Three-Year O.D. Program

Bootcamp for OAT
This forum made possible through the generous support of
SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Commando303

Commando303

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
911
Reaction score
19
Looks as if it'll soon be possible to earn an O.D. in three, rather than four, years' time. I wonder if this will catch on as a viable alternative to the traditional program.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Why stop at 3. I would shoot for two. According to your leaders, you can already perform eye surgeries with zero surgical time with actual patients. In other words, you obviously quick leathers.
 
What program is this? I can't imagine doing it in three years. Talk about burn-out.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Commando303 said:
Looks as if it'll soon be possible to earn an O.D. in three, rather than four, years' time. I wonder if this will catch on as a viable alternative to the traditional program.
Click to expand...

Sources/evidence?
 
200UL said:
Why stop at 3. I would shoot for two. According to your leaders, you can already perform eye surgeries with zero surgical time with actual patients. In other words, you obviously quick leathers.
Click to expand...

quit being such a douchebag
 
nc2tarheels said:
quit being such a douchebag
Click to expand...

It would be best to not say anything...name calling doesnt get you anywhere..especially on a forum.

This is not just directed at you, but I wish all the healthcare professionals on here would have a little bit more respect for one another. Everyone is going to have different opinions on here, and I think most can say that they do learn from the different debates and discussions on here. I am just still amazed with the lack of respect some show towards each opinion, individual, or profession. But hey, we are only human..right?
 
I can't imagine having to go through OD school in 3 years. It's already packed enough with summer courses with 4 years...
 
As to the original idea, I am in full support, only with a required residency, just as most of medicine does. In my opinion, there are far too many didactic optometry school hours in general, especially to teach advanced optical neurology that has very little clinical application. There is too much time spent on the theoretical, rather than in creating a solid clinician and diagnostician. I for one almost NEVER hire an OD straight out of school unless they have a residency. Otherwise, you are in reality hiring some that has seen perhaps 1000 patients in their career...and this is simply not enough for me to trust them with the amount of disease that the practice deals with. So I am all for reducing a portion of it, and adding on actual patient time.

As for the "lack of respect", I would say that most of medicine thrives on it. Every profession has to one up one another, and if you are anything but a neurosurgeon you are clearly a dunce that might as well go shovel out port-a-potties....It is all extremely pathetic, but it is simply the case that some people, albeit a minority, choose medicine of any kind for the so called "prestige" it gives them. And while this is important to have pride, for many people it is the cornerstone of the decision they made to go through years and years of the academic hazing that is the medical field. So if anyone starts to walk or talk like you, they are stealing YOUR prestige, and must be treated with in a very sophomoric, Jerry Springer is clapping kind of way. These people make me want to vomit on my shoes, but I am very used to them. I have a few MD's that I deal with, that will NEVER refer to me, because I am (gasp) NOT an MD like them. I didn't go to school until my hair started graying, so clearly I cannot spot a glaucomatous nerve better, spot oncoming disease onset, etc...and then there are others that send it to me first, because they know I spend about half of my free time researching this stuff, that it is my passion, and that I, along with a few of their colleagues (bad MD's won't even seek the opinion of anyone that is an MD, but "higher" then them. It makes their egos sad.)

So, just get used to it. A lot of people, including very well-educated adults, will sensationalize and insult when that 6-year old ego of theirs feels a threat...and sometimes you are that threat. Just let them stew over in their sandbox....the adults are trying to talk over here.
 
200UL said:
Why stop at 3. I would shoot for two. According to your leaders, you can already perform eye surgeries with zero surgical time with actual patients. In other words, you obviously quick leathers.
Click to expand...

1270163965597.png


Dear MDs and MD students, don't you have your own boards to troll?
 
200UL said:
Why stop at 3. I would shoot for two. According to your leaders, you can already perform eye surgeries with zero surgical time with actual patients. In other words, you obviously quick leathers.
Click to expand...

I shall relay the message to my insect overlords. With any luck, we can devise a way to bang out this vacuous program in two weeks, then march down the streets shooting lasers into any eye sorry enough to meet ours.

bobbio said:
What program is this? I can't imagine doing it in three years. Talk about burn-out.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have mentioned that: it's to be offered by P.C.O., beginning, I believe, in 2012.

Meibomian SxN said:
Some medical schools are changing their curriculum as well; I've read about one at Texas Tech: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-03-25-medical-school-early_N.htm

All about progression...
Click to expand...

JaggerPlate said:
These are fast track primary care programs, and rotations in non-PC settings during the 3/4 years are what's cut (none of the pre-clinical education or essential rotations for primary care). Additionally, there is no affect on the length of residency.
Click to expand...

I believe most of the medical colleges that are offering so-called "fast-track" programs are doing so either by tacking four years onto a three-year, rather than four-year, under-graduate backbone, or by mandating that students commit themselves to primary-care/family-medicine (which I feel is a terrible, unfair, and Draconian design).
__________________________________________________

On to how I feel about the three-year O.D. program: It should be fine for opticians (try to cut out a bulk of the optics, and some of the dispensing, with which they already must be familiar), but, for most other applicants, I think the curriculum would be too densely packed and/or a a bad value. I've have little doubt colleges who'd offer this sort of "accelerated" curriculum would, 1) cut out a significant amount of in-class education (turning to "e-education": a far cheaper, yet nonetheless incomparable, way of disseminating information), and, 2) maintain tuition/fees significantly greater than 75% the cost of the traditional offering. If I'm mistaken, so be it; but, if I'm correct, then other than for, as I said, some opticians, the three-year road to an O.D. may be a deceptively tantalizing, but ultimately inferior, option.
 
“1000 patients by the time you graduate"

You cannot let this information out with the goals your profession has. The theme of "we simply learn the same things / or more in half the time" is proving successful. People might start casting doubts if you start saying you can do it with seeing 1/25th of the patient volume.

Even with the most conservative estimates I had 4,000 patient visits per year in my ophthalmology residency. Therefore, over 3 years, I had over 12,000 patients visits + a fellowship where I had at least 4,500 patient visits. Therefore, I had well over 15,000 eye patient visits during my training (most were surgical patients) (– this may be closer to 20,000 in reality). During medical school training + internship, I easily manage another 5,000 patients (you are right some of these were stroke victims / trauma patients - the users of this forum have made it very clear that such experiences would likely detract from their ability to take care of the visual system, but I find these experiences very helpful as the eyes are not independent from the body, and a proficient clinician must be able to talk intelligently to other disciplines to take care of complex patients.

I also find it funny that you can minimize the value of "advanced optical neurology." I am not sure what you learned in this course or what type of practice you have. However, I have never met an ophthalmologist who wished they had less of a neurology background even if it involved a course called "advanced optical neurology." Eyecare providers look very stupid often if they have a weak neuro-ophthalmology background (OD or MD).

Finally, I do not have an ego about what I do. Anyone reading this could do what I do if they had the experiences I had. Just like anyone who choose to do optometry could do it if they had the experiences you had.

I work with 4 optometrists on a daily basis. They assist me greatly in my practice. I talk up their skills to all of my patients when I have them see them for things they better than me.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
An unfortunate reality of "optometry vs. ophthalmology" is that the overwhelming number of persons in either profession never really knows what the curriculum of the other entails (not to mention, those curricula will vary from school to school, and over time).

That said, this thread is not about "optometry vs. ophthalmology," and it should not be taken there.
 
I did not write what I did as a reply to any one person, but rather to put down my opinion over a recurring theme that I see every day....it was by no means directed as some personal swipe, especially as the rest of the post concerned how pointless and juvenile I think all of that is.

As for the issue at hand....let me be very clear:

It is my opinion that the schooling of optometry is stuck in the past, and that the medical teaching model should be extended into our field. By this, I mean that optometry schools spend HUGE amounts of time teaching every kind of optics (most schools teach 2 semesters of theoretical, a total waste of time), monocular sensory perception, and other theoretical fields, which I believe would be much better served teaching more clinically relevant material. The reason for this is that most optometric curriculum were started decades ago, back when the amount of drugs, surgical interventions, known anomalies, etc, were all much less dense. The result today is that many students receive ONE semester of anterior seg disease, ONE of posterior seg, then specialization of glaucoma and other management plans. In my opinion, it should be three years of purely USABLE information, followed by one to two years of residency in a high volume setting.

I believe that optometry education should mimic medicine, not try to convince that it is equal. We as a profession need to come into the present and realize the immense complexity of what we deal with, and to stop deluding ourselves into thinking that we are producing practitioners equivalent to MD's by spending so much time in the classroom, yet spending only a six-months (in most schools) in the field actually seeing patients...so to me, no one should get to see patients if they have had no residency, at least to do anything dealing with disease. I saw about 7000 patients before I started on my own, but I dealt with having to see applications of OD's that had seen 1000 at best. Then I flip to the next and see another applicant that saw 6000 in the past year, and it makes my decision pretty easy. The problem is that to any MD that might refer to them, or to others in optometry, their qualifications are, on the surface,the same. To me, there is an OD, and then there is an OD that spent a year in a VA hospital somewhere seeing 50 very needful patients a day, and that these two should not be given the same title, just as medicine does. I believe that this disparity is one of the most damaging when it comes to progressing the scope of optometrists, and that optometric education should recognize this...

And yes, many people in our field are extremely defensive and egotistical, believe that they always know best, and it holds us all back. People that operate that way deserve to be marginalized. That was and is my singular point...I am not starting a war, I am saying to give peace a chance. :D
 
DILLIGAF

I believe you and I could get along.
Like in optometry, not all ophthalmology training programs are created equal. The same holds true in all areas of medicine.

However, the ACGME has recognized this and put forth minimal requirements that programs must meet to call themselves a program. Minimal patient interactions / minimal surgeries / numbers of lectures...for the surgical subspecialties. Therefore, everyone graduates with the foundation to practice independently. Training programs must think very hard before spots are added to programs because if the dilute the training significantly, they may risk probation.

It sounds like you may believe optometry should do the same - standardize the curriculum. That way every school can put out the same strong product. I personally would worry if I was optometrist with the increasing number of spots given by "for profit" schools. The focus should be to create a better graduate, not get more students in the door (more tuition charges) at the expense of diluting experience.

I personally feel there will need to be more ophthalmologists and optometrists in the coming years with the aging population. I do feel, however, that surgery should be left to ophthalmology, however, unless optometry can show equal training. That will be impossible - especially if optometry moves to 3 years.
 
Standardization....ah, an OD can dream....

Yes, that is exactly what I believe should happen. As someone that has had to make a lot of hiring decisions, (owner of 2 practices, co-owner now of 2 more) I feel like I am kind of shooting in the dark when I hire someone. I have hired a student that was #3 in her class, good board score, but no residency, and it was like having to reteach something to someone. On the other hand, I have hired (he's my rock at a place I have all but turned over to him) an OD that was middle of his class, but did a year plus long (did a volunteering mission) residency at a VA in Virginia, and THAT guy is a machine. The problem is that when we go to lawmakers, to other health care areas, these two have no qualifying differences. That, in my opinion, is a big part of the reason why optometry is held back in some states. You end up writing a law for the clueless one I had, as well as the machine that runs the place now.

On top of that, I think that it is a kiss of death for all of these schools with osteopathic schools to break into optometry...and it isn't due to "oversupply", it is because I fear that we are simply creating more of a dead model, that being a world when optometry was much simpler, because medicine was much simpler. What needs to happen is for there to be a standard curriculum among all schools (no more "MY school does this" garbage. You're teaching medicine, not cosmetology), and that all grads must see a minimum number of patients per each setting. This may be done by making a residency mandatory, but this is not the important part. I am just very tired of optometry trying to defend an indefensible position, that being that VERY unequal patient time produces equivalent competency in disease.

As for surgery, I for one believe that baring a few very simply emergency procedures, that there is no professional or financial benefit from being able to do any kinds of more advanced procedures. We are here to refract and to diagnose and treat eye disease....I have no desire to do a trabeculectomy on someone. Let's get our house in order first, make it so we can all SPOT disease equally, and then take it from there. I understand why most of the MD's that refer to me wouldn't dare refer to some of my colleagues, as they simply don't have my experience. Until that part changes, I don't know that any real legislative momentum can be sustained.
 
DILLIGAF said:
I did not write what I did as a reply to any one person, but rather to put down my opinion over a recurring theme that I see every day....it was by no means directed as some personal swipe, especially as the rest of the post concerned how pointless and juvenile I think all of that is.

As for the issue at hand....let me be very clear:

It is my opinion that the schooling of optometry is stuck in the past, and that the medical teaching model should be extended into our field. By this, I mean that optometry schools spend HUGE amounts of time teaching every kind of optics (most schools teach 2 semesters of theoretical, a total waste of time), monocular sensory perception, and other theoretical fields, which I believe would be much better served teaching more clinically relevant material. The reason for this is that most optometric curriculum were started decades ago, back when the amount of drugs, surgical interventions, known anomalies, etc, were all much less dense. The result today is that many students receive ONE semester of anterior seg disease, ONE of posterior seg, then specialization of glaucoma and other management plans. In my opinion, it should be three years of purely USABLE information, followed by one to two years of residency in a high volume setting.

I believe that optometry education should mimic medicine, not try to convince that it is equal. We as a profession need to come into the present and realize the immense complexity of what we deal with, and to stop deluding ourselves into thinking that we are producing practitioners equivalent to MD's by spending so much time in the classroom, yet spending only a six-months (in most schools) in the field actually seeing patients...so to me, no one should get to see patients if they have had no residency, at least to do anything dealing with disease. I saw about 7000 patients before I started on my own, but I dealt with having to see applications of OD's that had seen 1000 at best. Then I flip to the next and see another applicant that saw 6000 in the past year, and it makes my decision pretty easy. The problem is that to any MD that might refer to them, or to others in optometry, their qualifications are, on the surface,the same. To me, there is an OD, and then there is an OD that spent a year in a VA hospital somewhere seeing 50 very needful patients a day, and that these two should not be given the same title, just as medicine does. I believe that this disparity is one of the most damaging when it comes to progressing the scope of optometrists, and that optometric education should recognize this...

And yes, many people in our field are extremely defensive and egotistical, believe that they always know best, and it holds us all back. People that operate that way deserve to be marginalized. That was and is my singular point...I am not starting a war, I am saying to give peace a chance. :D
Click to expand...

While I agree optometrists are studying to be clinicians and thus should be very well-versed in and comfortable with this aspect of the field, I completely oppose the notion we should eliminate from the curriculum the "theory" (for instance, of optics) that allows clinical applications to exist. O.D.s are in school to become doctors, not technicians; knowing the ins and outs of diagnosis and treatment is necessary to effectively serving patients, but it is perverse to try to teach these things independent of adequately explaining why they exist. As it is, many students seem perennially concerned with the vapid question, "When am I ever going to use this?" ignoring the reality they'll use it, if indirectly, every time they make a clinical application of the principle; let's not ask the optometric curriculum to facilitate a generation of doctors who know the mechanics of practice, but have no understanding of on what they're founded.

I'm unsure, too, whence you've stated that O.D.s spend only six months getting hands-on experience. The standard model of optometry-education seems to comprise two years' classroom education followed by two years' clinical, with a bit of overlap at each end. To my knowledge, this is quite in line with most M.D./D.O. programs, except the latter tend to give students summer vacations, where optometry does not. As for uniformity of design across colleges of optometry, is there any evidence it is lacking, or that it is found in greater degree in the medical (M.D./D.O.) field?
 
Healthnutty said:
It would be best to not say anything...name calling doesnt get you anywhere..especially on a forum.

This is not just directed at you, but I wish all the healthcare professionals on here would have a little bit more respect for one another. Everyone is going to have different opinions on here, and I think most can say that they do learn from the different debates and discussions on here. I am just still amazed with the lack of respect some show towards each opinion, individual, or profession. But hey, we are only human..right?
Click to expand...

agreed, name calling gets you nowhere, which is exactly where the thread was headed. There are TONS of threads on this issue already, my problem is keeping it to ONE. In order to gain respect, one must SHOW respect. Being a troll and trying to initiate an argument while acting superior does not you very far. :cool:
 
wrong thread...
 
Last edited:
nc2tarheels said:
agreed, name calling gets you nowhere, which is exactly where the thread was headed. There are TONS of threads on this issue already, my problem is keeping it to ONE. In order to gain respect, one must SHOW respect. Being a troll and trying to initiate an argument while acting superior does not you very far. :cool:
Click to expand...

Yep, totally agree. :)
 
DILLIGAF said:
Standardization....ah, an OD can dream....

Yes, that is exactly what I believe should happen. As someone that has had to make a lot of hiring decisions, (owner of 2 practices, co-owner now of 2 more) I feel like I am kind of shooting in the dark when I hire someone. I have hired a student that was #3 in her class, good board score, but no residency, and it was like having to reteach something to someone. On the other hand, I have hired (he's my rock at a place I have all but turned over to him) an OD that was middle of his class, but did a year plus long (did a volunteering mission) residency at a VA in Virginia, and THAT guy is a machine. The problem is that when we go to lawmakers, to other health care areas, these two have no qualifying differences. That, in my opinion, is a big part of the reason why optometry is held back in some states. You end up writing a law for the clueless one I had, as well as the machine that runs the place now.

On top of that, I think that it is a kiss of death for all of these schools with osteopathic schools to break into optometry...and it isn't due to "oversupply", it is because I fear that we are simply creating more of a dead model, that being a world when optometry was much simpler, because medicine was much simpler. What needs to happen is for there to be a standard curriculum among all schools (no more "MY school does this" garbage. You're teaching medicine, not cosmetology), and that all grads must see a minimum number of patients per each setting. This may be done by making a residency mandatory, but this is not the important part. I am just very tired of optometry trying to defend an indefensible position, that being that VERY unequal patient time produces equivalent competency in disease.

As for surgery, I for one believe that baring a few very simply emergency procedures, that there is no professional or financial benefit from being able to do any kinds of more advanced procedures. We are here to refract and to diagnose and treat eye disease....I have no desire to do a trabeculectomy on someone. Let's get our house in order first, make it so we can all SPOT disease equally, and then take it from there. I understand why most of the MD's that refer to me wouldn't dare refer to some of my colleagues, as they simply don't have my experience. Until that part changes, I don't know that any real legislative momentum can be sustained.
Click to expand...



Kudos to you Dillidaf, you hit the nail right on the head. We need more minds like you in the profession.
 
DILLIGAF said:
Standardization....ah, an OD can dream....

Yes, that is exactly what I believe should happen. As someone that has had to make a lot of hiring decisions, (owner of 2 practices, co-owner now of 2 more) I feel like I am kind of shooting in the dark when I hire someone. I have hired a student that was #3 in her class, good board score, but no residency, and it was like having to reteach something to someone. On the other hand, I have hired (he's my rock at a place I have all but turned over to him) an OD that was middle of his class, but did a year plus long (did a volunteering mission) residency at a VA in Virginia, and THAT guy is a machine. The problem is that when we go to lawmakers, to other health care areas, these two have no qualifying differences. That, in my opinion, is a big part of the reason why optometry is held back in some states. You end up writing a law for the clueless one I had, as well as the machine that runs the place now.

On top of that, I think that it is a kiss of death for all of these schools with osteopathic schools to break into optometry...and it isn't due to "oversupply", it is because I fear that we are simply creating more of a dead model, that being a world when optometry was much simpler, because medicine was much simpler. What needs to happen is for there to be a standard curriculum among all schools (no more "MY school does this" garbage. You're teaching medicine, not cosmetology), and that all grads must see a minimum number of patients per each setting. This may be done by making a residency mandatory, but this is not the important part. I am just very tired of optometry trying to defend an indefensible position, that being that VERY unequal patient time produces equivalent competency in disease.

As for surgery, I for one believe that baring a few very simply emergency procedures, that there is no professional or financial benefit from being able to do any kinds of more advanced procedures. We are here to refract and to diagnose and treat eye disease....I have no desire to do a trabeculectomy on someone. Let's get our house in order first, make it so we can all SPOT disease equally, and then take it from there. I understand why most of the MD's that refer to me wouldn't dare refer to some of my colleagues, as they simply don't have my experience. Until that part changes, I don't know that any real legislative momentum can be sustained.
Click to expand...

I support your opinion that standardization is needed, but in the meantime what do you think of the following... Say an OD wants to hire a new doc out of school. They are willing to offer this new graduate x amount of dollars IF they are able to perform all of the tasks required, i.e treat disease, refract, etc. In the contract you set up with the new graduate, you stipulate that IF the new doctor cannot perform the said tasks to a satisfactory level, you reserve the right to decrease said salary by x amount of dollars. You work with the new grad to improve their skills, while still allowing autonomy and growth in their profession under your supervision. You suggest how/where you learned to treat disease (i.e articles, books, etc.).
This would be an inconvenience to you, both for time and efficiency, however I don't believe it would stop you from practicing. You benefit by still having the help you need. The new OD, who already understands the contract, benefits by learning and still working for a FAIR salary. I understand it should not be the senior doctors responsibility to teach students, that a residency would better prepare students coming out of school. But if you are willing to compromise with a new associate, i think it can be beneficial to both parties, no?
 
DILLIGAF
I agree it is very dangerous trend as more osteopathic medical schools add optometry schools. The schools are looking only for additional revenue avenues. The school that is already hurting for cash is thinking, "well, we could simply add 40 optometry students - they will share the physiology, pharmacology, anatomy.. with all of our other students (podiatry, medical, physical therapy" and we simply have to add only a few other classes that are profession specific."

I do not know the average tuition, but you could hire more than a "few" faculty optometrists/scientists by adding 40 students to an institution.

My concern again would be - how does new school measure up to the established schools in terms of experience and training.

From a financial standpoint of an applicant, 3 years would be very attractive (less debt would equal more applicants), but it would be hard to learn so much in so little time. Again, I believe it would take your profession back.

This topic is very relevant to ophthalmology as we will be working side-by-side optometry - even more in the future.
 
Which schools are presenting the idea of a 3 year OD program. Some names please?
 
Meibomian SxN said:
Why do you think this? What are they cutting out for the Family physician track that others would still have to take?
Click to expand...

Mostly 4th year elective time. Basically spending time with other specialties that we didn't interact much with during 3rd year. I think there's value in this because it gives us a glimpse into how the specialists we refer to think.

When I sent a patient out to another doctor, I like to be able to tell them a little on what to expect and most of that is related to having worked with them during school.
 
What could PCO cut from their program to condense it to 3 years? I would hope it's not the extra 6 months of externships - that's one of it's most appealing features.

Where did you get this info? Are you a student at PCO?
 
I am a student at PCO, The Dean of the College presented the information to all student approximately a month ago. The information that was provided regarding the program explained that it would be only available to 10-20 highly motivated, qualified students. There is nothing to be cut out of the curriculum, however there will be no summer breaks as there currently is between year one and two, and there will be an increased emphasis on independent learning. The independent learning aspect is something that the school has been researching over the past 5 years along with other professional schools--analyzing different learning methods and the efficacy of lectures versus online lectures, tutorials, etc. None of the extended clinical experience which PCO prides itself on would be removed from the curriculum. The program is slated to begin is 2012. As was previously stated, many other professional programs have already instituted condensed curriculum with emphasis on independent learning styles, and PCO believed that they would like to be the first to institute it in the Optometric profession. Good, Bad or indifferent, it is happening, also there is talk amongst some administration that the new school in Mass was going to implement this "condensed" curriculum as an option as well. How did you hear about this commando?
 
cloud99 said:
What could PCO cut from their program to condense it to 3 years? I would hope it's not the extra 6 months of externships - that's one of it's most appealing features.

Where did you get this info? Are you a student at PCO?
Click to expand...

The information was put forth by the dean of the Pennsylvania College of Optometry.

As I understand, the third and fourth years (which comprise mainly clinical education) would mirror those of the traditional (four-year) program, while the first two (i.e., the "class-room") would be compressed into one. I believe, as CarpeDeom has mentioned, the college does not to wish to omit anything from this abbreviated curriculum; I still have, however, my aforementioned concerns about the offering: i.e., the possibility tuition will be greater than 75% of the four-year program's, and the curriculum will be too heavily dependent on indirect, "electronic" means.

I'd be interested to hear if others share these concerns, or even what they think, generally, of this accelerated course (based on the admittedly unofficial, and perhaps imprecise, explanation of it that has been presented).
 
Why would a pre-optometry student consider the 3-year program when it is more expensive and more didactic than the traditional 4 year program?

To shave a year off? I don't think so. PCO would have to get rid of material that isn't stressed enough on the NBEO, so as to not scare away applicants who might be weary of the difficulty. Also, nobody is going to pay 75% more monies for an Optometry program...unless they are misinformed.

I don't get it...why bother with a 3 year program anyways?
 
socal2014 said:
Why would a pre-optometry student consider the 3-year program when it is more expensive and more didactic than the traditional 4 year program?

To shave a year off? I don't think so. PCO would have to get rid of material that isn't stressed enough on the NBEO, so as to not scare away applicants who might be weary of the difficulty. Also, nobody is going to pay 75% more monies for an Optometry program...unless they are misinformed.

I don't get it...why bother with a 3 year program anyways?
Click to expand...

I believe persons would consider a three-, rather than four-year, option for exactly that reason: to shave off a year (start working a year sooner, start paying back loans a year sooner; and, overall, even if the tuition is not proportionatey cheaper, you pay a lower net amount). I don't think it's logical to suggest P.C.O. would need to excise material "so not to scare off applicants": students seldom, if ever, judge whether to accept admission to a program based on how challenging they think it is compared with similar offerings — often, simply, they haven't the tools to make such an assessment.

I think you're mistaken about what I said: I'm not suggesting the three-year program would cost 75% more than the four-year; I'm saying it might not be 75% the cost of the latter. In other words, if the four-year course costs a total of $100, the three-year might be $85, rather than $75 — a lower net amount, but not proportionately cheaper considering the resources the school would save in administering the education. (It seems you interpreted my statement to mean the three-year option would cost $175 if the four-year cost $100.)

*Again, just a disclaimer: I don't know the accelerated program would charge more than 75% what would the traditional; it's simply my suspicion it will.
 
CarpeDeom said:
I am a student at PCO, The Dean of the College presented the information to all student approximately a month ago. The information that was provided regarding the program explained that it would be only available to 10-20 highly motivated, qualified students. There is nothing to be cut out of the curriculum, however there will be no summer breaks as there currently is between year one and two, and there will be an increased emphasis on independent learning. The independent learning aspect is something that the school has been researching over the past 5 years along with other professional schools--analyzing different learning methods and the efficacy of lectures versus online lectures, tutorials, etc. None of the extended clinical experience which PCO prides itself on would be removed from the curriculum. The program is slated to begin is 2012. As was previously stated, many other professional programs have already instituted condensed curriculum with emphasis on independent learning styles, and PCO believed that they would like to be the first to institute it in the Optometric profession. Good, Bad or indifferent, it is happening, also there is talk amongst some administration that the new school in Mass was going to implement this "condensed" curriculum as an option as well. How did you hear about this commando?
Click to expand...

Would the same number of CH be taken or will they just cut all the crap classes? And if they cut crap classes, why don't they do it for the four year students!
 
We were told it would be the same amt of credit hours, and in regards to the price, as Commando has said---it does not look like it will be the cost of 3 years of schooling, more on the lines of the full four year tuition. Not the full four year tuition plus 75% as may have been misinterpreted by commando's response. The benefit seems to be that you would get done sooner and start earning income one year sooner or opt to do a residency one year sooner, not necessarily at a reduced cost, but also not more than the four year OD tuition.
-I am not taking a side on this one just relaying the facts.-
 
CarpeDeom said:
We were told it would be the same amt of credit hours, and in regards to the price, as Commando has said---it does not look like it will be the cost of 3 years of schooling, more on the lines of the full four year tuition. Not the full four year tuition plus 75% as may have been misinterpreted by commando's response. The benefit seems to be that you would get done sooner and start earning income one year sooner or opt to do a residency one year sooner, not necessarily at a reduced cost, but also not more than the four year OD tuition.
-I am not taking a side on this one just relaying the facts.-
Click to expand...

Interesting.... I don't know how I feel about it. Even if it is just a small amount of students now, it could grow later. Then they have to cram all that into 3 years.. I foresee POSSIBLY cutting some classes in the future
 
Attention optometry student you do not want to take the same class as DO DDS DPM. you will have lowest score out of everyone and everyone will think you are idiot anyway and many more classmate will fail out. people who want this are people who are already done school and want to make it hard for every ones else who is going to go to school so these people who want this should try it themselves and i can gaurdentee that they will not make it through school. dont listen to these people. trust me

We are optometrist not MD/DO etc so stop worring about your little egos. who gives a **** if Md/do/dds/dpm are hurting your little feelings boohoo

With love and God Bless America,
-Gimli, Son of Gloin, Son of Groin, Son of Farin, Son of Borin, Son of Durin
 
GimliSonOfGloin said:
Attention optometry student you do not want to take the same class as DO DDS DPM. you will have lowest score out of everyone and everyone will think you are idiot anyway and many more classmate will fail out. people who want this are people who are already done school and want to make it hard for every ones else who is going to go to school so these people who want this should try it themselves and i can gaurdentee that they will not make it through school. dont listen to these people. trust me

We are optometrist not MD/DO etc so stop worring about your little egos. who gives a **** if Md/do/dds/dpm are hurting your little feelings boohoo

With love and God Bless America,
-Gimli, Son of Gloin, Son of Groin, Son of Farin, Son of Borin, Son of Durin
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. I don't know where you went to school or if you did but can I PLEASE read your application essays? I can "gaurdentee" you just made my day. Please come to optometry school...you'll make my day SOOOO much better.

Please feed this troll...I gotta have more!
 
GimliSonOfGloin said:
Attention optometry student you do not want to take the same class as DO DDS DPM. you will have lowest score out of everyone and everyone will think you are idiot anyway and many more classmate will fail out. people who want this are people who are already done school and want to make it hard for every ones else who is going to go to school so these people who want this should try it themselves and i can gaurdentee that they will not make it through school. dont listen to these people. trust me

We are optometrist not MD/DO etc so stop worring about your little egos. who gives a **** if Md/do/dds/dpm are hurting your little feelings boohoo

With love and God Bless America,
-Gimli, Son of Gloin, Son of Groin, Son of Farin, Son of Borin, Son of Durin
Click to expand...


Hes damn right.

Why should OD's have to struggle with medical education, when upon graduation, the same OD's are discriminated against from medical insurance panels?
 
Yes please make fun of my english and avoid discussion at hands. I am right to. the sooner we accept the fact that we are optometrist the better we be. How about you go to back to school and take the medical education and i bet you will drop out and if you some how miraclely pass you are going to be in the same position as now. Are you going too fix a DVT, PE, hammerstoe, tooth ach? No. How about we try to be the best we can be at eyes

also ask current student who take classes with DO/dpm/dds student and they will tell you it is bad. It is more bad to be in the same class and do much much much moe worse than every one else and they will here about our score being so low and think less of us.

Trust me. Jeasus idk why optometry has so many dumb **** and busy body idiot

With love and God Bless America,
-Gimli, Son of Gloin, Son of Groin, Son of Farin, Son of Borin, Son of Durin
 
My brother recently interviewed at a DO school that only requires you to be at campus for the first year, after that all the classes are online, he can also do his clinical observing at a number of different hospitals across the state. This way if he chooses to attend this school he will only have to move for one year, then he can finish the next 3 years back in his home town.

I couldn't believe this at first, but it may be a trend among professional programs just like undergraduate to put as much curriculum as possible online. It probably saves/makes the school a lot of money doing it this way.

ODs have a lot more labs (I've had about 3 labs/semester, ~16-20 total labs in the first 3 yrs) then MD/DO, making it difficult to put together a similar structure to the DO school described above, but I definately wouldn't mind having an online class or two each semester.
 
Ediddy said:
My brother recently interviewed at a DO school that only requires you to be at campus for the first year, after that all the classes are online, he can also do his clinical observing at a number of different hospitals across the state. This way if he chooses to attend this school he will only have to move for one year, then he can finish the next 3 years back in his home town.

I couldn't believe this at first, but it may be a trend among professional programs just like undergraduate to put as much curriculum as possible online. It probably saves/makes the school a lot of money doing it this way.

ODs have a lot more labs (I've had about 3 labs/semester, ~16-20 total labs in the first 3 yrs) then MD/DO, making it difficult to put together a similar structure to the DO school described above, but I definately wouldn't mind having an online class or two each semester.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a deranged, horse's-ass of an excuse for a medical-education program, letting you to be in the classroom for a year, then asking you to go on-line and teach yourself. Maybe if the cost of enrollment were ~$1000.00/year...
 
When ODs graduate they do see~1000 patient, but I can tell you if you work in a busy corporate practice you can see 20-30+ patient a day your first year out (~6500+ pt in 1 year), and this when you learn and see the most. I think my first 6 months of graduating I saw macular hole, hollenhorst plaque, choroidal rupture, partial retinal detachment with retinal dialysis, AMD, glaucoma suspects, and a lot of cataracts. I refer all these to MDs, as corporate practice is limited with proper equipment to care for the patients (I do treat basic anterior segment diseases). By the end of the day I just do what is in the best interest of patient. I do have patients who come in and complain of mistreatment of some MDs, but all professions will have a few bad apples, so I just refer to MDs that I hear are good to patients. I would have done a residency after graduating, but I think I've learned a lot by seeing patients on my own. Residency does make you read more journals etc, and of course you learn so much more about evidence base health care. But I do understand what DILLIGAF is talking about, I know an optometrist who refers out almost everything even though most of the consultation ends up being nothing, it really is sad. Training is totally different in different optometry schools or where you chose to do your clinical training. I did 6 month of clinical training in the VA, the rest of training at the school clinic and a private practice. I am not saying that I am great, but I can tell you that not all optometrist are trained equally, hence I do not think optometrist should do surgery at all at this point. I don't know how I feel about 3 year school either, it does make since to get more training into the curriculum.
 
Currently, we can say that our training is 4 years - just like dentistry, pharmacy, and veterinary schools. If we cut to three years, residency should be mandatory. Otherwise, we are just giving OMDs more weapons to use against us.

So ODs will be Board Certified after a "rigorous'' 3 year program? This does not make any sense. If anything, keep the 4 year program with a mandatory residency. The length of our training gives it some of its validity. If we shorten our schools to 3 years, we a committing professional suicide.:smuggrin:
 
ohiostateboy said:
Currently, we can say that our training is 4 years - just like dentistry, pharmacy, and veterinary schools. If we cut to three years, residency should be mandatory. Otherwise, we are just giving OMDs more weapons to use against us.

So ODs will be Board Certified after a "rigorous'' 3 year program? This does not make any sense. If anything, keep the 4 year program with a mandatory residency. The length of our training gives it some of its validity. If we shorten our schools to 3 years, we a committing professional suicide.:smuggrin:
Click to expand...

I have no equivocation in saying the curriculum for optometric education should not be dictated by fear of what ophthalmology might think or say. If one feels three years are inadequate in which to complete the training necessary to successful practice of eye-medicine, very well; but the program shouldn't be designed to impress, or to avoid the daggers of, anyone.

The latter "strategy" is not only ideologically wrong, it's immediately doomed: if an M.D. feels the O.D. degree is insufficient to open the doors to performing certain tasks, his opinion will not likely be improved by any amount of alteration of the optometry curriculum. You can pile on all the mandatory years of residency you want — you're doing it for the wrong reason, and for one you can never fulfill.
 
Commando303 said:
I have no equivocation in saying the curriculum for optometric education should not be dictated by fear of what ophthalmology might think or say. If one feels three years are inadequate in which to complete the training necessary to successful practice of eye-medicine, very well; but the program shouldn't be designed to impress, or to avoid the daggers of, anyone.

The latter "strategy" is not only ideologically wrong, it's immediately doomed: if an M.D. feels the O.D. degree is insufficient to open the doors to performing certain tasks, his opinion will not likely be improved by any amount of alteration of the optometry curriculum. You can pile on all the mandatory years of residency you want — you're doing it for the wrong reason, and for one you can never fulfill.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with you here.

I'll also say there has been talk about streamlining medical education. Seems completely ludicrous to me. With the rate at which medical knowledge is advancing, you could make a better argument for increasing the length of both our training programs. Don't see that happening, though.
 
Visionary said:
Have to agree with you here.

I'll also say there has been talk about streamlining medical education. Seems completely ludicrous to me. With the rate at which medical knowledge is advancing, you could make a better argument for increasing the length of both our training programs. Don't see that happening, though.
Click to expand...

I disagree. No human mind can comprehend all of medicine, no matter how many years you spend learning it. It is better to specialize and specialize early. Our brains are more malleable at a younger age.
 
Shnurek said:
I disagree. No human mind can comprehend all of medicine, no matter how many years you spend learning it. It is better to specialize and specialize early. Our brains are more malleable at a younger age.
Click to expand...

No one can know it all, but everyone had better know a good god-damned bit of it even if they do go on to "specialize," else no one will have any idea what the hell any other specialist is talking about.
 
Shnurek said:
I disagree. No human mind can comprehend all of medicine, no matter how many years you spend learning it. It is better to specialize and specialize early. Our brains are more malleable at a younger age.
Click to expand...

My prior comments apply to specialties, as well. Yes, you can never master all of medicine, or even all of your specialty. With the extent of current knowledge, there is enough to learn, even in a specialty, to justify increasing training length. I would argue that increasing ophthalmology residency length to 4 years would be beneficial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

JustInYurEyez
How are tattoos viewed in O.D. school?
Replies
3
Views
3K
rubeyco2018
R
E
Check out newest O.D profile and comments
Replies
2
Views
2K
q1we3
Q
D
Pursuing an O.D/M.S. OR an O.D./Ph.D
Replies
2
Views
2K
EyEnStein 07
EyEnStein 07
IandI
Saturday O.D. fill in payscale
Replies
10
Views
4K
Jason K
Jason K
D
O.D. moving to London!
Replies
5
Views
3K
diams
D
Top