Working as a technician

[SV88]

Please delete if not appropriate.

I keep seeing candidates referring to themselves as a "veterinary technician" or working as a technician for the experience hours. As a credentialed veterinary technician who has been in the field for 16 years, PLEASE STOP. Please start referring to your hours as veterinary experience hours, or veterinary assistant hours. You don't see medical school applicants advertising the hours they worked as a nurse, because they did not.

Turning the term "veterinary technician" into a colloquial, disposable title is devaluing what a credentialed technician brings to the field. Our field is already hemorrhaging support staff due to low utilization, low job satisfaction, and a poor pay scale. If you haven't been in this field for long, you may not be aware of this. I don't mean just shadowing at a clinic, I mean really investing in the field. Did you know that there are actively credentialed technicians who make $8/hour?

You (we) are the future of our profession. If we can't elevate technicians professionally, there will be no one left to monitor anesthesia for DVMs, to run lab work, to provide high quality nursing care for our patients. This generation of veterinarians HAS TO make a difference for our technicians, without them a DVM literally cannot do their job. Start differentiating between an assistant and a technician, truly separating the two roles because they have different responsibilities. The title of veterinary technician is gaining title protection in most states, which makes it illegal to call someone who is not credentialed in that state a technician. We also do not refer to technicians as nurses, that's an international thing that can't happen here because nurses have title protection.

Sincerely,
A CVT who loves her job but has done a lot of soul searching and has decided pursuing a DVM is the right path for her but would not trade her career thus far for anything.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kcee]

Depending on where you live, you can work as a veterinary technician without being licensed or credentialed. I would never refer to myself as a CVT or an LVT because that would simply be untrue. But I was definitely a veterinary technician.

 

[eleanor713]

My official job title from my company is veterinary technician. I am not licensed and did not go through the schooling program for licensed techs, but I do monitor anesthesia, run blood work, give treatments, and help animals recover from surgery. I would never want to take credit away from LVTs, but vet assistants don’t partake in the direct medical care, so therefore that title doesn’t fit my job description. I know some schools I applied to had a question of if you were a LVT or not licensed, so I’m sure they value LVTs more, as they should with all of the extra schooling you already had to do.

 

[battie]

Agreed that technicians (CVT, LVT, and RVTs) who have gone through the appropriate processes to become certified/licenses/registered should have title protections, increased wages over those who have not done the appropriate steps, and have overall improved station in the industry.

Likewise, title protection is not universal and in some states, it is absolutely legal for a non-CVT/LVT/RVT to call themselves a technician. Professional licensing is a state law issue and there is not much I can do in Colorado to change that anywhere else.

Human med applicants absolutely put their CNA, RN, BSN hours on their applications as appropriately licensed. Same with those applying to any sort of human med deviation (PA, NP, DDS, etc).

The unfortunate aspect of all this (title protection, better pay, increased/improved technician utilization) comes down to money. We aren't subsidized by billion dollar insurance companies. There are human nurses that make more money than I do as a veterinarian. Likewise, I absolutely know techs that make $8/hr because their state's minimum wage is $7.25, or they live in rural areas, or for a poorly managed clinic, etc. Human medicine has big bucks because there are 300 million people with some sort of insurance in this country that subsidizes everyone on those plans. That's is not a thing in vet med (whether or not it should is a whole different discussion).

I get where you're coming from and actually support your base premise. But there's a lot more nuance to the situation.

 

[SV88]

Further defending working as a technician is only contributing to the problem. Title protection is under way in more and more states, North Carolina just passed their title protection law. Working with a veterinarian for 40 hours, 100 hours, 200 hours, even 500 hours does not make any individual a technician. Especially when that individual is only doing that work to go to veterinary school, with no intention of working as a technician as a career. We have got to protect and value our technicians far more than the field does right now.

I encourage everyone who is considering or has applied to veterinary school to find a veterinary technician who has been in this field for two years or more and listen to what their job entails, what their salary or hourly rate is, and how they feel about their career choice. If you've been in veterinary school and through clinical rotations, then you know a large amount of your hands on teaching is provided by technicians. Veterinary technicians are valuable.

I cannot tell you how much it irks me when a veterinarian says "I was a technician before vet school!" Were you? Did you intend to continue working in that role indefinitely had you not gotten accepted? If you knew you'd never go to vet school, would you keep working as a technician and get your credentials? Or would you leave the field for something more lucrative? If your answer is along the lines of finding another career, and not being a veterinary technician AS your career, then maybe you should re-evaluate how you view technicians.

This is not meant to start a fight, but as someone who has dedicated her life to this field and has made a piss poor living for most of it, we have to start changing how we view veterinary technicians. Veterinarians tend to overlook what a skilled technician can do, and what they bring to the table. We have to take off the rose colored glasses of "I worked as a technician before vet school" - Maybe you did some of the same tasks, but that doesn't mean you were or are a technician if that role was just a rest stop or necessary evil on the DVM highway. Our field has to be better with appreciating and giving credit to the technicians, the people who are in it JUST to be a technician, because that's what they love. Maybe one day they will go to vet school, but that is a possibility and not the intention behind the job. Find a tenured technician and chat with them about why they chose that specific career, and how they feel about it. It might open some eyes.

 

[battie]

@SV88 you're honestly preaching to the choir here. The bias of people here (long term pre-vet students and long term veterinarians on this type of forum) are those who have been or know long term technicians. I know and work with a VTS who helped to spear-head the change in CO to create title protections. She will also be joining the education committee for her VTS organization in order to streamline the process so more technicians can earn their VTS. Even on pages like the APVMA, us regulars tell pre-vets to only become technicians if it is truly their backup plan for veterinarian. As you've stated, becoming a technician is simply not worthwhile unless you're committed.

Your statement of:

We have to take off the rose colored glasses of "I worked as a technician before vet school" - Maybe you did some of the same tasks, but that doesn't mean you were or are a technician if that role was just a rest stop or necessary evil on the DVM highway.

Is categorically incorrect, even by your definition. Those who earned their CVT/LVT/RVT are technicians by definition and law; those who work in states where it is currently legal to be OTJ trained can also legally call themselves technicians. Their state of being a technician doesn't change just because they moved on to something else (regardless of if it's as a DVM 3 yrs down the line or an RN ten years down the line, which is the popular alternative in my area). Someone's decision in life to move on from a career doesn't negate the work they did to get there or did. I would still be a veterinarian even if I decided to go work at Barnes and Noble tomorrow.

This statement:

Veterinarians tend to overlook what a skilled technician can do, and what they bring to the table.

Is a broad generalization and is true in many cases and not true in many others. My technicians don't even let me touch tape and a catheter. I haven't placed a bandage since vet school. I can't even tell you how to turn on a blood machine. We're going to start CEs on placing central lines. How do I turn off the screaming pump? No clue. I haven't done a technician task in over a year since joining my current hospital group.

I totally agree that some individual doctors and some corporations do not utilize technicians well to everyone's detriment. The first questions I asked in my interviews were 1) what are techs paid, 2) what are their responsibilities and skills, and 3) what is their turnover at this facility. Because the number 2 reason I left my old job was due to support staff issues making my life unnecessarily difficult.

As I stated before, there's much more nuance to this circumstance than simply giving technicians the responsibilities and acknowledgement they deserve. The root cause of this issue is money. The average GP isn't going to have a dental VTS doing COHATs and anesthesia VTS running anesthesia for surgeries any time soon because those folks deserve $35-40/hr for their education level. When I was in GP, I made 45-55/hr. No privately owned GP can afford that, and no corporation is going to be okay with it either (though they could arguably afford it). In my ER group, we have 1 VTS out of 35 techs (licensed and unlicensed). All of the techs are working on getting their paperwork for their RVT due to license protections going into place starting Jan 1. Those with x number of hours within y timeframe will be graduated in.

Again, I agree with your premise. I absolutely agree with your premise. But you're not addressing the underlying why's and throwing out generalizations.

ETA: it is absolutely fair for anyone to leave this field at this time, technicians included. Even as a vet it is not the best long term investment VIN's current community poll is, "When asked, how strongly do you encourage or discourage those interested in veterinary medicine as a career?" 32% of veterinarians so far discourage students from becoming vets. 33% remain neutral. 32% encourage. I imagine it's even worse on the technician side.

 

[genny]

Veterinarians tend to overlook what a skilled technician can do, and what they bring to the table.

I’m going to disagree with this broad sweeping generalization. I love my technicians, both credentialed and trained-on-the-job. And I’m sure there are a lot of other veterinarians like me who feel the same.

 

[SV88]

I would respectfully disagree that the majority of the population of people citing their work as "veterinary technician" are, in fact, credentialed. If they are, rock and roll my friends. I believe our field needs to collectively rewire our thought process with pre-veterinary experience in the same way nursing had to separate from pre-medical candidates decades ago. Again, this is not a "sweeping declaration" that technicians never change course (I myself am one). The number of applicants I've seen citing their work as a veterinary technician for 200 hours is not gonna cut it, that's not even out of the onboarding period for Banfield. The number of veterinarians I have personally worked with who said they "teched" before going to vet school only worked in a clinic for three months over one summer is uncomfortably high, and these are graduates within the last ten to twelve years. It's really quite demoralizing to have invested over a decade into a career to have someone say "Oh yeah I did that for a little while then I got into vet school." Being a technician isn't a fallback career, at least not for a large percentage of technicians I have worked with.

For example: I watched a show not long ago, a crime show called Cold Case. Yes, guilty pleasure, love the show. There is an episode where one of the suspects is going to night school to become a veterinarian, and they make a few references throughout the episode that she can just take drugs home whenever she needs to. In fact, I believe she bartered some type of substance in lieu of paying a car repair bill. Now this is fiction, and this is about 15 years old, but to hear your profession portrayed so carelessly kind of sucks. All I'm saying is, don't confuse shadow/experience with an actual job with responsibilities. Yes, people have worked as experienced assistants, or as technicians in states that didn't require credentialing at that time. The whole purpose of this post is for the future, keeping the conversation fresh and present.

Obviously, this is a topic I am very invested in. We have to start being the voice of change (in many ways, but I digress). If everyone feels so strongly that I am speaking falsely, then awesome - we should have some real progress for our technicians with regard to title protection, utilization, pay, and recognition in most states by the end of the decade.

*edited to remove a paragraph that would've probably started a witch hunt about the lack of technician voices in governing bodies in our field.

 

[battie]

I would respectfully disagree that the majority of the population of people citing their work as "veterinary technician" are, in fact, credentialed.

Literally nobody said this that I remember. We said that the majority of people citing themselves as technicians are in fact technicians, regardless of the letters or degrees they've earned.

Being a technician isn't a fallback career, at least not for a large percentage of technicians I have worked with.

100% agree here. The majority of techs I've known that have been in the field longer than 5 years wanted to be techs from the start and have 0 desire to be in any prescribing or diagnosing role.

Now this is fiction, and this is about 15 years old, but to hear your profession portrayed so carelessly kind of sucks.

I mean. That's the way most shows portray the field. Even some vet shows suck at showing vet med in a realistic light.

All I'm saying is, don't confuse shadow/experience with an actual job with responsibilities.

Why can't an applicant have both, a job with responsibilities (technician) and vet experience for their app? They aren't mutually exclusive.

If everyone feels so strongly that I am speaking falsely, then awesome

No one thinks you're speaking falsely. My point was that you're missing the nuances of the situation technicians are in.

we should have some real progress for our technicians with regard to title protection, utilization, pay, and recognition in most states by the end of the decade.

Again, I agree to an extent. But it will never be to the extent that technicians deserve.

You've been essentially repeating the same thing over and over again to an audience that overall agrees with your base point. You have yet to address any of the nuanced points, however.

 

[SV88]

Literally nobody said this that I remember. We said that the majority of people citing themselves as technicians are in fact technicians, regardless of the letters or degrees they've earned.

100% agree here. The majority of techs I've known that have been in the field longer than 5 years wanted to be techs from the start and have 0 desire to be in any prescribing or diagnosing role.

I mean. That's the way most shows portray the field. Even some vet shows suck at showing vet med in a realistic light.

Why can't an applicant have both, a job with responsibilities (technician) and vet experience for their app? They aren't mutually exclusive.

No one thinks you're speaking falsely. My point was that you're missing the nuances of the situation technicians are in.

Again, I agree to an extent. But it will never be to the extent that technicians deserve.

You've been essentially repeating the same thing over and over again to an audience that overall agrees with your base point. You have yet to address any of the nuanced points, however.

Respectfully, how are you able to tell me the nuances of the situation that technicians are in? I am one. I have addressed the nuanced points multiple times. If veterinarians don't want to hear the other viewpoints or perspectives, or feel slighted at the implications, that's not on me.

 

[peanutbutterchip]

I think most people are disagreeing because of the way you're approaching it. You keep saying that people who tech before vet schools were not real techs, essentially devaluing the work they did to get to that point. I have been a full time technician for three out of four years of my undergraduate education. I do everything that the other technicians(who aren't interested in going to vet school) are doing. In fact, I've trained most of these individuals. And yet, by your definition, I am not a technician because my end goal is vet school.
I fully agree that technicians need to be paid more. It's an industry problem that needs to be addressed. I just don't think coming onto a pre-vet forum ranting about pre-vet students calling themselves technicians is going to accomplish that. I am aware that I may not understand the politics behind it as well.

 

[battie]

Respectfully, how are you able to tell me the nuances of the situation that technicians are in? I am one. I have addressed the nuanced points multiple times. If veterinarians don't want to hear the other viewpoints or perspectives, or feel slighted at the implications, that's not on me.

Because I'm a veterinarian working in a 100+ staff hospital system where only 18 of those individuals are doctors. The largest group are the technicians (probably around 35 techs) and assistants (30 or so), and I talk to them same as we're discussing here; between this job and my previous job, I have about 50 different perspectives from technicians on this topic. That's why I understand and agree with your base premise that there should be title protections, better utilization in the work place, and better recognition by the public. I have stated I agree with you multiple times.

The only slight you've delivered is when you said most doctors overlook the skills of their techs. That's a sweeping generalization of 100,000+ of *your* colleagues that you cannot quantify. It's the same thing as saying we're in vet med for the money. Unless you have a survey backing up your claim, subjective phrases count as much as anecdotal evidence.

You have not addressed my points on the economic nuance in regards to the technician situation. Which is the most important nuance in regards to the technician situation.

Your words and how you communicate is absolutely on you. If you cannot convey your point with people *who agree with you*, that is a communication block on your end just as much as ours/mine.

 

[renacuaja]

I don't know what circles you run in but the predominant advice given to pre-vets these days is not to apply with the title of "technician" unless they are licensed due to the variation of title protection laws across different states and concern for how it would be perceived by adcoms. the pre-vets that insist of calling themselves techs are far and few and usually come from states that don't have license protection so it's more of a symptom of their environment.

one of my friends is a tech from a 4 year program and she is going to vet school this fall as well. just because she is becoming a vet doesn't negate all the hard work she did to get get credentialed