. A big percentage of ODs have whored themselves out to commercial stores and warehouses so long now that we have become synonymous with "Low Price" and a big yellow smiley face blue vest. Many of the other "private" ODs are nestled in a strip mall between a nail saloon and a chinese restaurant. Hardly the professional setting many people will chose for care. OMDs have more pride at least. Even if they are quacks they pretend to be professional.
Just can't do that with a shopping cart full of 5-hour Energy drinks, adult diapers and 5W-30 cases trying to fit itself into your "office" as the 'blep, blep' of the checkout registers rings merrily in your head. I can't tell you how many times I have walk by there and hung my head in shame........shame that I am in the same profession as these clowns. But I can't blame them totally. They gotta get a job. And that's where we ODs have conditioned a large segment of the population be go for their yearly refraction and cheap specs. OMDs residencies are stable I think. As opposed to OD schools increasing the supply by 20-25% in the past few years despite our AOA's own survey from 2000 showing a surplus of optometrists.
General OMDs and ODs are a world apart......in class and self respect more than any other way. Basically whatever problems a general OMDs has, you can multiply it by a factor of 3 (or 4 or 5?) for the average OD.
Okay you Walmart apologists begin...............not yet..............not yet..........okay. NOW.
(Jazzeye I'm trying really hard to tone it down. Did I do okay this time? It's hard.)
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,378
- Reaction score
- 391
Yea, you better NOT say "pizzeria", bitch!
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 1
More whining....really? It is upsetting to see professionals whine and cry about their chosen profession, without having any data/facts to back up their claims. Seriously.
The point of that link was to show you that optometry is not a dying profession. It doesn't make sense to think that Optometry is a dying profession when ODs are actually increasing their scope of practice. However, if you have any data/facts/evidence to show that Optometry is indeed falling apart, than I'm all ears.
I have an idea for you. Stop reading the posts if they upset so much. That's what I'd do.
The only expansion in Optometry is where a state OD political group of ODs pay off a politician. Expansion of scope is much less prevalent than 'preservation' of scope. That is where our association sucks money from us to buy off the politician that the OMD group has tried to buy off to reduce our scope of practice. THIS IS FACT and it's a recurrent theme year in and year out. We get multiple 'scare' letters per year. The latest is in Pennsylvania. OMDs are trying to scale back procedures that ODs have been doing for year.
So keep pretending you know what your talking about. At least you are entertaining us.
Here's a FACT for ya:"Off the Cuff: The War in Pennsylvania—An Urgent Update
For those who are not yet aware of this extremely serious threat, optometry is under attack in Pennsylvania. HB 838, "The Ophthalmic Surgical Patient Protection Act," was championed by the Pennsylvania Academy of Ophthalmology and strongly backed by the Pennsylvania Medical Society. It was promoted as legislation to insure patient safety and passed the PA House on June 22, 2011 by a vote of 133–68. The bill now goes to the Senate.
The truth is that this bill was nothing more than a Trojan horse that was intentionally misrepresented by its sponsors to gain broader support. Ostensibly intended to better define surgery in the Optometric Practice Act, it was, in reality, a thinly veiled attempt by one profession to exert control over another. The bill fails to define surgery; what it does define (and in minute detail) is what an OD cannot and perhaps even more ominously, can do. If passed by the PA Senate and signed into law by the Governor, it would not only redefine optometry in Pennsylvania, but also effectively freeze the profession in time and potentially set us back decades.
HB 838 is clearly contrary to the interests and well-being of the citizens of Pennsylvania and would deprive them of access to quality optometric care. It would also increase health-care costs in the state and should be seen for what it is: an unconscionable attempt at using the legislative process to advance an agenda of anti-competitive economic protectionism. There is absolutely no basis for any assertion that this will protect the public in any way.
There was a good deal of confusion about this bill even within Pennsylvania. This appears intentional as a part of the strategy used to maneuver this repugnant legislation through the legislature. I understand that the POA and AOA are currently working together to defeat this abomination in the Senate.
What we must learn from this is that we can never let our guard down. Organized ophthalmology and medicine continue to promote their self-serving agenda, interfering with other professions rather than seeking ways to improve care for their own patients. "
Last edited:
I will be waiting for your informed, learned comments (and your apology).
_______________________________________
In February, 2000, the "Workforce Study of Optometrists" was released by Abt Associates (55 Wheeler St., Cambridge, MA, 02138). The bound, final report is well over 100 pages and is replete with graphs, data charts and projections.
This study was funded by the AOA and the AOA fully cooperated with Abt Associates in gathering data and designing and supporting the survey instruments.
The study directors assumed that:
1. In 2000 there was a perfect match between supply and demand (no surplus in 2000)
2. The number of new graduates would remain constant in the future at about 1,100 (there are now 1,500 per year with more on the way)
The study predicted a sizable future surplus of ODs that would peak between 2013 and 2018.
Quoting from the Report:
The "AOA Workforce Committee" provided Abt Associates with "data, advice, criticism, and support throughout the Project. Members of the committee are Barry Barresi (current AOA Executive Director) OD.,Ph.D., Irving Bennett, O.D., Concetta Daurio, O.D.,Tony Distefano, O.D. Chair, Harvey Hanlen, O.D. and John Whitener O.D." (Washington AOA staff member).
This Report was therefore done with the full fiscal and staff support of the AOA and even though it assumed there was no surplus in 2000 and the number of graduates would remain the same in the future at 1,100 it still found there would soon be a sizable surplus.
This report should be available for the asking by any AOA member by contacting the AOA office in St. Louis.
Could not this report carrying the full endorsement of the AOA have been used to educate those considering a new school that the market would soon be flooded?
And why will more money be spent to do yet another study when the Abt report made clear statements about the future surplus when there 400 fewer graduates per year then there are now?
{The study sent proportinal numbers of surveys to AOA and non-AOA members. Since 60% went to AOA members we can deduce that in 2000, about 60% of licensed, practicing ODs were AOA members.}
{An earlier manpower study by the RAND Corp. also predicted future surpluses of ODs. This study was supported by the American Academy of Ophthalmology and, although asked to take part, the AOA refused to cooperate with RAND. The AOA then proceeded to contract with Abt associates for a manpower study. Thus two studies, independent of each other, predicted future surpluses. }
_______________________________________
In February, 2000, the "Workforce Study of Optometrists" was released by Abt Associates (55 Wheeler St., Cambridge, MA, 02138). The bound, final report is well over 100 pages and is replete with graphs, data charts and projections.
This study was funded by the AOA and the AOA fully cooperated with Abt Associates in gathering data and designing and supporting the survey instruments.
The study directors assumed that:
1. In 2000 there was a perfect match between supply and demand (no surplus in 2000)
2. The number of new graduates would remain constant in the future at about 1,100 (there are now 1,500 per year with more on the way)
The study predicted a sizable future surplus of ODs that would peak between 2013 and 2018.
Quoting from the Report:
The "AOA Workforce Committee" provided Abt Associates with "data, advice, criticism, and support throughout the Project. Members of the committee are Barry Barresi (current AOA Executive Director) OD.,Ph.D., Irving Bennett, O.D., Concetta Daurio, O.D.,Tony Distefano, O.D. Chair, Harvey Hanlen, O.D. and John Whitener O.D." (Washington AOA staff member).
This Report was therefore done with the full fiscal and staff support of the AOA and even though it assumed there was no surplus in 2000 and the number of graduates would remain the same in the future at 1,100 it still found there would soon be a sizable surplus.
This report should be available for the asking by any AOA member by contacting the AOA office in St. Louis.
Could not this report carrying the full endorsement of the AOA have been used to educate those considering a new school that the market would soon be flooded?
And why will more money be spent to do yet another study when the Abt report made clear statements about the future surplus when there 400 fewer graduates per year then there are now?
{The study sent proportinal numbers of surveys to AOA and non-AOA members. Since 60% went to AOA members we can deduce that in 2000, about 60% of licensed, practicing ODs were AOA members.}
{An earlier manpower study by the RAND Corp. also predicted future surpluses of ODs. This study was supported by the American Academy of Ophthalmology and, although asked to take part, the AOA refused to cooperate with RAND. The AOA then proceeded to contract with Abt associates for a manpower study. Thus two studies, independent of each other, predicted future surpluses. }
there has to be a reason the optometry academies are still pushing more optometry training despite the data. Maybe by creating more ODs they are hoping that there will be more money for surgical scope expansion even though some ODs will suffer in the meantime...sort of like if people are starving they are going to be more likely to go after expansion of rights...otherwise just doesn't make any sense for your leadership to do this to you guys. When the leadership in ophthalmology has tried to do stuff that the members didn't like, they got voted out the following year...
On a side note from the Pennsylvania post, are there any other medical subspecialties (chiropractors, dentists) who don't practice under the state medical board (as opposed to their own board)...I was under the impression only optometry tries to have its own board whereas all other specialties don't..correct me if I am wrong on this please.
I also appreciate tippytoe keeping it real so to speak about paying off politicians..because at the end of the day that is all the expansion of scope, contraction of scope, keeping scope the same stuff is all about...politicians getting money for their campaigns. When I was a resident one of the House members from Oklahoma had a corneal abrasion and was to be seen at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Not only did he not want to see the optometry student, ophthalmology resident, or ophthalmology or optometry attendings. He called the naval base commander because he demanded to be seen by the ophthalmology chairman even though he was off the base. Obvious that what he voted for his patients, he felt was not ok for him...but shows what money can do.. The ophthalmology chair came in to see him by the way...One of the optometry attendings (from Oklahoma) told me that at a fundraiser that house member had said "I believe in you guys and am voting for what is right, not for the money" yeah right...
On a side note from the Pennsylvania post, are there any other medical subspecialties (chiropractors, dentists) who don't practice under the state medical board (as opposed to their own board)...I was under the impression only optometry tries to have its own board whereas all other specialties don't..correct me if I am wrong on this please.
I also appreciate tippytoe keeping it real so to speak about paying off politicians..because at the end of the day that is all the expansion of scope, contraction of scope, keeping scope the same stuff is all about...politicians getting money for their campaigns. When I was a resident one of the House members from Oklahoma had a corneal abrasion and was to be seen at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Not only did he not want to see the optometry student, ophthalmology resident, or ophthalmology or optometry attendings. He called the naval base commander because he demanded to be seen by the ophthalmology chairman even though he was off the base. Obvious that what he voted for his patients, he felt was not ok for him...but shows what money can do.. The ophthalmology chair came in to see him by the way...One of the optometry attendings (from Oklahoma) told me that at a fundraiser that house member had said "I believe in you guys and am voting for what is right, not for the money" yeah right...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 12
My brain hurts sometimes when I read your posts, but in a good way - like "brain freeze" from a tasty frozen treat. I don't know why, but there is an odd satisfaction that I get from reading your enthusiastic comments which you wholeheartedly believe are heavy-hitting, but really only illuminate your astounding lack of understanding of the profession.
So, imemily, put down the 64 oz dorm mug, undo your hair curlers, log off your im account, and start learning about the profession which you have yet to even become acquainted with. But until then, keep posting, I love your enthusiasm.
Anyway, when asked so eloquently for hard data, I was going to post the Workforce Study of Optometrists info, but I saw that Tippytoe beat me to it and even referred to another study which I've never seen. I guess Alan White, PhD et al (authors of the Workforce Projections paper) were just "whining" too, right? It's interesting that no one has ever heard of this study, given that its primary funding source was the AOA. We hear from all the private schools about BS surveys touting optometry as the greatest thing since sliced bread (based on data fed to the survey teams by private OD programs and the AOA), but it's odd that this paper isn't handed out on tour day at your local OD program, isn't it? You'd think if the AOA had some great study about the robustness of the profession, it would be bragging about it up and down the street. This thing was buried under 47 billion web hits on google. There's all sorts of fancy tables with plenty of numbers to read through. They all point to the same thing=>the impending excess of ODs and its resultant effects on the profession. It actually gives some suggestions on how the excess might be avoided through actions of large professional bodies like the AOA, but, of course, none of those were implemented.
Also, it's "then" I'm all ears, not "than" I'm all ears (as in an if/then statement..........any bells ringing from english 101?). You should brush up on grammar as well, it's important when you're writing referral letters.
Last edited:
Okay now I'm just thinking you have some kind of serious man-crush.
Something tells me this is more your style
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 1
My brain hurts sometimes when I read your posts, but in a good way - like "brain freeze" from a tasty frozen treat. I don't know why, but there is an odd satisfaction that I get from reading your enthusiastic comments which you wholeheartedly believe are heavy-hitting, but really only illuminate your astounding lack of understanding of the profession.
So, imemily, put down the 64 oz dorm mug, undo your hair curlers, log off your im account, and start learning about the profession which you have yet to even become acquainted with. But until then, keep posting, I love your enthusiasm.
Anyway, when asked so eloquently for hard data, I was going to post the Workforce Study of Optometrists info, but I saw that Tippytoe beat me to it and even referred to another study which I've never seen. I guess Alan White, PhD et al (authors of the Workforce Projections paper) were just "whining" too, right? It's interesting that no one has ever heard of this study, given that its primary funding source was the AOA. We hear from all the private schools about BS surveys touting optometry as the greatest thing since sliced bread (based on data fed to the survey teams by private OD programs and the AOA), but it's odd that this paper isn't handed out on tour day at your local OD program, isn't it? You'd think if the AOA had some great study about the robustness of the profession, it would be bragging about it up and down the street. This thing was buried under 47 billion web hits on google. There's all sorts of fancy tables with plenty of numbers to read through. They all point to the same thing=>the impending excess of ODs and its resultant effects on the profession. It actually gives some suggestions on how the excess might be avoided through actions of large professional bodies like the AOA, but, of course, none of those were implemented.
Also, it's "then" I'm all ears, not "than" I'm all ears (as in an if/then statement..........any bells ringing from english 101?). You should brush up on grammar as well, it's important when you're writing referral letters.
The information posted by tippytoe does not adequately address why Optometry is a dying profession.
A proposed bill which has yet to be transitioned into law, and a minute surplus of ODs, is hardly going to kill the profession. It really isn't my fault that a couple of unsuccessful ODs try to blow it up and make it seem as if the sky is falling.
I realize you maybe having a slow day at the office, but you should seriously consider using your time more intelligently, rather than trolling on SDN.
With common sense prevailing, I would expect optometrists to know far more about the state of their field than optometry students and even more than pre-optometry students.
This situation is seen everywhere (starting to happen in Australia and New Zealand)
I think because of the way the National Health Service is set up in England, we are only left competing with each other and not ophthalmologists.
leaving a slight advantage to the situation in America. I'm not sitting there writing a referral hoping the consultant won't steal my patient.
We are still left with the 'too many graduates' situation, especially because of the locations of the schools.
I was once that excited pre-optometry student excited for a career in optometry. It has almost been a year, and sometimes I enjoy it, sometimes I loathe it. I couldn't see myself doing this for a lifetime, and I certainly wouldn't open up my own clinic because I don't have that much vested interest in primary care optometry. It pays the bills.
Anyway, any smart student would research their career including the positives and negatives. And one might say 'whiny' and another might say realistic.
PS. Imemily. Hilarity ensues.
This situation is seen everywhere (starting to happen in Australia and New Zealand)
I think because of the way the National Health Service is set up in England, we are only left competing with each other and not ophthalmologists.
leaving a slight advantage to the situation in America. I'm not sitting there writing a referral hoping the consultant won't steal my patient. We are still left with the 'too many graduates' situation, especially because of the locations of the schools.
I was once that excited pre-optometry student excited for a career in optometry. It has almost been a year, and sometimes I enjoy it, sometimes I loathe it. I couldn't see myself doing this for a lifetime, and I certainly wouldn't open up my own clinic because I don't have that much vested interest in primary care optometry. It pays the bills.
Anyway, any smart student would research their career including the positives and negatives. And one might say 'whiny' and another might say realistic.
PS. Imemily. Hilarity ensues.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 12
How predictable, you haven't even read the study, but you're already out discounting its findings. I figured as much. I'm not quite sure how you can make any intelligent claims about it until you've actually looked at it, but you're right, it does not adequately address why optometry is a dying profession. In truth, there are many more reasons than that study details so thank you for pointing that out. I've only read one of the studies so I can't even comment on the other. I tend to reserve criticism of research until I've actually read it, but I understand, not everyone shares that trait.
A minute surplus of ODs, though...really? Do you actually know what "minute" means? A minute surplus does not force ODs out of practice, it does not force ODs to have to relocate out of state against their will, and it does not cause ODs to have to settle for lower standards when choosing a practice mode. All of those were cited as predicted results of the "minute" surplus you seem to be so unwilling to accept. Remember, it was an AOA funded study so if it had any negativity at all, they must have found some pretty telling stuff. Few people on this forum would argue that there is anything, but a significant excess of ODs in the US right now. The point of contention is not with the excess, but with its effect on the profession. Your ignorance of that fact merely proves your ever-mounting cluelessness about the profession to which you are so blindly allegiant. You skimmed the facts that were presented to you and then got all up in a hussy, decided that you couldn't formulate a real rebuttal, and then figured you'd just say "Oh, ummmm......it's not adequate."
Optometry is not a "dying" profession, you're right about that. It's already pretty much "dead", people just haven't realized it yet since the body parts are going to live on for a decade, maybe two before the whole thing collapses in on itself like a dying star. But that's ok imemily, you'll be one of us in a few years, and you'll probably have paid considerably more than any OD on this forum did for their degree. As a bonus, if the trends continue, you'll be making even less. Good luck with those loans. Let me know how that works out for you. On the plus side, you'll have plenty of programs to apply to....don't worry that your grades and OAT scores aren't all that impressive. It probably won't matter since they'll let just about anyone in once there are too many spots to fill.
As a side note, the AOA, in cooperation with ASCO will be conducting another workforce study of optometrists to determine the "adequacy of the current supply of optometrists in the United States." It was announced in February of this year and will take 18 months to complete. Can't wait to see those numbers. I suppose there will be another "minute" excess of ODs. Don't plan on seeing the numbers easily once the paper is published, though. I'm sure the final draft will be well hidden just like the one from 2000. The AOA/ASCO wouldn't want anyone to know what the reality of the situation is, would they?
What they should do is not a workforce study, but a "Where new grads go when they graduate" study. I did my own with several programs and that was, in large part, how I ended up back on this forum. New grads are funneling into crappy jobs because they have nowhere else to go, making less money than they need to pay their loans, and ending up on IBR with mounting interest that can become crippling after a short time. But then, it must just be their fault since optometry is such a booming field.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 1
If you are practicing in a state where there are optometry schools, i.e. boston, philly, california, then, by nature, it will be TOUGH for you to become successful. That isn't Optometry's fault. You may have to relocate, but granted, you will be moving onto something better. The surplus of ODs might be specific to desirable locations, but, that is the same with any profession.
In terms of school debt, it is more than manageable. Even with a lower salary, one can still pay of their loans in a timely manner and continue to live a high quality life. Though if tuition was $200k I might reconsider Optometry, due to the interest that ensues. Financially, Optometry is still a good choice compared to other professions.
I think I need more evidence. A proposed bill that will never become law, and a 10 year old manpower study which has little bearing presently will NOT convince me that Optometry is a dying field.
Besides providing facts concerning the EXPANSION of the scope of Optometry, I will also link you to a governmental report which CLEARLY implies that Optometry is NOT a dying profession.
See: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos073.htm#outlook
"Employment of optometrists is expected to grow much faster than the average for all occupations through 2018, in response to the vision care needs of a growing and aging population. Excellent job opportunities are expected. "
Frankly, I am puzzled as to why you give Optometry negative connotations on SDN. I mean, you have NO evidence besides your own anecdotes, which have little to due with the majority of practitioners, since MOST practitioners are doing well or are happy. In fact, there was a recent graduate who posted here saying that he/she was content with Optometry.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,378
- Reaction score
- 391
I think there are a few red herrings here....
The Kentucky law was not designed to expand scope of practice. It was designed to that optometrists can control their own destiny without having to grovel before some medical board every time a new anti biotic comes on the market.
I also think that these BLS reports (they've looked the same for years by the way) are not helpful.
The notion that an "aging population" is going to somehow be a boon to optometry is a non-starter.
These patients have been presbyopic for years and as such, they've already been in the optometric pipeline for years. There is no evidence that an aging population will result in any significant increase in demand for OPTOMETRIC services. You might get a few office visits here and there for dry eyes, cataracts and diabetes followups but I just don't see any significant increase in demand for optometric services.
That old study that you are so quick to discount was an AOA study that projected an oversupply to the year 2038. Trust me, they knew about baby boomers 10 years ago so they're accounted for in that oversupply.
However what the study did NOT take into account was the opening of 5 new schools
AND
Enhanced technology (and delegation) that allows one optometrist to see more patients then they could previously.
So there should be even MORE of an oversupply that would have been predicted by that study.
Chiros, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists all have their own indpendent state licensing boards. The medical board believe they have ultimate authority over all of these independent professions (not sure why).
It is for this reason that the fued between Ophthalmology and optometry is all the more silly. Ophthalmology has no more right to try to tell optometry what we can do (which they do) any more than they do telling dentists how they can practice (which they don't).
I figure, in the end, the lawyers would sort it all out. If ODs begin doing something to hurt people through any procedure, it won't take long for the lawsuits to begin.
P.S. I am against ODs doing invasive eye surgery. Just no demand for it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,378
- Reaction score
- 391
It's not that. I believe 4 out of 5 of the proposed new schools have some affiliation with an osteopathic medical school. It's all about the money.
Optometry leadership in general does not care what optometrists in the trenches think or want. They simply cower behind the anti-trust excuse.
In Connecticut, all of those professions have their own independent licensing and disciplinary boards. They are all under the umbrealla of the department of public health in CT but they are independent.
Either that house member was a good friend of the chair or he's one of those idiots who thinks that the "chair" or the "dean" of a department is the smartest/best one when in fact they are the ones who are:
1) Most willing to put up with the BS of a job like that
2) The best fundraiser
3) The best administrator.
I think he just assumed "chairman" = best doctor...Not accurate but probably consistent with a lot of layman.
I think the only reason the medical boards want to "control" the other boards is expansion of priveleges control. In California dentists were trying to do nosejobs and the California board put the kybash on that. I think when a speciality feels that it is being infringed upon it will tend to get defensive...just as I am sure the AOA would if opticians really pushed to create their own board and then do all the refractions independant of any doctor...ODs would definitely not like it and would push back...
You are right about the lawsuits. My best friend from college does medical malpractice in Florida and he came to New York for a conference where he said there was a 1/2 day symposium on optometric and podiatric expansion of priveleges and how this was an untapped potential for malpractice attorneys. There was also a symposium on new procedures in general in medicine and target areas in medicine for attorneys to go after. He told me to not be surprised if ads for those sorts of things start hitting the airways in a couple months...
I think the only reason the medical boards want to "control" the other boards is expansion of priveleges control. In California dentists were trying to do nosejobs and the California board put the kybash on that. I think when a speciality feels that it is being infringed upon it will tend to get defensive...just as I am sure the AOA would if opticians really pushed to create their own board and then do all the refractions independant of any doctor...ODs would definitely not like it and would push back...
You are right about the lawsuits. My best friend from college does medical malpractice in Florida and he came to New York for a conference where he said there was a 1/2 day symposium on optometric and podiatric expansion of priveleges and how this was an untapped potential for malpractice attorneys. There was also a symposium on new procedures in general in medicine and target areas in medicine for attorneys to go after. He told me to not be surprised if ads for those sorts of things start hitting the airways in a couple months...
Last edited:
I'm always reminded of the saying: "Whenever anyone says it's not about the money; it's always about the money".
Our state dental board attempted to put the nix on malls set-ups doing teeth whitening. A lawsuit was brought forth and the dental board lost just this month (their argument was that it was practicing dentistry).
Just the way society is going I suppose. It's for this reason I foresee contact lenses becoming OTC........and it's a posibility (maybe remote) that opticians will be doing independent refractions in my lifetime.
Just takes one pissed off senator that was made mad when he had to have an eye exam when all he really wanted was new glasses to change the law for everyone. Unlikely? Yes. But stranger things have happened.
This is how CLs become a commodity. A legislator was upset he couldn't easily obtain his CL rx and, Ka-BAM, a new CL law comes in effect with an idiotic 8 hour verification period with all the responsibity on our side. But that's another story for another time.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 12
The surplus is worst in desirable locations, but it is not limited to them. Again, you're making assumptions that you shouldn't. You still haven't read the study have you?
More than manageable? MORE than manageable? My god, I think this is my favorite imemily comment of them all. "I, being someone who has no debt and has not had to live in the real world, believe that 200K in student loans coupled with a low income creates a more than manageable situation." I love it!
No, no, no, wait a minute. You've outdone yourself. THIS is now my favorite imemily comment. Boy, they just keep coming. The BLS? You honestly put your faith in the BLS survey? Why not just get it out of the way now and cite the Money Magazine and US News surveys as well? That's rich, no seriously, that is awesome. And you even posted a link - wow. Your cluelessness never fails to entertain. I read the same survey and bought into it and here I am.
Wait a minute, am I to understand that you are criticizing me for posting only anecdotal evidence (which is not true, by the way) and then you turn right around and post your own anecdotal evidence? Really, there's a recent grad who posted here saying he was content? I wonder if it was that guy who graduated in May and hasn't started paying his loans yet? Hmmmm.....
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 1
80k in income is more than plenty to pay off loans over a 10-15 year term. Not sure where you are getting low income from. You could even work at commercial with potential to earn a lot more, so paying back your tuition debt could be easier.$200k in loans is a lot, but, is manageable to pay off as an od.
It's sad, but, the government is more credible than the aoa. That's how bad the aoa is, as such, the study you are talking about holds little value. I'm not saying the bls report is accurate, but it at least doesn't imply that optometry is a dying profession, like you so religiously believe.
I am disappointed...I thought I was going to see a post or two about why optometry is on the downfall, backed up with facts or data of course, but
instead I was presented with the same old, yet childish, whining.
It's sad, but, the government is more credible than the aoa. That's how bad the aoa is, as such, the study you are talking about holds little value. I'm not saying the bls report is accurate, but it at least doesn't imply that optometry is a dying profession, like you so religiously believe.
I am disappointed...I thought I was going to see a post or two about why optometry is on the downfall, backed up with facts or data of course, but
instead I was presented with the same old, yet childish, whining.
200K in loans is so easy to pay off in 10-15 years if you don't have any other financial obligations.
80K/year is a great salary with no other financial obligations.
And you don't need "hard facts" to show that at all.
80K/year is a great salary with no other financial obligations.
And you don't need "hard facts" to show that at all.
I am an eye surgeon but I was going to throw in two cents on what some of the ODs are saying in terms of income etc.. I think 80K is way low for an optometrist to be paid even without debts. Just like in medicine...I went to NYU for undergraduate. I actually worked on wall st for two years before medical school and made six figures (around 140- 150k) before going to medical school. The key thing is to compare the income of optometrists to others with the same intelligience, drive, smarts etc.. I believe 80K is much too low for that. Just like in medicine. My friends who went to wall st and law now are earning upwards of 500K-700K. As a comparison medicine doesn't offer that level and it too is underpaid. If optometrists are getting 80K that is nowhere near what they should be paid. If you want the brightest and most driven people to join a profession you have to pay them..We live in America and that is how it works...To make 80K after 4 years of graduate work in my mind is totally not worth it and it will be hard to recruit the brightest and best people unless you pay them. Who is going to do that when they can be like my surgery scheduler...not go to college, or graduate school and get 75K without any loans? Totally bogus. Studies have shown that law has eclipsed medicine in terms of income vs opportunity cost of lost income during school etc..
As for 200K easy to pay off in 10-15 years..lets look at that more closely. Lets assume that you get 5K to hand every month...assuming the tax rate goes down, you are telling me you will be able to live off of 3500K a month assuming a 1500 a month payment. Lets now assume you put 1000 away for your 401K so you have 400K in savings when you retire (Which isnt that much considering one needs 225K for health care expenses after age 65 on average), you now have 2500K to hand each month..which is the take home for someone getting about 40K a year for 10-15 years after graduating graduate school. If you think that is worth it that is great but not for me personally. If your alternate job was going to be an ophthalmic technician maybe ok but if you were going to go to law school instead its a no brainer. From those perspectives I understand what the optometrists are saying here. Sure you can compare the salary of an optom or MD to a guy pumping gas or working at a TJmax but it isn't the same population of people and it isn't a fair comparison. You have to compare professionals to professionals. Sort of like you have someone who has the ability to be Lebron James in the NBA and you say..well he made the high school basketball team..and most people cant do that so we should be happy...not really.
As for 200K easy to pay off in 10-15 years..lets look at that more closely. Lets assume that you get 5K to hand every month...assuming the tax rate goes down, you are telling me you will be able to live off of 3500K a month assuming a 1500 a month payment. Lets now assume you put 1000 away for your 401K so you have 400K in savings when you retire (Which isnt that much considering one needs 225K for health care expenses after age 65 on average), you now have 2500K to hand each month..which is the take home for someone getting about 40K a year for 10-15 years after graduating graduate school. If you think that is worth it that is great but not for me personally. If your alternate job was going to be an ophthalmic technician maybe ok but if you were going to go to law school instead its a no brainer. From those perspectives I understand what the optometrists are saying here. Sure you can compare the salary of an optom or MD to a guy pumping gas or working at a TJmax but it isn't the same population of people and it isn't a fair comparison. You have to compare professionals to professionals. Sort of like you have someone who has the ability to be Lebron James in the NBA and you say..well he made the high school basketball team..and most people cant do that so we should be happy...not really.
Last edited:
imemily,
Please provide us of the type facts you are seeking.
Is it facts as in: "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise? Prove?
Or is it, "So how long have you been beating your wife?"
Here are some more "make believe" facts for you......if you believe such rags as Review of Optometry. I know their numbers are not verfied by the CIA, the Pope and the Joints Chief of Staff.......but maybe they are 'fact- enough' for you.
I'm guessing not. Remember it is the trend, not the actual current numbers we are looking at.
http://www.revoptom.com/content/d/income_survey/c/22520/
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 706
- Reaction score
- 4
That's the sad part. That the recruitment will be sub par individuals or very angry graduates who are grossing $80K and owe $150-200K!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 12
Is that all you're capable of saying to defend your point? "Stop whining?" Is that really all you can come up with to back your claims? You have no data, no experience, and not even credible anecdotal evidence to support what you say. All you have is your devout cluelessness and your catch phrase of "stop whining." It's difficult to even carry on this little back-and-forth thing because you don't ever respond with actual information, you just whine about what you call "whining." Instead of mindlessly deflecting the information that was presented to you, why don't you actually read through it and formulate an intelligent arguement that might work against it?
It's a good thing you're not persuing a career in law.......
******I can see it now......let's all picture the set of the movie "My Cousin Vinny." The judge was that guy from the Munsters, Judge Haller. The prosecutor was Mr. Trotter. And imemily will be the defense attorney. ******
(There's a light rustling of paperwork on the bench as the judge prepares to hear the closing statements. Six ceiling fans turn relentlessly above as onlookers adjust their collars. The Alabama heat and humidity hangs in the air like an intangible effluvium.....)
Prosecutor Trotter: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have shown with CON-crete evidence, that the defendant committed this heinous crime (no courtroom drama would be complete without the word "heinous" somewhere in the dialouge.) The bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints, the video of the defendant entering the victim's home just before the time of death, the witness who was hiding in the closet and saw the whole crime from beginning to end, and the audiotape in which the defendant is heard stating "I murdered the victim, I did it, it was me, woohoooo!!" over and over. It all adds up to a conviction. Even the tire treads leaving the victim's home matched the defendant's tires such that they were I-(hand clap)-dentical! With that said, the prosecution rests.
Judge: Okay, it's time for the defense's closing statement. Counselor imemily, are you ready?.............HemHemHem.....counselor imemily, are you ready for the closing statement?
Defense (imemily): Oh, sorry judge, I was instant messaging one of my sorority sisters about the new Bachelorette episode on my new iPhone. My parents got it for me and they pay my bill so I can instant message as much as I want, it's great! Hold on a sec (sip 'n swallow some Mountain Dew from a 64 oz plastic mug) I'm ready now. Phew! I was up all night cramming for my women's studies final so I'm a little beat.
Judge Haller: Thank you. You may proceed.
Defense (imemily): Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution just keeps whining. I mean, like all they did was whine about the knife, the blood, the fingerprints, the audiotapes, the video tapes, and then the tire tread marks. Like OMG, what the heck was that about? Whine, whine whine. Whiny, whine, whine. .........................Okay, the defense rests. Yeah - high five! Who's with me?? C'mon now.......anyone? .......anyone at all?
Jury: ......Dead silence and some obvious confused facial expressions. An older gal on the jury removes the tissue from beneath her wrist watch and dabs her nose as the faint ticking of a gentleman's pocket watch grows louder and and louder.....
Defendant: Damn! I should have asked for that Italian guy with the purple suit.....
So, imemily, when you decide to post some actual information that counters the claims that are supported by data, then maybe you'll get a valid response. Until then, enjoy the SDN movie network.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 1
Personally, I am not seeking/expecting, facts from grumpy, unsatisfied and unprofessional ODs, since there are NO legitimate facts to begin with. However, I would consider your opinions regarding the state of Optometry, credible, if they were backed up by facts. Also, I don't like trolls, especially on SDN.
Most of the "evidence" posted on here consists of a proposed law, which will never pass, and a 10 year old study which mentions oversupply peaking between 2013-2018. That is indeed worrisome, but far from being the cause of Optometry's demise. Many other professions have had problems in the past which where resolved, and if Optometry ever faces a problem, then I am more than certain that the issues will be corrected, given, the past and current expansion of Optometry.
Take for example dentistry, which had an oversupply issue in the past but managed to correct the problem by shutting down schools. Optometry is different, but the same principles apply.
While the review of Optometry link described the trends in incomes of ODs, it failed to address if and why Optometry is a dying profession, as you so eloquently have tried to convey. In fact, that link was actually more pro-optometry, since lower level incomes were due to the economy and not a fault of the profession.
Come on, you can do much better! (sarcasm)
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 12
imemily, where is YOUR data that supports a booming optometry profession? All anyone ever gets out of you is whining about whining. No facts, no figures, just hot air and complaining about other people's complaints. If you're so well-read on the state of optometry, why don't you cite some data which point to a thriving profession? Where are those data? So, c'mon - YOU can do much better.
I should also point out yet another shortcoming in your understanding of the situation. That AOA did not conduct the 2000 workforce projection study, they assisted and were the primary funders. There's a difference. But you go ahead and rely on what Uncle Sam says in the BLS, all of that data is rock solid and very current
Finally, there's a difference between trolling and responding to "hot air" with more "hot air." If you want real responses, post some real thoughts with some real insight. If you'll read through my posts, you'll see that the level of insight and maturity matches the posts to which I am responding. Funny how yours bring out my sophomoric side. Try the insight thing sometime, you might be surprised what you can come up with.
Last edited:
Hey, your really starting to hurt my feelings calling me a loser OD.
Once again before I start to completely ignore your 15 year old, Brittany Spears persona-- Last chance: What type of facts would you like?
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 55
Sidestepping from the imemily drama for a second,
what should/can we do about this problem?
Since the 200k has already been invested in the Titanic, what are we supposed to do besides being optimistic and trying to affect the profession in a positive way?
what should/can we do about this problem?
Since the 200k has already been invested in the Titanic, what are we supposed to do besides being optimistic and trying to affect the profession in a positive way?
- Status
