Advice regarding pharmacy schools

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

West Coast, California Northstate, or Chapman


  • Total voters
    9

altharo

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello Everyone!

I recently had interviews for West Coast, and California Northstate, and will have Chapman coming up soon. West Coast has accepted me and my question is from these 3, what school would be the best to go in regards to reputation and academia? Would you consider saving your spot in West coast. I still have other schools that i am going for interviews but 'worst case scenario" what would be the best pick. Thanks

Members don't see this ad.
 
"This is Dr. Smith. He graduated from West Coast University".

Enough said.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
California Northstate is quite possibly the worst pharmacy school in the country. Stay far away.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
West Coast: Candidate (not-accredited...expected to be, but no guarantees)
Northstate: Accredited
Chapman: Pre-candidate (even worse than candidate status)

Honestly, at this point, it's difficult to take any of these new schools seriously though...they have little to no reputation and basically are known as new programs that are trying to start up despite the fact that pharmacists supply is already on course to far-exceed demand. My personal perspective if I got a job applicant from any of these schools is why the applicant couldn't get into any of the other pharmacy schools that are well-established and reputable, of which California has quite a few (UCSD, USC, UCSF, UOP, Western, LLU...) I have many doubts about the standards of these new schools...many have thrown around the term "diploma mill" to describe some of them.

But I guess, to answer your question, if you just had to choose one of these, Northstate is the only accredited one, if that helps at all. But like previous poster has mentioned, it's not exactly considered a good school...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
West Coast: Candidate (not-accredited...expected to be, but no guarantees)
Northstate: Accredited
Chapman: Pre-candidate (even worse than candidate status)

Honestly, at this point, it's difficult to take any of these new schools seriously though...they have little to no reputation and basically are known as new programs that are trying to start up despite the fact that pharmacists supply is already on course to far-exceed demand. My personal perspective if I got a job applicant from any of these schools is why the applicant couldn't get into any of the other pharmacy schools that are well-established and reputable, of which California has quite a few (UCSD, USC, UCSF, UOP, Western, LLU...) I have many doubts about the standards of these new schools...many have thrown around the term "diploma mill" to describe some of them.

But I guess, to answer your question, if you just *had to* choose one of these, Northstate is the only accredited one, if that helps at all. But like previous poster has mentioned, it's not exactly considered a good school...

Northstate doesn't accept federal loan money. They have their own deal worked out with private lenders. Shady stuff like that should tell prospective students everything they need to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
West Coast: Candidate (not-accredited...expected to be, but no guarantees)
Northstate: Accredited
Chapman: Pre-candidate (even worse than candidate status)

Honestly, at this point, it's difficult to take any of these new schools seriously though...they have little to no reputation and basically are known as new programs that are trying to start up despite the fact that pharmacists supply is already on course to far-exceed demand. My personal perspective if I got a job applicant from any of these schools is why the applicant couldn't get into any of the other pharmacy schools that are well-established and reputable, of which California has quite a few (UCSD, USC, UCSF, UOP, Western, LLU...) I have many doubts about the standards of these new schools...many have thrown around the term "diploma mill" to describe some of them.

But I guess, to answer your question, if you just had to choose one of these, Northstate is the only accredited one, if that helps at all. But like previous poster has mentioned, it's not exactly considered a good school...
Thank you for response. That is something I have thought as well. Every time I bring up those schools to my pharmacists, they throw a blank stare because they have not heard of them. One mentioned West Coast's reputation for Nursing. So I guess that is a plus sort of?. My follow question would then be: In that situation, would you consider waiting a year or go to Northstate to start your pharm career?
 
Northstate doesn't accept federal loan money. They have their own deal worked out with private lenders. Shady stuff like that should tell prospective students everything they need to know.
I vaguely remember something about that. I had a different understanding of the issue though. I thought it was mainly that federal loan money cannot be disbursed to students who attend unaccredited programs, which Northstate was at the time, and so they directed their students to a backdoor method by enrolling them in some proxy or pass-through program so that they could get federal money (and thus the school can get paid). Would be interesting to know what the full story is, but yeah, regardless shady is the right word to describe it.
 
Northstate doesn't accept federal loan money. They have their own deal worked out with private lenders. Shady stuff like that should tell prospective students everything they need to know.
Yup. That was a big No for me. I thought they were pretty good. They do not do lectures but instead implement Team Based Learning. This method at first was weird to me but I saw its potential. But definitely the financial aspect was scary. No federal loans and nothing planned in the future to make that relationship
 
Your best pick would be cheaper and more reputable schools which you can apply to the following year, or another profession. You will not get in return what you pay for at these institutions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do you have inside info for that strong label? why is it the worst? thanks

I did not have any inside info. My viewpoint is based purely on simple logic. Tuition is over 47k a year and cost of living is expensive. This degree could cost you over 300k and you would have no federal loan forgiveness options available.

Do a search of old threads on this school. Most of the reviews are far less than stellar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My follow question would then be: In that situation, would you consider waiting a year or go to Northstate to start your pharm career?
Depends on what you mean by waiting a year. If you mean you're going to use that year to work on becoming a better applicant to get accepted to one of the more reputable pharmacy schools, then yes, by far that is a better choice. If you plan on using that year to do more research and re-evaluate your desire to go into pharmacy, then yes, that is also a better choice (perhaps consider nursing, if your goal is to go into healthcare? Or PA/NP?) The last thing you want is to enter an already saturated profession with a degree from a subpar school with skills and knowledge reflecting a subpar education. Even students from the well-established schools of pharmacy are having difficulty finding decent jobs, and many of them will have to settle for jobs that are less than desireable because the competition is rough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I vaguely remember something about that. I had a different understanding of the issue though. I thought it was mainly that federal loan money cannot be disbursed to students who attend unaccredited programs, which Northstate was at the time, and so they directed their students to a backdoor method by enrolling them in some proxy or pass-through program so that they could get federal money (and thus the school can get paid). Would be interesting to know what the full story is, but yeah, regardless shady is the right word to describe it.

Just to provide some additional information. Northstate does loans the way they do because they are totally a new for profit institution. When they started the University, all they had was the pharmacy school. So because of the for-profit status and they were a completely new institution, they were not eligible for government loans.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Where is the NONE OF THE ABOVE option? A wise, not even. A sane human being would choose that option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Just to provide some additional information. Northstate does loans the way they do because they are totally a new for profit institution. When they started the University, all they had was the pharmacy school. So because of the for-profit status and they were a completely new institution, they were not eligible for government loans.
What makes you say that? It has nothing to do with the fact that it's new. Students attending new schools are eligible for federal student loans if they are attending accredited institutions. Accreditation is the most important factor, not how new the school is or whether they are non-profit or for-profit, though they often come hand-in-hand. The facts are here: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/prepare-for-college/choosing-schools/consider#accreditation
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What makes you say that? It has nothing to do with the fact that it's new. Students attending new schools are eligible for federal student loans if they are attending accredited institutions. Accreditation is the most important factor, not how new the school is or whether they are non-profit or for-profit, though they often come hand-in-hand. The facts are here: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/prepare-for-college/choosing-schools/consider#accreditation

If you look at the webpage, it says "If you attend a school that isn’t accredited, you might not be able to get any financial aid. The U.S. Department of Education requires that schools participating in our federal student aid programs be accredited. Also, your state education agency’s aid programs may not offer financial aid at unaccredited schools."

The accreditation the site is referring to is Regional accreditation, which for schools in California is WASC accreditation. Cal Northstate had WASC accreditation, they just didn't have Full pharmacy accreditation, which is ACPE accreditation. No new pharmacy school can get Full Accreditation until they graduate their first class. Cal Northstate did have pre-candidate ACPE accreditation when they started, since you can't have students start taking classes until you get pre-candidate status.

As for your statement "Students attending new schools are eligible for federal student loans if they are attending accredited institutions." If you are referring to ACPE Accreditation, as I just mentioned, no new schools get Fully accredited by ACPE until they graduate their first class. And all new schools need to get regional accreditation before they can get pre-candidate level ACPE accreditation. But if you are saying that all students who attend regionally accredited schools are eligible for federal student loans, that is still not correct since Cal Northstate had regional accreditation when they started. They needed the regional accreditation in order to get pre-candidate status.

As for the issue of new pharmacy schools; there are existing Universities that start a new pharmacy school, like Chapman, West Coast, Western, KGI, etc. That is different from Cal Northstate, because Cal Northstate didn't exist until they opened the pharmacy school. There were no other programs that were in existence. There was no previous track record between the university and the government.

But I can see how you were misled by the statement on the website. The accreditation process is extremely complex.

This is the link for each school and the level of ACPE Accreditation they have.
https://www.acpe-accredit.org/shared_info/programsSecure.asp?sortby=state#CA

Here is the link that shows all of the various accreditation stages Cal Northstate has gone through, and when.
https://www.acpe-accredit.org/shared_info/accredHistory.asp?degreeid=35&entity=460
 
If you look at the webpage, it says "If you attend a school that isn’t accredited, you might not be able to get any financial aid. The U.S. Department of Education requires that schools participating in our federal student aid programs be accredited. Also, your state education agency’s aid programs may not offer financial aid at unaccredited schools."

The accreditation the site is referring to is Regional accreditation, which for schools in California is WASC accreditation. Cal Northstate had WASC accreditation, they just didn't have Full pharmacy accreditation, which is ACPE accreditation. No new pharmacy school can get Full Accreditation until they graduate their first class. Cal Northstate did have pre-candidate ACPE accreditation when they started, since you can't have students start taking classes until you get pre-candidate status.

As for your statement "Students attending new schools are eligible for federal student loans if they are attending accredited institutions." If you are referring to ACPE Accreditation, as I just mentioned, no new schools get Fully accredited by ACPE until they graduate their first class. And all new schools need to get regional accreditation before they can get pre-candidate level ACPE accreditation. But if you are saying that all students who attend regionally accredited schools are eligible for federal student loans, that is still not correct since Cal Northstate had regional accreditation when they started. They needed the regional accreditation in order to get pre-candidate status.

As for the issue of new pharmacy schools; there are existing Universities that start a new pharmacy school, like Chapman, West Coast, Western, KGI, etc. That is different from Cal Northstate, because Cal Northstate didn't exist until they opened the pharmacy school. There were no other programs that were in existence. There was no previous track record between the university and the government.

But I can see how you were misled by the statement on the website. The accreditation process is extremely complex.

This is the link for each school and the level of ACPE Accreditation they have.
https://www.acpe-accredit.org/shared_info/programsSecure.asp?sortby=state#CA

Here is the link that shows all of the various accreditation stages Cal Northstate has gone through, and when.
https://www.acpe-accredit.org/shared_info/accredHistory.asp?degreeid=35&entity=460

Then I stand corrected in regards to differentiating between WASC and ACPE accredidation. However, if WASC accreditation did not allow students to be eligible for federal loans, then I fail to understand where the issue lies. Regardless, the shady practice of securing backdoor loans for their students when federal loans were not available to them whether or not their students are eligible for federal loans now puts them in the black books for me - despite the fact that they are accredited.

On the other hand, I would never recommend attending a non-accredited school either, regardless of eligibility for federal loans. Not because non-accredited schools are not good (though that may certainly be the case), but because we don't know if they are good. As you've said, no school of pharmacy starts out accredited, but why apply to a non-accredited program when there are already so many accredited programs? I see it as a sign of desperation when students accept positions at non-accredited programs. Students in unaccredited programs are basically test subjects who don't know what will happen to them and what the quality of education they will get is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Where is the NONE OF THE ABOVE option? A wise, not even. A sane human being would choose that option.

Agreed. Have to be stupid to choose to enter pharmacy these days, if I had a chance to do it over I'd go MD or Dental.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Everyone I know from Northstate is local to the Sacramento area and didn't want to leave the state for pharmacy school despite the cost of attendance. So Northstate does meet that preference (stay in northern California but for whatever reason didn't want or couldn't go to UoP, Touro, or UCSF).

The thought of paying 300k principal on student loans at variable interest rates is nauseating, whether you are "miserable" making 135k a year in retail in CA or "following your dream" as a clinical pharmacist for 100k/year elsewhere in the U.S.
 
Then I stand corrected in regards to differentiating between WASC and ACPE accredidation. However, if WASC accreditation did not allow students to be eligible for federal loans, then I fail to understand where the issue lies. Regardless, the shady practice of securing backdoor loans for their students when federal loans were not available to them whether or not their students are eligible for federal loans now puts them in the black books for me - despite the fact that they are accredited.

On the other hand, I would never recommend attending a non-accredited school either, regardless of eligibility for federal loans. Not because non-accredited schools are not good (though that may certainly be the case), but because we don't know if they are good. As you've said, no school of pharmacy starts out accredited, but why apply to a non-accredited program when there are already so many accredited programs? I see it as a sign of desperation when students accept positions at non-accredited programs. Students in unaccredited programs are basically test subjects who don't know what will happen to them and what the quality of education they will get is.

You feel that students are desperate when they choose a non-accredited school, given all of the other accredited school options.

But have you considered the fact that there may be many reasons students choose a new non-accredited school, such as location as someone mentioned earlier in reference to Sac area students wanting to stay in the area. There is a lot of value in going to school in the area you want to get a job, since you ability to make stronger connections with the local job market is improved. And given how tight the job market is getting in Orange County, going to school in the OC opens up more pharmacist job opportunities because it makes it easier to work regularly as an Intern Pharmacist during school. And a lot of those Intern Pharmacist positions lead to Pharmacist positions.

Some students are also excited about the fact that they will be able to say that they were the first, second, or third class to graduate from the school. It is a pretty special achievement that is with you the rest of your life. Also during Homecoming events there are special events for the first graduates. And even during School receptions at various pharmacy conferences, there is special recognition for the early graduates. It's not often that you can get in on the ground floor of a school.

And they recognize the fact that the school is untested and several things may change, but they are also excited about being a part of that change. New schools get a lot of input from their students as to how things are going and how things can improve. And when these changes are put into place, the students are able to take credit for making the school a success.

But of course, those things don't matter to all students. Some students prefer to take the safe route, but students new schools are risk takers. They have some of that entrepreneurial spirit, because they want to be part of creating something bigger than themselves. Neither perspective is right or wrong, just what is most comfortable for the student. And we respect that.
 
You feel that students are desperate when they choose a non-accredited school, given all of the other accredited school options.

But have you considered the fact that there may be many reasons students choose a new non-accredited school, such as location as someone mentioned earlier in reference to Sac area students wanting to stay in the area. There is a lot of value in going to school in the area you want to get a job, since you ability to make stronger connections with the local job market is improved. And given how tight the job market is getting in Orange County, going to school in the OC opens up more pharmacist job opportunities because it makes it easier to work regularly as an Intern Pharmacist during school. And a lot of those Intern Pharmacist positions lead to Pharmacist positions.

Some students are also excited about the fact that they will be able to say that they were the first, second, or third class to graduate from the school. It is a pretty special achievement that is with you the rest of your life. Also during Homecoming events there are special events for the first graduates. And even during School receptions at various pharmacy conferences, there is special recognition for the early graduates. It's not often that you can get in on the ground floor of a school.

And they recognize the fact that the school is untested and several things may change, but they are also excited about being a part of that change. New schools get a lot of input from their students as to how things are going and how things can improve. And when these changes are put into place, the students are able to take credit for making the school a success.

But of course, those things don't matter to all students. Some students prefer to take the safe route, but students new schools are risk takers. They have some of that entrepreneurial spirit, because they want to be part of creating something bigger than themselves. Neither perspective is right or wrong, just what is most comfortable for the student. And we respect that.

I agree. I don't understand why anyone would ever prefer accredited prestigious schools that cost 15k/year over unaccredited new for-profit schools that only cost 50k/year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
But of course, those things don't matter to all students. Some students prefer to take the safe route, but students new schools are risk takers. They have some of that entrepreneurial spirit, because they want to be part of creating something bigger than themselves. Neither perspective is right or wrong, just what is most comfortable for the student. And we respect that.

That is a bunch of BS. Why would anyone risk their career and a lot of money so they can be recognized as a graduate from the third class at XYZ? That is just ridiculous.

Why would anyone choose Northstate over UCSF? You want to pay more tuition? You want to go to a school with a lot of kinks that need to be worked out? You want to go to a school with subpar students?

It has nothing to do with being a risk taker. Risk takers are rewarded for the risk they are taking. What real rewards are they getting?

Don't be so desperate. If your new school is good then it will attract good students. It is that simple.

Your reasoning is just wracked. Can't believe someone like you represented pharmacists as APhA president.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
You feel that students are desperate when they choose a non-accredited school, given all of the other accredited school options.
....

But of course, those things don't matter to all students. Some students prefer to take the safe route, but students new schools are risk takers. They have some of that entrepreneurial spirit, because they want to be part of creating something bigger than themselves. Neither perspective is right or wrong, just what is most comfortable for the student. And we respect that.

You're right that students weigh factors differently, and that if they weighed all factors that were important to them, it may well be that an unaccredited or new SOP may be their school of choice - though personally, I would find that hard to believe if in fact, such a candidate were well-qualified for more reputable programs, I don't discount that possibility.

I feel employers should look at job applicants as a whole, not just solely on what school was attended, but in a job market so competitive, with many more applicants than positions when many CVs of new graduates look fairly similar, I definitely would weigh the reliability and history of a program into hiring decisions.

Take the OP here for example, whose interviews are all at the new SOPs in California. Location within CA is obviously not a major motivation, as these schools are nowhere near each other. OP wants to attend a pharmacy school in California, but only has interviews at the new SOPs. Why do you think that is? If OP wanted a pharmacy program in CA, wouldn't you expect that he or she would apply to more than just 3 of the newest programs to come into existence? I do not believe that the desire and excitement of being part of a fresh program could be that great that OP would only apply for these new programs at the risk of not being accepted into a pharmacy program at all. The more likely scenario is that the most qualified students have taken the spots at more reputable programs, leaving the least qualified to the least competitive programs and students are attending these programs out of desperation to be in a pharmacy program at all.

Granted, I'm sure there may be some well-qualified students who do not make it to the top programs and have legitimately weighed the factors important to them, leading them to apply for an unaccredited (or even an accredited new program). As mentioned, the fact that a program is new or unaccredited does not make it bad.

As for your example of students who want rotations and connections in the OC, both UCSF and USC have rotation sites in the OC. The benefits of having rotations in a certain locale are not unique to new programs. I just recently met a UCSF P4 who got back from a rotation in Mission Viejo. Additionally, many employers in the locale are alumni of established programs. I get job notices from alumni of my school all the time for locations all over Southern California, including the OC. Do the minor benefits of fulfilling a personal desire for the excitement of being in a new program really outweigh the risks of being in an unreputed program of uncertain quality in a highly competitive job market?

By the way, since you used your own school as an example, if I were precepting or employing students as interns in your area, they would still better make sure they impress me. No matter our connection, I would not hire someone who is not competent. Despite connections, these students are still at the mercy of their programs to provide them with the quality education they need to compete. Furthermore, the OC is such a highly-desired area to be employed in, connections or not, there will be many highly-qualified applicants for every open position from all over...I hope any students hoping to compete will not think that having the connection will be a substitute for being subpar relative to other applicants who don't have the connection.

As you've said these students are taking a risk. I agree it is their risk to take, I only highly advise against such an unwise risk when better options are available if they were set on pursuin pharmacy as a profession (unless those better options were eliminated, in which case they attend whatever remaining programs they can get into out of desperation). I'm sure there are those who are adamant who will disregard my warnings anyways. I cannot make value judgments for others. Ultimately, everyone should take responsibility for their own outcomes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
That is a bunch of BS. Why would anyone risk their career and a lot of money so they can be recognized as a graduate from the third class at XYZ? That is just ridiculous.

Why would anyone choose Northstate over UCSF? You want to pay more tuition? You want to go to a school with a lot of kinks that need to be worked out? You want to go to a school with subpar students?

It has nothing to do with being a risk taker. Risk takers are rewarded for the risk they are taking. What real rewards are they getting?

Don't be so desperate. If your new school is good then it will attract good students. It is that simple.

Your reasoning is just wracked. Can't believe someone like you represented pharmacists as APhA president.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Honestly, the words "snake oil salesman" and "used car salesman" come to mind when I read some of these posts... Definitely talks and thinks like a politician, putting an immense spinning on things. Last year, he was arguing that his school was created to meet a shortage and train clinical pharmacists. which the profession lacks. Now, he is saying he is here to provide California residents, who are unable to get into a CA school, an opportunity to stay in CA. WOW how noble of him. The harsh truth is # of applicants to pharm school is declining and so is the quality of applicants. Pharmacy used to attract top students with bachelors from top schools and even masters. Now schools are struggling to fill their classes with qualified students and even accepting many students from CC with minimum qualifications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
.
Some students are also excited about the fact that they will be able to say that they were the first, second, or third class to graduate from the school. It is a pretty special achievement that is with you the rest of your life. Also during Homecoming events there are special events for the first graduates. And even during School receptions at various pharmacy conferences, there is special recognition for the early graduates. It's not often that you can get in on the ground floor of a school.

Well, that would be all well and good, if they actually graduate with a recognizable degree, but "unaccredited" means there is the possibility that they could spend 10 of thousands of dollars, not to mention a few years of the prime of their life and end up with absolutely nothing (cough cough Hawaii College of Pharmacy.)

There are thrill risks and there are stupid risks. I don't see anything thrilling about going to a college of pharmacy, knowing up front one may never get a degree that would allow them to practice pharmacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well, that would be all well and good, if they actually graduate with a recognizable degree, but "unaccredited" means there is the possibility that they could spend 10 of thousands of dollars, not to mention a few years of the prime of their life and end up with absolutely nothing (cough cough Hawaii College of Pharmacy.)

There are thrill risks and there are stupid risks. I don't see anything thrilling about going to a college of pharmacy, knowing up front one may never get a degree that would allow them to practice pharmacy.

In CA, you are able to be licensed if you attend a school that is pre-accredited. I suppose schools can shut down in p2, but unlikely if pre-accreditation is granted by ACPE. Northstate graduated their first class in 2012, but were not granted full accreditation that year. Their students were still able to get licensed and have same rights and privileges. To me it's still silly not to choose a well known school, with top professors, top research, top rotation sites, alumni connection. It's like choosing to reinvent the wheel...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well, that would be all well and good, if they actually graduate with a recognizable degree, but "unaccredited" means there is the possibility that they could spend 10 of thousands of dollars, not to mention a few years of the prime of their life and end up with absolutely nothing (cough cough Hawaii College of Pharmacy.)

There are thrill risks and there are stupid risks. I don't see anything thrilling about going to a college of pharmacy, knowing up front one may never get a degree that would allow them to practice pharmacy.

To provide some clarity, we have around 140 schools of pharmacy, and Hawaii College is the only school I know of where the students got shafted. But the reason they got shafted is because Hawaii College started the program without first having pre-candidate status, and I don't think they even had regional accreditation. So the message for students is to make sure the school has pre-candidate status before you apply.

To my knowledge, there haven't been any schools who had pre-candidate status and didn't eventually get full accreditation. Possibly the toughest part of the accreditation process is getting pre-candidate status. There are a few schools in California that have wanted to open for years, but they can never get pre-candidate status.

And once a school gets candidate status, the students who graduate are able to take the boards and get licensed. So the only risk there is if the school never gets full accreditation. It wouldn't affect their ability to get a job, it would just be embarrassing to be from a school that didn't get full accreditation. But like I said, every school has eventually gotten full accreditation, if they had pre-candidate status, because the accreditation board writes up the schools deficiencies and the school has to fix them before they get any level of accreditation.
 
You're right that students weigh factors differently, and that if they weighed all factors that were important to them, it may well be that an unaccredited or new SOP may be their school of choice - though personally, I would find that hard to believe if in fact, such a candidate were well-qualified for more reputable programs, I don't discount that possibility.

I feel employers should look at job applicants as a whole, not just solely on what school was attended, but in a job market so competitive, with many more applicants than positions when many CVs of new graduates look fairly similar, I definitely would weigh the reliability and history of a program into hiring decisions.

Take the OP here for example, whose interviews are all at the new SOPs in California. Location within CA is obviously not a major motivation, as these schools are nowhere near each other. OP wants to attend a pharmacy school in California, but only has interviews at the new SOPs. Why do you think that is? If OP wanted a pharmacy program in CA, wouldn't you expect that he or she would apply to more than just 3 of the newest programs to come into existence? I do not believe that the desire and excitement of being part of a fresh program could be that great that OP would only apply for these new programs at the risk of not being accepted into a pharmacy program at all. The more likely scenario is that the most qualified students have taken the spots at more reputable programs, leaving the least qualified to the least competitive programs and students are attending these programs out of desperation to be in a pharmacy program at all.

Granted, I'm sure there may be some well-qualified students who do not make it to the top programs and have legitimately weighed the factors important to them, leading them to apply for an unaccredited (or even an accredited new program). As mentioned, the fact that a program is new or unaccredited does not make it bad.

As for your example of students who want rotations and connections in the OC, both UCSF and USC have rotation sites in the OC. The benefits of having rotations in a certain locale are not unique to new programs. I just recently met a UCSF P4 who got back from a rotation in Mission Viejo. Additionally, many employers in the locale are alumni of established programs. I get job notices from alumni of my school all the time for locations all over Southern California, including the OC. Do the minor benefits of fulfilling a personal desire for the excitement of being in a new program really outweigh the risks of being in an unreputed program of uncertain quality in a highly competitive job market?

By the way, since you used your own school as an example, if I were precepting or employing students as interns in your area, they would still better make sure they impress me. No matter our connection, I would not hire someone who is not competent. Despite connections, these students are still at the mercy of their programs to provide them with the quality education they need to compete. Furthermore, the OC is such a highly-desired area to be employed in, connections or not, there will be many highly-qualified applicants for every open position from all over...I hope any students hoping to compete will not think that having the connection will be a substitute for being subpar relative to other applicants who don't have the connection.

As you've said these students are taking a risk. I agree it is their risk to take, I only highly advise against such an unwise risk when better options are available if they were set on pursuin pharmacy as a profession (unless those better options were eliminated, in which case they attend whatever remaining programs they can get into out of desperation). I'm sure there are those who are adamant who will disregard my warnings anyways. I cannot make value judgments for others. Ultimately, everyone should take responsibility for their own outcomes.

I actually agree with you on a few points.

1. No amount of networking or connections make up for being a lousy pharmacy student or pharmacist. As a student you need to be well prepared when you do your IPPE/APPE's, and you need to work hard and not ask can you go home early all the time.

2. Doing rotations in a local area is not dependent upon where the school is located. But while that is true, we do have far more rotations in the OC than other schools. Plus, the main advantage I was referring to in terms of the location of the school is being able to work as a Pharmacy Intern in the OC year round, rather than just during summers or during breaks.

But as for the reasons why a student would pick a new school, I can tell you that students chose Chapman for a number of reasons. One is that we are located in Irvine which is close to where they are from. We get a number of UCI students so they are already familiar with the area, and compared to the locations of most other CA schools, Irvine is pretty nice. Other students liked our state of the art facility, or our use of flipped classroom pedagogy. Other students know and trust the Chapman brand. Chapman University is a well regarded institution in the area, though it is not well know outside of the OC. For now.

As for your point about desperate students. I know that we have students who had multiple offers from other schools, and not just new schools. Most of our students have applied to and had an interview at multiple schools. I know the stereotype is to say that new schools are desperate for students so they will take anybody as long as they can pay tuition. I can't speak for other new schools, but I can say that isn't the case with Chapman. To us it doesn't make much sense to accept students who are ready academically, because they will be more likely to fail out of the program. And if you have too many students failing out of the program this could cause a problem with you getting full accreditation. And if you make the program so easy or manipulate the grading so that those academically challenged students can still make it through the program, then those students will be more likely to fail the California Law exam, if not the NAPLEX. And a high board failure rate will definitely keep a school from getting full accreditation.

But you are right, reputation matters to a lot of people. But if you have ever studied about the diffusion of innovation, you'll remember that there our innovators out there who are willing to take the risk and even pay a higher cost in order to have some latest technology. (Think of the people who bought the first plasma t.v.s when they were still over 5 or 6k for a 42 inch.) If the innovators show satisfaction with the product then the early adopters feel comfortable enough to take the risk. And then of course later comes the early majority, the late majority, and then finally the laggards.

So while we realize it may seem crazy to you and others why a student might chose to go to a new school rather than an established one, it actually makes quite a bit of sense to many students.
 
I actually agree with you on a few points.

1. No amount of networking or connections make up for being a lousy pharmacy student or pharmacist. As a student you need to be well prepared when you do your IPPE/APPE's, and you need to work hard and not ask can you go home early all the time.

2. Doing rotations in a local area is not dependent upon where the school is located. But while that is true, we do have far more rotations in the OC than other schools. Plus, the main advantage I was referring to in terms of the location of the school is being able to work as a Pharmacy Intern in the OC year round, rather than just during summers or during breaks.

But as for the reasons why a student would pick a new school, I can tell you that students chose Chapman for a number of reasons. One is that we are located in Irvine which is close to where they are from. We get a number of UCI students so they are already familiar with the area, and compared to the locations of most other CA schools, Irvine is pretty nice. Other students liked our state of the art facility, or our use of flipped classroom pedagogy. Other students know and trust the Chapman brand. Chapman University is a well regarded institution in the area, though it is not well know outside of the OC. For now.

As for your point about desperate students. I know that we have students who had multiple offers from other schools, and not just new schools. Most of our students have applied to and had an interview at multiple schools. I know the stereotype is to say that new schools are desperate for students so they will take anybody as long as they can pay tuition. I can't speak for other new schools, but I can say that isn't the case with Chapman. To us it doesn't make much sense to accept students who are ready academically, because they will be more likely to fail out of the program. And if you have too many students failing out of the program this could cause a problem with you getting full accreditation. And if you make the program so easy or manipulate the grading so that those academically challenged students can still make it through the program, then those students will be more likely to fail the California Law exam, if not the NAPLEX. And a high board failure rate will definitely keep a school from getting full accreditation.

But you are right, reputation matters to a lot of people. But if you have ever studied about the diffusion of innovation, you'll remember that there our innovators out there who are willing to take the risk and even pay a higher cost in order to have some latest technology. (Think of the people who bought the first plasma t.v.s when they were still over 5 or 6k for a 42 inch.) If the innovators show satisfaction with the product then the early adopters feel comfortable enough to take the risk. And then of course later comes the early majority, the late majority, and then finally the laggards.

So while we realize it may seem crazy to you and others why a student might chose to go to a new school rather than an established one, it actually makes quite a bit of sense to many students.

You lost me at your last paragraph, bolded. Only delusional pre-pharm students that don't fully grasp debt (or the amount of it and interest) or who have financial help from parents would chose a more expensive and newer school in this day and age. It just doesn't make logical sense. I wish I could go back and convince my younger self to chose a less expensive school, and not have gone to my Alma mater for my undergrad and pharmd.

Any pharmacy student can get a job as an intern during school, regardless of the state and location.. it just takes some work ethic and interview skills. I work 30 hours a week on average, among 3 different pharmacy settings, just an example.

I do appreciate you contributing your input on the forums though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would stay far far and veryyyy far away from all those three schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
(Think of the people who bought the first plasma t.v.s when they were still over 5 or 6k for a 42 inch.) If the innovators show satisfaction with the product then the early adopters feel comfortable enough to take the risk. And then of course later comes the early majority, the late majority, and then finally the laggards.
I see the analogy you're trying to make, but as a lover of analogies, I have to be critical. The benefits of a plasma TV are immediately demonstrable. The benefits of a new pharmacy program in comparison to long-standing existing programs are unclear while the potential risks are costly. To extend your analogy, plasma TVs have been around for a long time, made by several manufacturers with a established histories of producing quality TVs. You can hardly call a brand new manufacturer an innovator just because they decide they want to enter the market and also make plasma TVs. Furthermore, one must pay 4 years in advance to reserve this TV. There's no return policy. I'd be curious who thinks it's a good idea to reserve a TV from this new manufacturer which has yet to even produce its first plasma TV, when for the same price (and in some cases, for less), one could reserve it from one of the established manufacturers. Anyways, you see where I am going with this.

Of course those entering the program first are doing a service to future generations - the "laggards" as you call them - through their trials, but at very minimal benefit to themselves...the hope being that multiple subsequent iterations will demonstrate the strengths and deficiencies of the program and that improvements will be made for the future generations. Any program hoping to be established will have to go through this phase, but at this point, there are already so many established programs that it seems rather a major risk to take with seemingly very few visible benefits to being one of the first in these programs.

In reality, the true "laggards" are the brand new pharmacy programs that have come into existence at a time when established and demonstrated programs have already met, and now exceed the demand for pharmacists. The innovators have already long-ago recognized the need for pharmacists and have come to train pharmacists to meet those needs. The laggards are jumping onto the bandwagon, so to speak. There are so many people competing for job positions at a time when the market has not yet even reached steady state - when it does, it will be worse. The last thing I want to see is new, undemonstrated programs turning out more disappointed (and disappointing) graduates that will struggle with this reality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
West Coast: Candidate (not-accredited...expected to be, but no guarantees)
Northstate: Accredited
Chapman: Pre-candidate (even worse than candidate status)

Honestly, at this point, it's difficult to take any of these new schools seriously though...they have little to no reputation and basically are known as new programs that are trying to start up despite the fact that pharmacists supply is already on course to far-exceed demand. My personal perspective if I got a job applicant from any of these schools is why the applicant couldn't get into any of the other pharmacy schools that are well-established and reputable, of which California has quite a few (UCSD, USC, UCSF, UOP, Western, LLU...) I have many doubts about the standards of these new schools...many have thrown around the term "diploma mill" to describe some of them.

But I guess, to answer your question, if you just had to choose one of these, Northstate is the only accredited one, if that helps at all. But like previous poster has mentioned, it's not exactly considered a good school...
Run as far as possible from these nightmare they called schools, especially North state

Or
Stay and decrease your life span


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
You guys realize no one makes plasma displays anymore (at least for consumer markets)? Ultimately it's all about $$$$$$$$ when it comes to selling TVs or selling a pharmacy program.

Who are the "innovators?" Of course people selling something novel would tout the advantages of their product. But another pharmacy school is hardly novel. A student taking a risk going to a new school is not a trailblazer, just another consumer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You guys realize no one makes plasma displays anymore (at least for consumer markets)?
That goes beyond the point of the analogy, unless you're trying to extend the analogy to say that pharmacists, like plasma screens, are obsolete. Pharmacists are not obsolete yet, though we may be in the future. At least the pharmacists of the present will be, depending on the pace of technological advances. Better put, pharmacists' roles will evolve alongside the technology available and we will not see pharmacists as we are now. In truth, we are already observing that...for example, there were no such thing as IT pharmacists a few decades ago.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I see the analogy you're trying to make, but as a lover of analogies, I have to be critical. The benefits of a plasma TV are immediately demonstrable. The benefits of a new pharmacy program in comparison to long-standing existing programs are unclear while the potential risks are costly. To extend your analogy, plasma TVs have been around for a long time, made by several manufacturers with a established histories of producing quality TVs. You can hardly call a brand new manufacturer an innovator just because they decide they want to enter the market and also make plasma TVs. Furthermore, one must pay 4 years in advance to reserve this TV. There's no return policy. I'd be curious who thinks it's a good idea to reserve a TV from this new manufacturer which has yet to even produce its first plasma TV, when for the same price (and in some cases, for less), one could reserve it from one of the established manufacturers. Anyways, you see where I am going with this.

Of course those entering the program first are doing a service to future generations - the "laggards" as you call them - through their trials, but at very minimal benefit to themselves...the hope being that multiple subsequent iterations will demonstrate the strengths and deficiencies of the program and that improvements will be made for the future generations. Any program hoping to be established will have to go through this phase, but at this point, there are already so many established programs that it seems rather a major risk to take with seemingly very few visible benefits to being one of the first in these programs.

In reality, the true "laggards" are the brand new pharmacy programs that have come into existence at a time when established and demonstrated programs have already met, and now exceed the demand for pharmacists. The innovators have already long-ago recognized the need for pharmacists and have come to train pharmacists to meet those needs. The laggards are jumping onto the bandwagon, so to speak. There are so many people competing for job positions at a time when the market has not yet even reached steady state - when it does, it will be worse. The last thing I want to see is new, undemonstrated programs turning out more disappointed (and disappointing) graduates that will struggle with this reality.

I like your thinking, and maybe the plasma analogy wasn't the best one.

Instead, think of when Hyundai joined the car market. You could obviously call them a laggard to the US car market, since there were so many established brands already.

Even though they were new and didn't have a reputation, the innovators in the population decided to take the risk and buy one, even though they could have easily bought a car from an established car company. I'm not saying that choosing a new school of pharmacy is exactly the same as choosing a new brand of car, only that there are similarities in why someone my be willing to take the risk of a new school.

As for the pharmacy job market, the only way you will have plenty of jobs in all areas of the country are if you have shortages in all areas. Although shortages, like we had in the 90's and early 2000's may seem like a great thing from the perspective of a pharmacist seeking a job. But shortages were not a great thing when you were actually in the job, if you were at a place where you were short pharmacists. Someone had to pick up that extra load. Also, shortages make it easier for pharmacists who really should no longer be practicing pharmacy, the ability to keep practicing. And I don't see how that is good for pharmacy. If indeed we do reach an over supply of pharmacists in the market, it is more likely that those pharmacists who aren't really doing a good job will be pushed out and replaced with new graduates, or at least better pharmacists.

Also, I know folks who work in other industries like banking or the technology sector, who have to move out of state to find a position. If you look at the radio and tv broadcasting areas, new graduates have to move to small markets to get their feet in the door, and then work their way up to larger markets. And even those larger markets are rarely where they are from originally.

Lastly, one benefit of the tightening market is that new graduates have become more entrepreneurial in nature and have been working to make contacts in new areas (like medical groups or care transition organizations) and writing their own job descriptions. If we always only have enough pharmacists to do what we currently do, then we will never have enough pharmacists to do more than we currently do.
 
The quality of pharmacy education at Chapman must be very high if the dean sits on sdn all day and responds to trolls instead of actually working to improve the program...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The quality of pharmacy education at Chapman must be very high if the dean sits on sdn all day and responds to trolls instead of actually working to improve the program...
The quality is actually quite high, since the Associate Dean cares enough to use his non work hours to provide helpful information. Rarely do I post messages during working hours. The pharmacy profession is too important to only allow one side of the story to be presented.

Also, you'll notice that there are typically really long gaps between the times that I reply. Recently I have been on more often because of the really good dialogue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
But shortages were not a great thing when you were actually in the job, if you were at a place where you were short pharmacists. Someone had to pick up that extra load.

So why are pharmacies more short staffed than ever, especially compared to 10 years ago, despite the surplus of pharmacists who cannot find full time work or any job at all?

Also, shortages make it easier for pharmacists who really should no longer be practicing pharmacy, the ability to keep practicing. And I don't see how that is good for pharmacy.

While competition has increased at the hiring stage, there is no longer competition when it comes to getting accepted into pharmacy school. During the pharmacist shortage, pharmacy used to be comparable to medicine when it came to admission standards. Now someone who barely scoots by in their PCAT and prerequisites taken at a community college can get into pharmacy school, as long as they are willing to sign away $200k+ in loans. How are we getting more good pharmacists when students who cannot handle the courses, or simply have a poor work ethic, get into pharmacy school?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So why are pharmacies more short staffed than ever, especially compared to 10 years ago, despite the surplus of pharmacists who cannot find full time work or any job at all?
I know of certain chains cutting technician hours so pharmacists are getting less help.

Lastly, one benefit of the tightening market is that new graduates have become more entrepreneurial in nature and have been working to make contacts in new areas (like medical groups or care transition organizations) and writing their own job descriptions. If we always only have enough pharmacists to do what we currently do, then we will never have enough pharmacists to do more than we currently do.
Therein lies the problem. Prospective students do not understand that they will need to be more entrepeneurial than ever. Many still think pharmacy will lead them to easily-found, stable, well-paying, easy jobs. New graduates looking for jobs certainly do not "benefit [from] the tightening market".

It's in our nature to see what's happening now and easily overlook what's in the future. With so many new pharmacy programs opening up, many which haven't yet even graduated their first class, the job situation will continue to drastically worsen for decades (considering a completely new graduate probably has about 30-40 years as part of the workforce until he or she retires) until the market reaches steady state. In less words, jobs will become increasingly difficult to find, year after year for decades. While the job outlook now is important to take into consideration, the future is even more critical. Prospective students generally do not take that into consideration, leading many of them to make the wrong choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The quality is actually quite high, since the Associate Dean cares enough to use his non work hours to provide helpful information. Rarely do I post messages during working hours. The pharmacy profession is too important to only allow one side of the story to be presented.

Also, you'll notice that there are typically really long gaps between the times that I reply. Recently I have been on more often because of the really good dialogue.


Ah but you are still replying to me... I am currently finalizing my paperwork to withdraw from the PhamD program I'm enrolled in because the P4s here are already having a hard time landing jobs. I am not trying to be a jerk, but if you are indeed charging $47k a year in tuition per earlier in this thread, for your sake, I hope Chapman is among the top PharmD programs in the country right now, because if it isn't, you may be at risk of losing students. I pay far, far less than $47,000 a year and I am still not getting my money's worth, and my program is fully accredited. The student loan bubble looks like it's about to burst, so I hope you have a backup plan in place in case you start losing students. Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So why are pharmacies more short staffed than ever, especially compared to 10 years ago, despite the surplus of pharmacists who cannot find full time work or any job at all?



While competition has increased at the hiring stage, there is no longer competition when it comes to getting accepted into pharmacy school. During the pharmacist shortage, pharmacy used to be comparable to medicine when it came to admission standards. Now someone who barely scoots by in their PCAT and prerequisites taken at a community college can get into pharmacy school, as long as they are willing to sign away $200k+ in loans. How are we getting more good pharmacists when students who cannot handle the courses, or simply have a poor work ethic, get into pharmacy school?
lol pharmacy was never that competitive

Getting a ~3.7 GPA with a ~32 MCAT plus an undergrad bachelor's degree is much harder than a 2.7 GPA 40% PCAT

And the USMLE vs the NAPLEX, MPJE, CPJE is a joke
 
Last edited:
Top