Pharmacy School opening in Maine now. Bubble has burst!

[PharmaTope]

well looks like it is official. the class is to begin this fall.

the bubble has burst.

[glory4england]

I think its been bursting long before But yeah, ouch, I'm c/o 2013 in Texas, just hoping there will be something decent here when I graduated.

Oh the bright side, (if there are any), I guess this will increase competition and in a couple of years, chase away those who are only in this for the money.

[StaviZFingerZ]

I believe 2 pharmacy schools are opening in Maine

[Pianopooh]

My school has a satellite pharmacy school in Vermont. And it's opening this Fall.

[OChemist]

does anyone have a article about it? or a source?

[glory4england]

http://www.une.edu/ur/news/pharmacycollege.asp
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/st...Hnws&id=252662

^^

[Old Timer]

Why not get a dual degree:

[Storm90]

I like that one!

[IrishHammer]

Yeah, this is ridiculous. It was already impossible to get a job in Maine, and now they're opening two more schools? Jesus H. Crackers, we're all going to be unemployed and starve to death because there won't be any jobs!

[IrishHammer]

Originally Posted by Pianopooh

My school has a satellite pharmacy school in Vermont. And it's opening this Fall.

Which brings the grand total of pharmacy schools in Vermont to 1.

It's not so much the number of schools that are opening that's causing trouble so much as it is where the schools are opening. A school in Maine isn't going to cause any saturation (and anyone who tries to argue otherwise wins the Kool-Aid Award), but a school in California will.

For those of you who don't want to believe that, here's a thought. There are currently 110 pharmacy schools in the country, give or take. That's 110 schools for 50 states and the DC area. So let's say they were split evenly. Each state gets 2, accounting for 102 of the schools, and the eight most populated states get a third. Do you really think we'd be looking at saturation if that were the case?

Use your head. You'll still be able to find a job, you're just actually going to have to prove that you deserve the job (or...GASP...you may have to actually swallow your pride and work that wretched retail), because the economy is hitting everyone hard.

[Praziquantel86]

Originally Posted by IrishHammer

Which brings the grand total of pharmacy schools in Vermont to 1.

It's not so much the number of schools that are opening that's causing trouble so much as it is where the schools are opening. A school in Maine isn't going to cause any saturation (and anyone who tries to argue otherwise wins the Kool-Aid Award), but a school in California will.

For those of you who don't want to believe that, here's a thought. There are currently 110 pharmacy schools in the country, give or take. That's 110 schools for 50 states and the DC area. So let's say they were split evenly. Each state gets 2, accounting for 102 of the schools, and the eight most populated states get a third. Do you really think we'd be looking at saturation if that were the case?

Use your head. You'll still be able to find a job, you're just actually going to have to prove that you deserve the job (or...GASP...you may have to actually swallow your pride and work that wretched retail), because the economy is hitting everyone hard.

This is all fine and dandy, but they're not evenly distributed (and there's over 120 now). New York State has 6 schools, with plans to open a 7th (three in Western NY, which clearly doesn't need another to open). California is in the same boat. You also have to take into account that people will settle away from where they go to school, especially if that is a remote location (i.e. northern Maine).

And telling people that they have to go to retail is a terrible thing for some. I'd be fine working retail, but there are many more who aren't. It's similar to telling a person who goes to med school to become a surgeon that he has to settle for psychiatry. Sure, they're both physicians, but it's a completely different ballgame.

[IrishHammer]

Originally Posted by Praziquantel86

This is all fine and dandy, but they're not evenly distributed (and there's over 120 now). New York State has 6 schools, with plans to open a 7th (three in Western NY, which clearly doesn't need another to open). California is in the same boat. You also have to take into account that people will settle away from where they go to school, especially if that is a remote location (i.e. northern Maine).

And telling people that they have to go to retail is a terrible thing for some. I'd be fine working retail, but there are many more who aren't. It's similar to telling a person who goes to med school to become a surgeon that he has to settle for psychiatry. Sure, they're both physicians, but it's a completely different ballgame.

The schools aren't evenly distributed, but the point was to show just how easily swayed some of the surplus doomsayers are through simple appropriation. Once one guy can't find the specific job he wants in an area, suddenly there are no jobs available there (as an example that is pertient to both of us and has come up before...SJF hasn't graduated anyone, and DYC hasn't opened yet...did UB really saturate half of an entire state by themselves? Come on, now). Many of the states that have only two schools have openly been talked about on SDN as having openings. Quite frankly, the reasons you gave only lend credence to the idea that there will be jobs available for graduates, even if they're mildly flexible. I opted to go straight into SJF instead of completing my BA and then going to UB, and I feel that in the long run, I'll still be fine. In this whole debate, the two proposed scenarios seem to be 1.)you already have earned a degree from an established school and are earning 200K working at a plush hospital in the ritzy section of a big city, or 2.)you're a new graduate and you're going to have to earn 40K working at an oft-robbed pharmacy in the middle of the projects across the street from the methadone clininc. Any middle ground, here, people?

And yes, there are people on this forum who despise retail and don't want to work it. Which makes me question how they are so sure that there are no jobs to be found when there's an entire branch of the profession that they're avoiding like the plague. Moreover, I disagree with the analogy. Psychiatry and surgery are two entirely different fields, whereas clinical pharmacy and retail pharmacy are different aspects of one field.

However, before anyone tries to use the slippery slope theory, I do think that the current expansion of pharmacy schools should be curtailed, but I also think it will come within the next few years.

[StaviZFingerZ]

Originally Posted by IrishHammer

Which brings the grand total of pharmacy schools in Vermont to 1.

It's not so much the number of schools that are opening that's causing trouble so much as it is where the schools are opening. A school in Maine isn't going to cause any saturation (and anyone who tries to argue otherwise wins the Kool-Aid Award), but a school in California will.

For those of you who don't want to believe that, here's a thought. There are currently 110 pharmacy schools in the country, give or take. That's 110 schools for 50 states and the DC area. So let's say they were split evenly. Each state gets 2, accounting for 102 of the schools, and the eight most populated states get a third. Do you really think we'd be looking at saturation if that were the case?

Use your head. You'll still be able to find a job, you're just actually going to have to prove that you deserve the job (or...GASP...you may have to actually swallow your pride and work that wretched retail), because the economy is hitting everyone hard.

Except just 10 years ago...there were about 70 pharmacy schools in all.
Here is one issue you're not addressing. The massive shortage of pharmacists were created by 2 reasons.. aging boomers RX script counts and expansion of Wags and CVS. Well, Wags and CVS are about done expanding and dispensing technology has improved to accomodate increasing script counts.

Now, we're stuck with 120 RX schools. If you don't think this alarming for new grads, then you must know something I don't.

[StaviZFingerZ]

.........

[StaviZFingerZ]

Originally Posted by IrishHammer

For those of you who don't want to believe that, here's a thought. There are currently 110 pharmacy schools in the country, give or take. That's 110 schools for 50 states and the DC area. So let's say they were split evenly. Each state gets 2, accounting for 102 of the schools, and the eight most populated states get a third. Do you really think we'd be looking at saturation if that were the case?

This is the stupidest analysis of pharmacy school per capita I have ever seen.

[Praziquantel86]

Originally Posted by IrishHammer

The schools aren't evenly distributed, but the point was to show just how easily swayed some of the surplus doomsayers are through simple appropriation. Once one guy can't find the specific job he wants in an area, suddenly there are no jobs available there (as an example that is pertient to both of us and has come up before...SJF hasn't graduated anyone, and DYC hasn't opened yet...did UB really saturate half of an entire state by themselves? Come on, now). Many of the states that have only two schools have openly been talked about on SDN as having openings. Quite frankly, the reasons you gave only lend credence to the idea that there will be jobs available for graduates, even if they're mildly flexible. I opted to go straight into SJF instead of completing my BA and then going to UB, and I feel that in the long run, I'll still be fine. In this whole debate, the two proposed scenarios seem to be 1.)you already have earned a degree from an established school and are earning 200K working at a plush hospital in the ritzy section of a big city, or 2.)you're a new graduate and you're going to have to earn 40K working at an oft-robbed pharmacy in the middle of the projects across the street from the methadone clininc. Any middle ground, here, people?

And yes, there are people on this forum who despise retail and don't want to work it. Which makes me question how they are so sure that there are no jobs to be found when there's an entire branch of the profession that they're avoiding like the plague. Moreover, I disagree with the analogy. Psychiatry and surgery are two entirely different fields, whereas clinical pharmacy and retail pharmacy are different aspects of one field.

However, before anyone tries to use the slippery slope theory, I do think that the current expansion of pharmacy schools should be curtailed, but I also think it will come within the next few years.

UB saturating the Buffalo area is not all that unbelievable. Class sizes have increased by about 30 students in the last 6 years or so. Couple that with less people retiring than before due to the economy, and you have a surplus. Granted, undesirable jobs are available, but who goes to four years of professional school and takes on massive debt to get an undesirable job (NB: I'm not saying all retail is undesirable, just most floating jobs and ghetto/exceedingly rural).

I stand by my surgery analogy. Psychiatry and surgery require the same schooling and grant the same title, but diverge afterwards. Same with clinical vs. retail pharmacy. Do you think Schwinghammer could handle a CVS that pounds out 6000 scripts a week? Likewise, do you think Johnny RPh could just hop on a pediatric transplant team and fit right in? They'd both be dead in the water.

[BavarianMWE46]

Pharmacists made around $40K starting out back in 1990, which is worth around $65K today. It was a good salary, but not that great considering it was a 5 year degree. THen the retail boom happened and pharmacies were making so much money they could afford to raise salaries to open up all the new pharmacies. Now things are starting to cool off. New pharmacy schools will not stop opening until people think it is not a valuable investment of their time/money. The ACPE has already said they can not and have no interest in stopping pharmacy schools from opening. The PharmD will stop being a hot degree when starting salaries fall to around $65-70K, then people will invest their time elsewhere and schools will stop opening. It is the way a free market capitalist system works.

[jachen84]

again, despite my initial panic, I do think that free market conditions will eventually even things out, it is very likely that a few of these "pre-candidate" schools will shut down before they actually open...

its like an easy example i learned in an early econ class i took in my 2nd year of the program (pre-pharm): if you have several lanes of tollbooths occupied by a decent line of cars and then you have one lane that is open, chances are likely that some of the cars will switch over to that open lane, in time things will balance out in that the open lane will have as much traffic as the other lanes, thus decreasing the likelihood of some of the traffic to move to the previously open lane

[DoctorRx1986]

Originally Posted by BavarianMWE46

Pharmacists made around $40K starting out back in 1990, which is worth around $65K today. It was a good salary, but not that great considering it was a 5 year degree. THen the retail boom happened and pharmacies were making so much money they could afford to raise salaries to open up all the new pharmacies. Now things are starting to cool off. New pharmacy schools will not stop opening until people think it is not a valuable investment of their time/money. The ACPE has already said they can not and have no interest in stopping pharmacy schools from opening. The PharmD will stop being a hot degree when starting salaries fall to around $65-70K, then people will invest their time elsewhere and schools will stop opening. It is the way a free market capitalist system works.

What you have said is true, but $65-70 k is not a justified starting salary for any "doctor" of a healthcare profession requiring 4 years of rigorous professional education. You don't see dentists and physicians' salaries suddenly decreasing to a starting 70 k salary, do you? No...Unfortunately, pharmacy will NEVER attain the degree of respect it deserves considering there really is no body or organization representing and lobbying on behalf of pharmacists. Medicine, for example, has the AMA to safeguard the rights of its member physicians and the number of schools opening up are limited. Pharmacy is on decline because of a lack of representation; when so many schools are opening up like warehouses/factories, it is no surprise that salaries, the quality of pharmacists, and societal perspective/view of pharmacists and what they do will all deteriorate. WHY should pharmacists have to deal with such a miserable salary after going through 4 years of study, not to mention the 3 or 4 years of undergraduate education? What this shoes me is clearly that pharmacy is inferior to the dental and medical professions because this never happens in those fields. THE PHARMACY PROFESSION IS IN REGRESSION...NOT PROGRESSION. LOL. 65 k? We are headed back to the mid-late 90s in terms of professional salaries instead of going forward. And pretty quickly too. Tell me who in their right mind will want to attend pharmacy school, amass a debt greater than $100 k and, and then eat potatoes and green beans the rest of their lives after working so hard? I finished my first year of pharmacy school with flying color and enjoyed the material, but at this point, I seriously regret having chosen this profession.

For the amount of work I'm putting in and the demands and everything, I might as well have gone into medicine and rest assured that paying my dues in school will pay off professionally and financially. Like I said, as a physician, no matter what happens to the economy, salaries would NEVER take such a steep plunge as in pharmacy. Jesus...i mean, I would understand a drop in salary in pharmacy from $110-120 to $95 k. That would be acceptable..But for salaries to be cut by nearly half, that's just unacceptable considering the years of schooling required AND even more importantly, the vow of poverty many graduates will suffer from when they realize they're making $65 k and have $140,000 in student loans to pay. This is utterly ridiculous and i think we all know it. IT IS A SHAME TO THE PROFESSION, IF YOU CAN EVEN CALL IT THAT ANYMORE.

So much for the projections statisticians and other professionals have made for years about the bright future of pharmacy and the "SHORTAGE" of pharmacists in the coming years. And you know what, guys? Don't be surprised if salaries plunge below $60-65-70 k. For all we know, they may go down to $50,000. The PharmD will become a complete joke and more than ever, physicians and society will look at it derisively.

You want to know what I don't understand personally? Considering the aging baby boomers, the prevalence of chronic diseases, and new and emerging pharmaceutical agents/technologies arising, I don't understand how we could ever truly have a surplus. One would think that with the number of older people, new medicines, etc... the pharmacist shortage will never be met. At this point, I'm starting to think there was never a shortage to begin with and this is all bs. How quickly we've not only reached the equilibrium point in the market for pharmacists, but just look how suddenly we've reached saturation because of these other schools opening up. Some shortage leading to surplus suddenly.

With all due respect, I think many of you guys should just open your eyes and stop living in this dream world that pharmacy is such a great profession still. IT'S NOT. It was at one point, but like i said, it's regressing. It's aging backwards. Pharmacy will never attain respect. We need a lobbying body to put a stop to this nonsense just like the AMA protects salaries for physicians, number of medical schools, etc... Once STANDARDS are set in place, ONLY THEN will pharmacy truly be a profession. Good luck to all you guys who are in my position and will graduate with >100k in loans and will live out your lives in misery trying to pay them off on a 60 k salary. Forget your dreams. Forget having a family. Forget having a nice home, a comfy car. Forget that. I guess the standard in the US is to go to school for a healthcare profession such as pharmacy for 8 years (4 years of college, 4 years of pharm school), graduate with thousands of dollars in loans, and slave your life to pay off loans. Many times, the LEAST EDUCATED people are the ones truly making money and living comfortably. It's amazing. I know people with 2 years of education making 65 k. LOL. Pharmacy is no longer respectable. 65 k? To hell with that. Dentists, physicians, optometrists, etc.. go to school for 4 years of professional education and make a six-figure salary that is well deserved. We don't deserve such a crappy salary.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy pharmacy, I've worked in the field and this is what I've wanted to do. However, I don't lie to myself like many people do and say I'm going to school merely to help people. A prostitute can also help people, i.e. sexually. I'm going to school because i'm genuinely interested in learning pharmacology and about the profession, i want to practice it, BUT i also want to be compensated for paying my dues in school. Good pay, great employment opportunities, etc... Hiring freezes? Saturation? This is all disaster. For some people to say, "Oh, you kids want everything easy and have never worked in the real world, blah blah blah". To hell with that. Sure, I just turned 23 but why should I have to work any harder to find a good job? When you go to school for 8 years and put in all that work, that's it. You should be done and doors should be open for you. Why work harder? WTF? Only 8% of the US population has a graduate degree in the first place and people telling me and others we just want a "pie in the sky?" No. If i've been in school for many years, I should finally see an end to the blackness and get rewarded.

But whatever, there is no reward. To hell with it all.

[Aznfarmerboi]

Originally Posted by BavarianMWE46

Pharmacists made around $40K starting out back in 1990, which is worth around $65K today. It was a good salary, but not that great considering it was a 5 year degree. THen the retail boom happened and pharmacies were making so much money they could afford to raise salaries to open up all the new pharmacies. Now things are starting to cool off. New pharmacy schools will not stop opening until people think it is not a valuable investment of their time/money. The ACPE has already said they can not and have no interest in stopping pharmacy schools from opening. The PharmD will stop being a hot degree when starting salaries fall to around $65-70K, then people will invest their time elsewhere and schools will stop opening. It is the way a free market capitalist system works.

The only difference is that when they were making 40k back then, they had an average student debt load of 10k while now, its not uncommon for students to come out with 150k in debt.

[DoctorRx1986]

Originally Posted by Aznfarmerboi

The only difference is that when they were making 40k back then, they had an average student debt load of 10k while now, its not uncommon for students to come out with 150k in debt.

Thank you, Aznfarmerboi. FINALLY. Someone who understands the crux of the matter. . Anyone graduating with massive debt SHOULD be concerned financially if there's the possibility of making a relatively low salary; unless, of course, people on SDN are so altruistic that they are willing to eat crumbs for a living all for the beautiful, wonderful patients that yell at them, don't appreciate them (with few exceptions), and who are just plain stupid.

[IrishHammer]

Originally Posted by StaviZFingerZ

Except just 10 years ago...there were about 70 pharmacy schools in all.
Here is one issue you're not addressing. The massive shortage of pharmacists were created by 2 reasons.. aging boomers RX script counts and expansion of Wags and CVS. Well, Wags and CVS are about done expanding and dispensing technology has improved to accomodate increasing script counts.

Now, we're stuck with 120 RX schools. If you don't think this alarming for new grads, then you must know something I don't.

Again, it's an issue of how flexible the graduates are. Lots of people in this forum talk about how the only jobs left will be in "undesirable" areas. However, a lot of people on this forum also thumb their nose at retail and thumb their nose at rural areas. If they consider those to be undesirable, that's fine, that's a matter of personal choice. However, I live in a rural town with 5 retail pharmacies and a hospital, both of which have huge pharmacist turnover (I've looked into this, there are a lot of pharmacists who work in my town as a first stop out of college and shortly thereafter leave for other jobs). It also happened at the Target pharmacy where I did tech work while taking prerequisites. There's no conceivable way that I'm the exception to the rule, and that this is only happening in my town. And if it's not, and I am the exception to the rule...well, then I guess you're right, and all the other graduates should be worried.

It shouldn't be alarming because the situation is not that no jobs will be available. It's still a fairly financially sound bet, just do your homework, network, and keep your options open.

[IrishHammer]

Originally Posted by StaviZFingerZ

This is the stupidest analysis of pharmacy school per capita I have ever seen.

Why? I get that it's unrealistic, but there are 16 states that have 2 pharmacy schools (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia), and of those 16, I can only recall three or four being talked about as having saturation in them. Several of these states are in the midwest, for that matter, a place that many people on this forum keep pegging as the place where jobs will still be available.

[VancTheTank]

Originally Posted by DoctorRx1986

I'm going to school because i'm genuinely interested in learning pharmacology and about the profession, i want to practice it, BUT i also want to be compensated for paying my dues in school. Good pay, great employment opportunities, etc... Hiring freezes? Saturation? This is all disaster. For some people to say, "Oh, you kids want everything easy and have never worked in the real world, blah blah blah". To hell with that. Sure, I just turned 23 but why should I have to work any harder to find a good job? When you go to school for 8 years and put in all that work, that's it. You should be done and doors should be open for you. Why work harder? WTF? Only 8% of the US population has a graduate degree in the first place and people telling me and others we just want a "pie in the sky?" No. If i've been in school for many years, I should finally see an end to the blackness and get rewarded.

But whatever, there is no reward. To hell with it all.

DoctorRX1986 - Thank you for making this post. Reading your words, it is apparent how frustrated you are with some of the potential employment scenarios our profession faces. Your eyes are open.

However, I don't agree with all of your logic. Many on this forum seem to think there is a direct relationship between time in school and the salary one is entitled to upon graduation. This is simply not true. Different professions (or, gasp, "jobs") have different salaray ranges. The salary range for a given profession is dictated by what the market for such a profession will bear. Spending 8+ years in school doesn't guarantee anything except a hefty tuition bill.

Pursuing an advanced degree is all about opportunity cost. You decide to forego income you could earn by working for four years, and instead incur the extra cost of pharmacy school tuition. That's a choice you make because you feel you will be better off in the long run. You base that decision on projected salary and how much debt you will assume to get through school. Taking on over 100k in student loans is a very risky decison that has long term quality of life consequences. Based on other posts in this forum, it seems like many pre-pharm and pharm students have really not considered this. Wake up, everyone. 120k over 10 years at a now unattainable 2.xxx interest rate will be over $1200/month. For a decade. Add that to a mortgage, retirement savings, etc... and you are looking at very little in the way of flexible income.

Many people in this country "get by" on 65k per year. That is pretty far from a poverty wage. Not all of these people thought they could take on 120k in debt for their education. Again, opportunity cost. It's not just pharmacy, though. Tuition for undergrad is stupid-expensive pretty much everywhere. Add professional school and massive debt has become almost a certainty. Such debt has been enabled by student lending practices. That's a big reason many people think student loans are the next "bubble" waiting to happen.

I am by no means trying to trash your post. I enjoyed reading it and I strongly appreciate that you are thinking about these realities while still in school. That puts you way ahead of many pharmacy students.

[StaviZFingerZ]

Originally Posted by IrishHammer

Why? I get that it's unrealistic, but there are 16 states that have 2 pharmacy schools (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia), and of those 16, I can only recall three or four being talked about as having saturation in them. Several of these states are in the midwest, for that matter, a place that many people on this forum keep pegging as the place where jobs will still be available.

Why?? Because, # of school per state is irrelevant as it's more accurate to evaluate the number of graduating pharmacist per capita or per volume of pharmacy workload in the state. Also, pharmacy class size varies greatly from school to school Therefore your analysis is inaccurate, illogical, and makes no sense.

BTW, Arkansas now has 3 pharmacy schools not 2.

[SpirivaSunrise]

Originally Posted by StaviZFingerZ

Why?? Because, # of school per state is irrelevant as it's more accurate to evaluate the number of graduating pharmacist per capita or per volume of pharmacy workload in the state. Also, pharmacy class size varies greatly from school to school Therefore your analysis is inaccurate, illogical, and makes no sense.

BTW, Arkansas now has 3 pharmacy schools not 2.

That and...who says Pharmies stay in their own state post-grad?

[StaviZFingerZ]

Originally Posted by IrishHammer

Again, it's an issue of how flexible the graduates are. Lots of people in this forum talk about how the only jobs left will be in "undesirable" areas. However, a lot of people on this forum also thumb their nose at retail and thumb their nose at rural areas. If they consider those to be undesirable, that's fine, that's a matter of personal choice. However, I live in a rural town with 5 retail pharmacies and a hospital, both of which have huge pharmacist turnover (I've looked into this, there are a lot of pharmacists who work in my town as a first stop out of college and shortly thereafter leave for other jobs). It also happened at the Target pharmacy where I did tech work while taking prerequisites. There's no conceivable way that I'm the exception to the rule, and that this is only happening in my town. And if it's not, and I am the exception to the rule...well, then I guess you're right, and all the other graduates should be worried.

It shouldn't be alarming because the situation is not that no jobs will be available. It's still a fairly financially sound bet, just do your homework, network, and keep your options open.

Your view is very myopic where you can only see 2 feet in front of you. When there are more graduating pharmacists than available positions, which is what we're predicting even though that may not be the case in your piss poor rural town, the quality of working environment for pharmacist will suffer greatly due to increase in confidence of employers to demand more from pharmacists. You as an individual pharmacist may have a job but don't ever believe that you're never going to be replaceable by younger and hungrier pharmacists who's willing to work for less.

[StaviZFingerZ]

Originally Posted by SpirivaSunrise

That and...who says Pharmies stay in their own state post-grad?

You don't say...

[IrishHammer]

Originally Posted by StaviZFingerZ

Your view is very myopic where you can only see 2 feet in front of you. When there are more graduating pharmacists than available positions, which is what we're predicting even though that may not be the case in your piss poor rural town, the quality of working environment for pharmacist will suffer greatly due to increase in confidence of employers to demand more from pharmacists. You as an individual pharmacist may have a job but don't ever believe that you're never going to be replaceable by younger and hungrier pharmacists who's willing to work for less.

Alrighty. Could you convince more people that all rural areas are dirt poor and terrible places to live? It'll make my life easier come graduation.

My point is view is not myopic. A myopic point of view would be to assume that there is still a massive shortage everywhere and that I could find myself a nice 50K signing bonus in New York City. I have actually looked around and done research on the job market in my local area. I don't care if Texas, or Florida, or So-Cal, or even the eastern portion of my home state is saturated, that doesn't affect me because I'm not looking to work there. To tell me that I'm screwed because those areas have too many pharmacists is far more myopic than anything I have said.

And yes, I'm aware that there may be a pharmacist one day who tries to undercut my salary to take my job. It's not very likely, since, again, my hometown is generally just a stop off for new graduates until they get job offers elsewhere, but it's certainly a possibility. Again, that's where flexibility comes in. If moving ends up landing me a nicer job somewhere, then so be it. I find contentment in my surroundings very easily. I live cheap and I'm not a picky guy. You may balk at the idea of living in Fargo, or Milwaukee, or Cleveland, but I could be very happy with my life and job situation were I to move somewhere like the aforementioned cities.

Getting back to the school situation, since that was what sparked this anyway. Yes, the rate at which schools are opening is spiraling out of control, and it needs to be kept in check (or stopped), but where these schools are opening is largely exacerbating the problem. Two schools in Maine aren't going to hurt that much, since a good percentage of the class will likely stay in New England. They'd be stupid not to, given the current job market. Sure, some will move to more saturated areas, but far less Husson grads will be competing for jobs in California than will California NorthState grads.

[PharmDstudent]

Originally Posted by IrishHammer

Louisiana

Yes. Minimal saturation. Roughly a year ago, the pharmacy DM talked about a $50K sign-on bonus (for 3 years) for working out in the country about an hour north of my hometown.

There's saturation near the pharmacy schools, but that's about it.

Anybody an LSU fan?
They're hiring out in Baton Rouge... but that's only if you're willing to put up with the most horrendous traffic in the state.

[Rcu]

Originally Posted by StaviZFingerZ

BTW, Arkansas now has 3 pharmacy schools not 2.

There are pharmacy schools in Little Rock, AR (UAMS) and Searcy, AR (Harding University). Where is the other one in AR?

[sanrevelle]

i dont think u should worry about a school in maine. lemme take a wild guess and say that most people who will attend that school are from maine and will stay in maine.

[Maxpwer222]

Originally Posted by sanrevelle

i dont think u should worry about a school in maine. lemme take a wild guess and say that most people who will attend that school are from maine and will stay in maine.

One of the admin from the school posted on here that like 90% of incoming students are from Maine. I am all for it since there is an actual need up there.

[PharmaTope]

i was talking to some physicians about where pharmacy is going. they were surprised how the profession doesnt protect itself like medicine does. medicine really dictates how their profession goes.

unfortunately the only way to control this nightmare is with required residencies it seems now. i disagree with pharmacy residencies ever being required.

[mustang sally]

Originally Posted by IrishHammer

However, a lot of people on this forum also thumb their nose at retail...

As stated so eloquently on another thread, retail blows. Sorry to any of you people out there who actually enjoy retail, good for you. I think if pharmacy wants to move forward to be a good profession, then we need to make the work environments a little more professional. None of this you can't sit down because the customer will think you're lazy crap. I get the impression that ACPE switched to PharmD so pharmacists could be held in higher esteem, but that doesn't really work if you are still practicing pharmacy in a fast food type of model.

[StaviZFingerZ]

Originally Posted by IrishHammer

Alrighty. Could you convince more people that all rural areas are dirt poor and terrible places to live? It'll make my life easier come graduation.

My point is view is not myopic. A myopic point of view would be to assume that there is still a massive shortage everywhere and that I could find myself a nice 50K signing bonus in New York City. I have actually looked around and done research on the job market in my local area. I don't care if Texas, or Florida, or So-Cal, or even the eastern portion of my home state is saturated, that doesn't affect me because I'm not looking to work there. To tell me that I'm screwed because those areas have too many pharmacists is far more myopic than anything I have said.

And yes, I'm aware that there may be a pharmacist one day who tries to undercut my salary to take my job. It's not very likely, since, again, my hometown is generally just a stop off for new graduates until they get job offers elsewhere, but it's certainly a possibility. Again, that's where flexibility comes in. If moving ends up landing me a nicer job somewhere, then so be it. I find contentment in my surroundings very easily. I live cheap and I'm not a picky guy. You may balk at the idea of living in Fargo, or Milwaukee, or Cleveland, but I could be very happy with my life and job situation were I to move somewhere like the aforementioned cities.

Getting back to the school situation, since that was what sparked this anyway. Yes, the rate at which schools are opening is spiraling out of control, and it needs to be kept in check (or stopped), but where these schools are opening is largely exacerbating the problem. Two schools in Maine aren't going to hurt that much, since a good percentage of the class will likely stay in New England. They'd be stupid not to, given the current job market. Sure, some will move to more saturated areas, but far less Husson grads will be competing for jobs in California than will California NorthState grads.

Myopic as in you're only worried about your job. Myopic as in you're only in your little world without knowing what other areas of the country look like. Myopic as in you have no clue how pharmacy was 20 years ago, 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, and where it's headed today. Myopic as in your inability to foresee how your pharmacy career will be affected by irresponsible opening of pharmacy schools and increasing enrollment. Myopic as in you're not worried about other graduates in other part of the country not being able to find their job of choice. You're not worried about Pharmacy ....as long as you got your little job. I work with 1,700 pharmacists and pharm techs and it's not retail. I care about pharmacy.

[StaviZFingerZ]

Originally Posted by Rcu

There are pharmacy schools in Little Rock, AR (UAMS) and Searcy, AR (Harding University). Where is the other one in AR?

UAMS Northwest should be enrolling students this fall unless the plans were delayed. The goal was to increase the enrollment by 62%.

[DoctorRx1986]

Originally Posted by PharmaTope

i was talking to some physicians about where pharmacy is going. they were surprised how the profession doesnt protect itself like medicine does. medicine really dictates how their profession goes.

unfortunately the only way to control this nightmare is with required residencies it seems now. i disagree with pharmacy residencies ever being required.

As I stated in another post on this thread, pharmacy will never truly be a profession until it begins protecting itself and representing the rights of its member pharmacists. The AMA lobbies for physicians and we have no one? Ridiculous, if you ask me. But it seems everytime I point out a reality such as this one in other posts, no one even bothers addressing the veracity of at least some of my points. Oh well.

[Aznfarmerboi]

Originally Posted by DoctorRx1986

As I stated in another post on this thread, pharmacy will never truly be a profession until it begins protecting itself and representing the rights of its member pharmacists. The AMA lobbies for physicians and we have no one? Ridiculous, if you ask me. But it seems everytime I point out a reality such as this one in other posts, no one even bothers addressing the veracity of at least some of my points. Oh well.

I wonder if we should stop focusing on accreditation boards (which is always a dead end due to anti-trust issues) and start petitioning APHA and other pharmacy lobbies. I doubt APHA will do much since they are in pharmacy lala land and most of the stuff they say contradicts each other.

[npage148]

Originally Posted by Aznfarmerboi

I wonder if we should stop focusing on accreditation boards (which is always a dead end due to anti-trust issues) and start petitioning APHA and other pharmacy lobbies. I doubt APHA will do much since they are in pharmacy lala land and most of the stuff they say contradicts each other.

Doubt APhA would help. More pharmacist=more chances for MTM!

[glory4england]

Originally Posted by Aznfarmerboi

I wonder if we should stop focusing on accreditation boards (which is always a dead end due to anti-trust issues) and start petitioning APHA and other pharmacy lobbies. I doubt APHA will do much since they are in pharmacy lala land and most of the stuff they say contradicts each other.

Can't we model our lobby effort the same way that the AMA do to stop new schools from opening? I don't know much about how pharmacists are lobbying right now since I'm just starting pharm school in the fall but I'm assuming its minimal if any at all.

I've been reading alot of these posts lately and been asking alot of pharmacists and pharmacy students, what do you think is the worst-case scenario in the upcoming years? I just want to prepare myself for the worst

[Coastie]

Are PharmD's the next JD's?

www.jdunderground.com

[Aznfarmerboi]

Originally Posted by glory4england

Can't we model our lobby effort the same way that the AMA do to stop new schools from opening? I don't know much about how pharmacists are lobbying right now since I'm just starting pharm school in the fall but I'm assuming its minimal if any at all.

I've been reading alot of these posts lately and been asking alot of pharmacists and pharmacy students, what do you think is the worst-case scenario in the upcoming years? I just want to prepare myself for the worst

You have to work overnight... and weekends. That is guarantee.

[Farmercyst]

Originally Posted by StaviZFingerZ

UAMS Northwest should be enrolling students this fall unless the plans were delayed. The goal was to increase the enrollment by 62%.

Would that be up in Fayetteville? (edit: nvm, I googled it.)

[StaviZFingerZ]

Originally Posted by Farmercyst

Would that be up in Fayetteville? (edit: nvm, I googled it.)

Yes sir!

[Farmercyst]

I wonder if I could hit up a residency there in a couple years. My bro's in Springdale, home of sell-out Mustain.

[StaviZFingerZ]

Originally Posted by Farmercyst

I wonder if I could hit up a residency there in a couple years. My bro's in Springdale, home of sell-out Mustain.

Why not. I'm not sure what residencies are up that way but it certainly is a nice area to live. I remember 10 years ago, they coulnd't get a pharmacist up there... I'm not so sure now tho. I'd think UAMS will find you interesting...not many from our institution end up there... and I've only pissed off one faculty member there...so.

[njac]

I wonder how many people will stay in Maine - is this a private school? The only example I can think of is Shenandoah - a private, rural school where almost no one is from Norther Virginia or stays in the area.

[PharmaTope]

Originally Posted by njac

I wonder how many people will stay in Maine - is this a private school? The only example I can think of is Shenandoah - a private, rural school where almost no one is from Norther Virginia or stays in the area.

ya this is a private school.

the way these schools are opening im actually terrified about where pharmacy is going (down the drain).

new pharmacy systems are also decreasing the number of pharmacists needed on staff in hospitals.

[StaviZFingerZ]

So it's University of New England in Portland and Husson University in Bangor both opening this fall?