Rc score 200

OPTICIAN21

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Hello Everyone: I just finished taking the OAT and I cant believe I got a 200 on RC. The breakdown was bio 290, Gen Chem 320, Orgo 310, physics 310 QR 300. TS 310 AA 290 . I really don't know what to do. I was hoping to start this year. I found a thread on here with one other person having the same problem with the RC. If anyone has experienced something like this or close to it and has still has gotten accepted please leave me feedback. or if you heard of anyone getting in please let me know. any advice really would be appreciated. Thank you

Members don't see this ad.
 
Hello Everyone: I just finished taking the OAT and I cant believe I got a 200 on RC. The breakdown was bio 290, Gen Chem 320, Orgo 310, physics 310 QR 300. TS 310 AA 290 . I really don't know what to do. I was hoping to start this year. I found a thread on here with one other person having the same problem with the RC. If anyone has experienced something like this or close to it and has still has gotten accepted please leave me feedback. or if you heard of anyone getting in please let me know. any advice really would be appreciated. Thank you
your best bet is to probably retake it. I dont know if you'll be able to make it in on time this cycle, so maybe you should take some time and do a lot of practice tests, etc and make it in early next cycle. your other scores arent bad, but it wouldnt hurt to improve them. I know some schools accept RCs lower than 300, but i think yours is a bit too low...
 
I agree with Sportsdude. You're probably going to need to retake the OAT to improve your RC score. I would contact the schools that you're planning to apply to and ask for their suggestions.
 
Even if your GPA/LOR/EC are terrific and get an interview...the schools are more than likely to ask you to retake the OATs. There is a 3 months in between period before you are allowed to retake, so some schools might not accept it. I would call the school and ask them specifically about your situation.

Best of Luck! :thumbup:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Even if your GPA/LOR/EC are terrific and get an interview...the schools are more than likely to ask you to retake the OATs. There is a 3 months in between period before you are allowed to retake, so some schools might not accept it. I would call the school and ask them specifically about your situation.

Best of Luck! :thumbup:
oh yeah, i forgot the wait period is 90 days. i thought it was 30. in that case, you probably have to reapply next cycle. the good thing is that you have centralized apps!
 
How did you think you did on the RC?

There have been people on here who asked for a regrade; if you really feel it is inaccurate I would look into that and possibly save you a year of waiting.

However, since your overall scores aren't too great next cycle probably is your best bet. Although a lot of people aren't big fans of Kaplan, maybe taking a Kaplan course would really benefit you.
 
I don't think i did that bad. Anyways, iM NOT GIVING UP HOPE. iM GOING TO TRY TO GET IN THIS YEAR!
 
I don't think i did that bad. Anyways, iM NOT GIVING UP HOPE. iM GOING TO TRY TO GET IN THIS YEAR!

Wait are you going to try to get in this year?? I honestly would not do that with those scores..mainly b/c any school you apply to is at the tail end of their application cycle and only really strong candidates can get in now. Not that you aren't strong in other areas..I dont know about that..but most schools won't accept a RC under 300...and definately not at the end of the cycle. Your best bet is to retake it and do really well...then you can be a strong applicant at the beginning of next years cycle..which is a double positive for you.

I just interviewed at new york last week with a AA360 TS370 and they told me that if I'd been there three months ago I'd be in...but since I applied so late (I had my app in in december) my chances were reduced...so thats why I say all this..
 
I don't think i did that bad. Anyways, iM NOT GIVING UP HOPE. iM GOING TO TRY TO GET IN THIS YEAR!

There is being optimistic and there is being realistic. I think in this case, you don't have a realistic chance at getting in this year, especially with the scores that you have. Your RC is the lowest it can possibly be, and the rest of your section scores are average at best. You really need to have above the 50th percentile (300) for your AA to have a chance.
 
Where do you want to go?
Have you contacted the admissions office of those schools?


First, I would like to thank to all of you who have been giving me some of your input. I really want all of you to know that i am realistic and optimistic. I contacted all of the admissions office to the schools that i applied to. IAUPR being one of them said that my AA 290 was good enough to get in along with my experience. So I do have a chance of getting in this year. and that is where most of my optimism comes from. I definitely hear were you folks are coming from! It is late in the application process and i might not get in but there is a chance that i may.
There are three new schools that im sure all of you know about. I will also try to get in there. :shrug:
 
I contacted all of the admissions office to the schools that i applied to. IAUPR being one of them said that my AA 290 was good enough to get in along with my experience. So I do have a chance of getting in this year. and that is where most of my optimism comes from.

oh yah, IAUPR. sorry, i was under the assumption you wanted to go to a legitimate optometry school.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Oceanblue392, I don't understand why you are being so rude. IAUPR is going to make my dream come true. Why do you have to bash it. Im not going to make this thread about the school in IAUPR and its legitimacy. :slap:
 
Optician,
Ignore the naysayers...if you've contacted IAUPR, and they feel that you have a legitimate chance with their school, and you're willing to go there, then who's to stop you? I have a friend who graduated from IAUPR several years ago, and now he's successfully practicing in So Calif. No matter what school you go to, you're going to have to work hard...you're goal is to earn the OD title, and pass the boards. When you're an OD, most of your patients are NOT going to care where you graduated from...all they care is can you treat their problem and accept their insurance plan. Good luck with whatever you decide.
 
Oceanblue392, I don't understand why you are being so rude. IAUPR is going to make my dream come true. Why do you have to bash it. Im not going to make this thread about the school in IAUPR and its legitimacy. :slap:

Look, I'm all for you trying to make your dream come true. If you say optometry is your dream, then you have to think it through honestly. It seems like all you are thinking of is the end game, ei being a practicing optometrist, and you are willing to get there by any means possible - even if it means going to school in puerto rico, a school that accepts all the other school's rejects and drop outs. I think its a general consensus that IAUPR is a last resort school. If optometry is truly your dream, dont you want to go to a better school and get a better education? You've only taken the OAT once, you can take it again. With some hard work, you'll improve your scores.


In my opinion, I dont think any of the 3 new schools would accept you based on your OAT. Theyre trying to get accredited.
 
Last edited:
Wait are you going to try to get in this year?? I honestly would not do that with those scores..mainly b/c any school you apply to is at the tail end of their application cycle and only really strong candidates can get in now. Not that you aren't strong in other areas..I dont know about that..but most schools won't accept a RC under 300...and definitely not at the end of the cycle. Your best bet is to retake it and do really well...then you can be a strong applicant at the beginning of next years cycle..which is a double positive for you.

I just interviewed at new york last week with a AA360 TS370 and they told me that if I'd been there three months ago I'd be in...but since I applied so late (I had my app in in december) my chances were reduced...so thats why I say all this..


Thanks Kel1104, I hear ya. I just might do that. Good Luck with you. Your scores ROCK!;)
 
Optician,
Ignore the naysayers...if you've contacted IAUPR, and they feel that you have a legitimate chance with their school, and you're willing to go there, then who's to stop you? I have a friend who graduated from IAUPR several years ago, and now he's successfully practicing in So Calif. No matter what school you go to, you're going to have to work hard...you're goal is to earn the OD title, and pass the boards. When you're an OD, most of your patients are NOT going to care where you graduated from...all they care is can you treat their problem and accept their insurance plan. Good luck with whatever you decide.


Thanks Absolute Vision, i totally agree with everything you say. :)
 
Hey Optician21,
There ARE people going to IAUPR who are VERY qualified, so don't be discouraged. Everyone has their own reasons for why they choose to go there, just get ready to study all night and day! haha. And for those of you who judge other schools without experiencing it...I'd watch my words carefully because you just might become that DROP-OUT.
 
I would really recommend making a concerted effort to study and improve your score - and apply next year. I'm sure you realize this - but 200 is the lowest possible score you can get. Any school that accepts a score that low is taking a huge academic risk. And they aren't doing you any favors.

Schools look at the RC score to know if you'll be able to keep up with the required amount of reading in optometry school - would it take someone 4 hours to get the same amount of meaning out of a chapter/article/whatever that someone else could get in 1 hour? A 200 would indicate that you would have to put in so much effort just to understand what you are reading that your ability to learn the material would be compromised.

If that score doesn't reflect your true ability - then you need to retake and show what you can do - which given the time line means you'll have to apply next year anyway. If that score is a true reflection of your ability, you need to really work on improving your reading comprehension skills - not for the sake of the test, but for the sake of your academic future.

Good luck. If optometry is what you really want to do, you have your work cut out for you.
 
First, I would like to thank to all of you who have been giving me some of your input. I really want all of you to know that i am realistic and optimistic. I contacted all of the admissions office to the schools that i applied to. IAUPR being one of them said that my AA 290 was good enough to get in along with my experience. So I do have a chance of getting in this year. and that is where most of my optimism comes from. I definitely hear were you folks are coming from! It is late in the application process and i might not get in but there is a chance that i may.
There are three new schools that im sure all of you know about. I will also try to get in there. :shrug:

To me, this is very disconcerting that a person with a 290 could be admitted to ANY school of optometry.

On the OAT, 300 is the AVERAGE. 290 is BELOW average. We should not be admitting average students much less students who score BELOW average.

A 200 on any section is almost an impossibility for any reason other than entering the answers correctly. You should be able to get 200 with simple random guessing.

I would suggest you retake the test. The RC is probably some weird situation but you should really try to improve the rest of your score.
 
To me, this is very disconcerting that a person with a 290 could be admitted to ANY school of optometry.

On the OAT, 300 is the AVERAGE. 290 is BELOW average. We should not be admitting average students much less students who score BELOW average.

A 200 on any section is almost an impossibility for any reason other than entering the answers correctly. You should be able to get 200 with simple random guessing.

I would suggest you retake the test. The RC is probably some weird situation but you should really try to improve the rest of your score.
i was admitted to school with two scores below 300. this is because i have yet to take some pre reqs, and it hurt my scores in those subjects. i believe that the academic history of a student tells much more than a 4 hour test that someone can study for for months.
 
i was admitted to school with two scores below 300. this is because i have yet to take some pre reqs, and it hurt my scores in those subjects. i believe that the academic history of a student tells much more than a 4 hour test that someone can study for for months.

so youre telling me this guy has never read anything in his life before?
 
i was admitted to school with two scores below 300. this is because i have yet to take some pre reqs, and it hurt my scores in those subjects. i believe that the academic history of a student tells much more than a 4 hour test that someone can study for for months.

Academic history is important - but the OAT is the only standardized way to judge all applicants on a level playing field. And a score just below 300 is different than a score you can get just by showing up and putting your name on the test.

And 3 years after getting into school - you'll study months (or weeks) for another standardized test that determines whether you get your license or not. Sure, your performance in optometry school might mean a little more - but if you can't pass boards - that GPA will do nothing for you.
 
Not to make excuses, but some people do suffer from text anxiety. I also believe standardized tests are not good indicators of someone's true potential ie; the SATs and the many flaws in their scoring system. But does that mean people who got above 300 on RC sections are good guessers or thorough readers? I don't see the difference or how an adcom can differentiate the two (given no background information). Sounds more like luck than intellect, therefore, not a very useful method in selecting qualified candidates for a program. However, though the system is flawed, I understand schools need SOME sort of method for admission. But let's not prance around thinking we're geniuses because we got above par scores on the OATs nor complete *****s for receiving less than average marks.
 
Not to make excuses, but some people do suffer from text anxiety. I also believe standardized tests are not good indicators of someone's true potential ie; the SATs and the many flaws in their scoring system. But does that mean people who got above 300 on RC sections are good guessers or thorough readers? I don't see the difference or how an adcom can differentiate the two (given no background information). Sounds more like luck than intellect, therefore, not a very useful method in selecting qualified candidates for a program. However, though the system is flawed, I understand schools need SOME sort of method for admission. But let's not prance around thinking we're geniuses because we got above par scores on the OATs nor complete *****s for receiving less than average marks.

I agree with your assessment of the OAT. But given its limitations, the score in question is a 200 in Reading comprehension. Thats the lowest score possible. Based to the OPTED sample OAT's scoring guide, that roughly corresponds to getting anywhere between ZERO and 10 questions correct out of 40 (OPTED sample OAT has 1 passage, 15 questions while the actual OAT has 40 questions. The range for a 200 on RC in the sample OAT is between 0-4 correct.). That means AT BEST, optician21 got ~ 25% of the questions correct. That corresponds to answering each question RANDOMLY (4 possible answer in each multiple choice question).

Sure, if he had testing anxiety thats definitely a concern, but that should also raise a red flag for the optometry school - wouldnt he have some of that same anxiety taking tests for classes as well as for the NBEOs? If testing anxiety is the case optician21 should take the OAT again to show that he can succeed in a testing environment.
 
Not to make excuses, but some people do suffer from text anxiety. I also believe standardized tests are not good indicators of someone's true potential ie; the SATs and the many flaws in their scoring system. But does that mean people who got above 300 on RC sections are good guessers or thorough readers? I don't see the difference or how an adcom can differentiate the two (given no background information). Sounds more like luck than intellect, therefore, not a very useful method in selecting qualified candidates for a program. However, though the system is flawed, I understand schools need SOME sort of method for admission. But let's not prance around thinking we're geniuses because we got above par scores on the OATs nor complete *****s for receiving less than average marks.

The fact that some people suffer from test anxiety is immaterial. If you suffer from test anxiety, and as such can't perform well on tests, then maybe, you don't get to be an optometrist.

I suffer from poor coordination. That doesn't mean I can demand to join the New York City Ballet Company.

I also disagree that these tests aren't a good measure of someone's intellect or potential. They are designed specifically to measure exactly that. Yes, it's conceivable that someone can get lucky on any given day but if you have that person take the test 10 times, their scores on 9 out of 10 are going to be an accurate reflection of their abilities.

Anyone can get lucky and have a good day. Anyone can get unlucky and have a bad day. But if you consistenly perform poorly, then you simply don't got it. Blaming "test anxiety" is a lame excuse for poor performance.
 
There is a major difference between what a test is designed to measure versus what the test truly is measuring. And sorry, I have yet to learn of any standardized test that has fully ironed all the wrinkles. Secondly, who is going to pay to take the OAT 10 times to test the validity of the test? (though I am sure this would be an interesting experiment).

Hey, test anxiety is something that is out there and true. All I am simply saying is that it have contributed to a degree of "poor performance." My argument was not to allow someone into a program because they suffer from text anxiety. The argument is there needs to be a better way to measure "potential" in an academically rigorous program and the OAT does not meet the criteria, IMHO. So to tell someone they are capable or not capable of completing a program based on OAT scores does not seem valid to me.
 
Not to make excuses, but some people do suffer from text anxiety. I also believe standardized tests are not good indicators of someone's true potential ie; the SATs and the many flaws in their scoring system. But does that mean people who got above 300 on RC sections are good guessers or thorough readers? I don't see the difference or how an adcom can differentiate the two (given no background information). Sounds more like luck than intellect, therefore, not a very useful method in selecting qualified candidates for a program. However, though the system is flawed, I understand schools need SOME sort of method for admission. But let's not prance around thinking we're geniuses because we got above par scores on the OATs nor complete *****s for receiving less than average marks.
I need to clarify my previous statement. To specify, when I mean below 300 I don't mean a score of 200 (which I should have thought about because of the thread :oops:). I mean a score a little below 300 is insignificant and can be compensated by a strong academic history. As for the score of 200, that's something that should not even be debated because it falls way beyond any type of acceptable range.
As for test anxiety, I have to disagree that such anxiety will cause a person who is knowledgeable in a particular subject to do so poorly on an exam. Yes, I have gotten stressed before exams, and I'm sure everyone else has too. There's a difference between knowing and not knowing your stuff. If you know your stuff, a little stress and anxiousness will not cloud your judgment and make you forget everything. The people who suffer from test anxiety like that, IMO, are familiar with a particular subject but don't know it well enough to overcome the pressure on test day.
With that said, however, I do believe there are flaws in tests as well, as nothing is perfect. The extreme scores that we are arguing are nothing to consider; a 400 means you know your stuff, a 200 doesnt. Period.
However, the middle ranges are indeed where applicants need to be looked at more in depth. Maybe some people got lucky, maybe some had a bad day, who knows. That's where everything else comes in.
 
I suggest that more research goes into making the OAT fair and unbiased. Until then, the admission committees should focus more on an individuals experience and passion for the career. Then assess their undergraduate grades accordingly.
 
I suggest that more research goes into making the OAT fair and unbiased. Until then, the admission committees should focus more on an individuals experience and passion for the career. Then assess their undergraduate grades accordingly.

I'm all for more research into making the OAT fair and unbiased, but until then, adcoms only have so much to go on. GPA and OATs and passion, personality, experience, etc are all evaluated. Unfortunately, they can't overcome a 200 OAT, thus my entire reason for posting in this thread - that the OP needs to retake the test and apply next year. I had no intention of getting a philosophical debate on the shortcomings of standardized tests. :rolleyes:
 
Unfortunately, they can't overcome a 200 OAT, thus my entire reason for posting in this thread - that the OP needs to retake the test and apply next year. I had no intention of getting a philosophical debate on the shortcomings of standardized tests. :rolleyes:

But IAUPR is his DREAM!!!

I think the REALLY scary part is this:
How did you think you did on the RC?
I don't think i did that bad.

This is the possible future of optometry? Am I the only one scared?
 
Well to conclude my point, I too agree a 200 is low and should require retaking. I also am glad to hear others feel the OAT is flawed and inaccurate. I just wish people would get off their freaking high horses and stop putting down others as a means to compensate for their own shortcomings. Unfortunately, after all this bickering and debating between ourselves, when we step away into the reality of the profession......it sadly is not exactly what we thought it would be. So I just don't understand the superiority complexes in the optometric field because in the end IT DOES NOT MATTER.
 
I suggest that more research goes into making the OAT fair and unbiased. Until then, the admission committees should focus more on an individuals experience and passion for the career. Then assess their undergraduate grades accordingly.

I'm always very leery of postings like this.

1) What do you know of the history of the OAT, and what do you know of the research that went into designing it?
2) In what way do you feel that it is not fair or is biased?

The notion that admission committees should be disregarding the OAT and focussing on "experience" and "passion" before considering undergraduate grades is to me, ridiculous and a troubling trend that I see in more and more students each day. That is, that "passion" matters more than "performance."

"Oh, it's ok that he bombed that admission test or drank his way through the first two years of college on his way to a 2.1 GPA. He's got "passion." He wants to be an eye doctor really really really really really badly and he spent 1000 hours shadowing his OD."

Cmon. Let's be serious now. Academics (like all of life) is a performance business.
 
I suggest that more research goes into making the OAT fair and unbiased.

I agree. The OAT is blatantly biased.

They are biased towards those who know the material, the core science and mathematics that demonstrate the minimum knowledge one should possess before enterring an OD program.

They are biased towards those who prepare for the exams. We all realize the schools emphasis on the exams, whether we like it or not. If this is something we really want to make happen, hell yes you'll study for months to maximize your score, display your competency.

Until then, the admission committees should focus more on an individuals experience and passion for the career. Then assess their undergraduate grades accordingly.
You want to remove bias, but then you say they should focus on "passion" for the career? What sort of objective measurements are there for passion?
 
You guys are misconstruing what I said and analyzing it to the point where you guys sound ridiculous. First off, by "passion" I don't mean accept the crackhead down the street who has never taken a class but wants to pursue optometry since he was 4 months old. I meant, someone who may not have stellar grades (ie; 4.0 GPA and 400TS/AA) but can show and demonstrate enough "passion" to have an extensive background in the optometric/ophthalmic field. I know so many students who HAD to shadow an optometrist for like a week just so they could COMPLETE their admissions applications. Sadly enough, if they have solid GPAs then they get into any school in a heartbeat. And frankly, to me that is JUST as alarming and detrimental to the optometric career as someone who got in with a 2.5GPA and below avergae OAT scores. At the end, aren't you private practice ODs out there continually bashing those commerical ODs for allowing themselves to be dicatated by large corporations? Hmm...if these people had more passion for the career....would they not have more of a committment to the betterment of their professional image and not settle for anything less. So, that is why I feel there should be a stricter criteria for experience in the field and not solely based on steller grades and competitive OAT scores. A great candidate should truly possesses an interest in the career and have the background experience to prove it. Now if you possess a sincere interest and you have the brains, GREAT! Of course, acceptance should not be based on just passion, I do believe grades are important too.

I've worked with so many ODs throughout my 6+ years in the ophthalmic and optometric field and I CANNOT tell you how many of them dread their jobs. It really is sad and I often wonder if they knew what they were getting into. The future of this career will only improve when more passionate ODs are out there supporting the AOA and other legislative organizations in making progressive movements towards optometry.

But this will never happen until the bitter rivalries between schools and putting each other down ceases to exist. So until then, optometry has a gloomy road ahead of itself, as I see it.

As far as the OAT goes, I am going to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
But IAUPR is his DREAM!!!

I think the REALLY scary part is this:



This is the possible future of optometry? Am I the only one scared?

If IUAPR is where he wants to go - that doesn't really hurt you one way or the other so no need to trash talk.
 
I agree. The OAT is blatantly biased.

They are biased towards those who know the material, the core science and mathematics that demonstrate the minimum knowledge one should possess before enterring an OD program.

:laugh:

You guys are misconstruing what I said and analyzing it to the point where you guys sound ridiculous. First off, by "passion" I don't mean accept the crackhead down the street who has never taken a class but wants to pursue optometry since he was 4 months old. I meant, someone who may not have stellar grades (ie; 4.0 GPA and 400TS/AA) but can show and demonstrate enough "passion" to have an extensive background in the optometric/ophthalmic field. I know so many students who HAD to shadow an optometrist for like a week just so they could COMPLETE their admissions applications. Sadly enough, if they have solid GPAs then they get into any school in a heartbeat. And frankly, to me that is JUST as alarming and detrimental to the optometric career as someone who got in with a 2.5GPA and below avergae OAT scores. At the end, aren't you private practice ODs out there continually bashing those commerical ODs for allowing themselves to be dicatated by large corporations? Hmm...if these people had more passion for the career....would they not have more of a committment to the betterment of their professional image and not settle for anything less. So, that is why I feel there should be a stricter criteria for experience in the field and not solely based on steller grades and competitive OAT scores. A great candidate should truly possesses an interest in the career and have the background experience to prove it. Now if you possess a sincere interest and you have the brains, GREAT! Of course, acceptance should not be based on just passion, I do believe grades are important too.

I've worked with so many ODs throughout my 6+ years in the ophthalmic and optometric field and I CANNOT tell you how many of them dread their jobs. It really is sad and I often wonder if they knew what they were getting into. The future of this career will only improve when more passionate ODs are out there supporting the AOA and other legislative organizations in making progressive movements towards optometry.

But this will never happen until the bitter rivalries between schools and putting each other down ceases to exist. So until then, optometry has a gloomy road ahead of itself, as I see it.

As far as the OAT goes, I am going to agree to disagree.

Honestly, I get where you're coming from, but considering the fact that roughly 50% of applicants are accepted somewhere, I personally don't think the standards are high enough to begin with.
 
You guys are misconstruing what I said and analyzing it to the point where you guys sound ridiculous. First off, by "passion" I don't mean accept the crackhead down the street who has never taken a class but wants to pursue optometry since he was 4 months old. I meant, someone who may not have stellar grades (ie; 4.0 GPA and 400TS/AA) but can show and demonstrate enough "passion" to have an extensive background in the optometric/ophthalmic field. I know so many students who HAD to shadow an optometrist for like a week just so they could COMPLETE their admissions applications. Sadly enough, if they have solid GPAs then they get into any school in a heartbeat. And frankly, to me that is JUST as alarming and detrimental to the optometric career as someone who got in with a 2.5GPA and below avergae OAT scores. At the end, aren't you private practice ODs out there continually bashing those commerical ODs for allowing themselves to be dicatated by large corporations? Hmm...if these people had more passion for the career....would they not have more of a committment to the betterment of their professional image and not settle for anything less. So, that is why I feel there should be a stricter criteria for experience in the field and not solely based on steller grades and competitive OAT scores. A great candidate should truly possesses an interest in the career and have the background experience to prove it. Now if you possess a sincere interest and you have the brains, GREAT! Of course, acceptance should not be based on just passion, I do believe grades are important too.

But why can't/don't we have BOTH? Why is each and every class in optometry school not made up of people who have the stellar scores AND the passion? Why are we even in a position were we are so much as CONSIDERING people who don't have the scores?

Also, the fact that many graduates end up working in commercial environments isn't an indication of their "passion" lacking any more than those in private practice having loads of "passion."

I've worked with so many ODs throughout my 6+ years in the ophthalmic and optometric field and I CANNOT tell you how many of them dread their jobs. It really is sad and I often wonder if they knew what they were getting into. The future of this career will only improve when more passionate ODs are out there supporting the AOA and other legislative organizations in making progressive movements towards optometry.

Again....apples and oranges. The fact that some ODs are dissatisfied with their careers has no bearing on the notion that we should admit people with sub par scores as long as we think that at some point in the future, they'll be AOA members.

But this will never happen until the bitter rivalries between schools and putting each other down ceases to exist. So until then, optometry has a gloomy road ahead of itself, as I see it.

As far as the OAT goes, I am going to agree to disagree.

I don't see how making the suggestion that someone with below average OAT scores and/or college GPAs should not be admitted to a professional program in which they are going to be trained to care for the eye and visual welfare of the population constitutes a "put down."

I am still interested in why you think the OAT is "biased."
 
Stating that passion should hold higher influence than OAT or GPA is ludicrous. OAT/GPA are the best indicators we currently have of the ABILITY of the applicant to not only complete the rigorous coursework of a 4 year graduate program, but to be competent optometrists.

Never being on the other side of the admissions process, I really don't know the exact methodology to how applicants are selected. But "passion" cannot make up for ability, EVER. If you really have a lot of "passion" for the field, you will work hard to show some competency and ability. The subjective measurements are there to filter out those who have the ability to complete the program, but not the desire or knowledge in the field.

Let me reiterate, you must be ABLE to SUCCESSFULLY complete the program.

Now is SCCO's method of automatically rejecting anyone w/ a sub 300/3.0 the way to go? I personally don't agree with it, but that's just my gripe. Everyone interested in being a primary care provider should be able to meet these MINIMUM requirements, especially given they have the option of taking the test multiple times.
 
Stating that passion should hold higher influence than OAT or GPA is ludicrous. OAT/GPA are the best indicators we currently have of the ABILITY of the applicant to not only complete the rigorous coursework of a 4 year graduate program, but to be competent optometrists.

Never being on the other side of the admissions process, I really don't know the exact methodology to how applicants are selected. But "passion" cannot make up for ability, EVER. If you really have a lot of "passion" for the field, you will work hard to show some competency and ability. The subjective measurements are there to filter out those who have the ability to complete the program, but not the desire or knowledge in the field.

Let me reiterate, you must be ABLE to SUCCESSFULLY complete the program.

Now is SCCO's method of automatically rejecting anyone w/ a sub 300/3.0 the way to go? I personally don't agree with it, but that's just my gripe. Everyone interested in being a primary care provider should be able to meet these MINIMUM requirements, especially given they have the option of taking the test multiple times.
Well said. I completely agree with you.
 
Interesting how we can argue these points, but at the end, it's not going to change a damn thing in the admissions process. People will continue to be let into the program without the needed "passion" and students with below average scores will continue to be admitted to sustain the financial necessity in an institution. So if you really want to make a change, send these arguments to schools and other optometric organizations. Arguing our points will not make a difference. But unfortunately this career will continue to go towards the wrong direction.
 
Interesting how we can argue these points, but at the end, it's not going to change a damn thing in the admissions process. People will continue to be let into the program without the needed "passion" and students with below average scores will continue to be admitted to sustain the financial necessity in an institution.

I agree, people will continually "slip through the cracks" of the admissions process. This happens in every field, every discipline. We cannot expect admissions committees to be omniscient. What we try to demand is that they make a real honest effort to select the applicants who will complete their program, pass the NBEO, and become competent, compassionate ODs. We all know some schools do this much better than others.

So if you really want to make a change, send these arguments to schools and other optometric organizations. Arguing our points will not make a difference. But unfortunately this career will continue to go towards the wrong direction.
It is no stretch of the imagination to say that some admissions members are on these forums, and none of this is news to them. We aren't trying to make a difference w/ admissions. We are trying to (ir)rationally discuss an important topic and enlighten the misinformed.

DS83, don't take this as a personal assault, especially since nobody on these forums knows you personally. The reason I am arguing is because we have seen many posters on this forum, and friends in real life, with a romanticized notion that everything will be okay because they have passion.

Let me be redundantly repetitious: Passion is no substitute for ability.

Ability is measured by the GPA and OAT. They are the BEST measurements we have. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course, that is why personal statements are included in the application. There are the RARE cases where the GPA and OAT did not accurately portray the ability, and the applicant has the personal statement to try and convince admissions otherwise. This again is a rare case, and should only happen maybe with 1 or 2 students per class of 100.

Should accepting below average students be the norm? Absolutely not. You are trying to force moon pegs into star holes.
 
I want all of you to know that I understand all of the concerns and red flags that may worry all of you. But just because i might of scored a 200 on my RC DOES NOT make me a ***** or less competent or even going to make me less of a knowledgeable doctor than any of you. :nono: No one has the right to judge me when they don't even know my full academic profile. but since i started this thread in my defense i have graduated with semesters being on the deans list and i have taken 4 or more science rigorous classes which definitely shows i am ABLE to read and handle the load of work in optometry school. I have my own reasons not to take the OAT again and apply next year. I have been accepted to IAUPR because i did meet there AA OAT score and GPA requirements. So i got accepted legit.

One point I would like to point out is that there are MANY students that get accepted with above average OAT scores and ABOVE REQUIRED MINIMUM GPAs that fail out, don't pass the boards, and CAN NOT handle the work AND are jerky optometrist. Dont forget once we start first year in optometry school WE ARE ALL EQUAL like it or not.
 
Personally, I think there are several types of people who have high scores/GPAs. Those that are naturally gifted and don't have to try too hard for them, and those who struggle hard and do whatever it takes to get high marks.

Maybe the argument is that only the latter should be accepted. I disagree with that notion because most people who wouldn't HAVE TO put forth 110% to get good grades wouldn't.

All I have to say is that there HAS TO BE some natural ability considered. There are absolutely those people who try so hard but just don't get it. While I feel bad for the amount of effort they must put forth to get sub-par grades, it doesn't mean that they should get to be a healthcare professional just because they REALLY REALLY WANT TO.

If someone was soooooooo passionate about this career, wouldn't they just work harder to make up for their natural pitfalls?

Dr. Spontaneouz, are you suggesting that we give certain people handicapped admission because they really really want it? What if they were your optometrist? Would you really want someone who didn't have a great grasp of the concepts treating your eyes? Your childrens' eyes?
 
Last edited:
Top