If you had a kid preparing for college what would you push them into?

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

redfish955

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
586
Reaction score
187
I have a few buddies that are at that stage in life. Me personally.
Teacher with a math minor.
If they don't handle the math teach.
If they handle the math Georgia tech omcs program for 10k. You never hear about teacher majors flunking out but calculus definitely weeds em out.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Computer science, engineering, finance, accounting, the trades, etc.

Something that is in demand, pays well, and does not require you to take out astronomical debt and spend your 20's and early 30's in school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I would never *push* a kid, I would see what he or she has natural inclination for. And recommend the most practical of the options they would actually enjoy and be good at. Or the most enjoyable of the practical options.

Most kids I know who were pushed into something they hated ended up quitting school - either entirely, or switching to a different field. A couple who stuck it through ended up not having a career anyway, worked for a few months, quit or got fired, sat at home for a while, fought with parents, and ended up working in random jobs that had nothing to do with their degree. What's the point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I’m not sure if I pushed my kid into anything. Having said that, he has been listening to me talk about careers his whole life and he’s studying computer science.
 
IA is going to destroy a lot of these jobs even computer science jobs. Be ready.
 
My kids will one day understand the terminology dealing with principle, compounded interest, APRs, collateral, and over-drafts and how those examples are seen with credit cards, auto loans, personal loans, and student loans. The summer before their freshman year in high school when they get part time jobs and/or summer jobs, I will show them how to utilize some basic skills on an excel sheet.

What I mean is, I am going to teach them how to live within their means.

When it comes to college and investing in their future, I will never push them to any particular degree or trade school. If I can teach them a basic risk assessment when picking a job, I'm hoping they wont need me to "push" for anything.

I suppose what I am trying to say again is: My kids will know the difference between a $200 welding certificate and a 150k liberal arts degree
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
If I had a kid, I would push him/her into CS with a statistics minor. But for sure, I would like to home-school him/her or send to community college at a very young age, instead of wasting time going through high school etc.
 
But, it is highly likely that when my kid is college-bound, online learning will be so ubiquitous that attending physical college campus just sounds like a very dumb idea. He/she will have 4+ years of full-time working experience before graduation takes place lol.
 
I wouldn't push my kid(s) into any specific field, but I will give them the tools necessary to research and craft a career that makes them happy and hopefully, not poor. More specifically, I'll teach them how to save, invest (if I ever learn to), and how to use Google to find the current trends in the workforce. Of course, if they want to be like an actor, I'd support it, but try to show through my own research why it's not all that it's cracked up to be.

College is not mandatory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Medical school still has a great ROI. If I wasn't >30yrs old I'd be going back.
 
Plumber, they are both going to be plumbers.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
For those who say they aren't going to push their kid into anything, what if they choose to major in something like women's studies or art history?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
For those who say they aren't going to push their kid into anything, what if they choose to major in something like women's studies or art history?

I would then ask my kid how they planned on paying for college, because I sure as **** ain't.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
I would push for technical school if money is important.. Go into plumbing, electical, AC work... you will never run out of jobs and make a lot of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
For those who say they aren't going to push their kid into anything, what if they choose to major in something like women's studies or art history?

They can major in anything they want as long as there is a means to an end. For example, if said kid has set up a successful business already or plans to have a stable career outside the major, then it's fine. An art history major can still apply to medical school, afterall.

On a side note, fringe majors remind me of pyramid schemes. So, if one does say major in art history, one of the most common paths is to get a PhD in art history and teach it. This, in turns creates more art history majors and eventually a few more PhDs and so forth...
 
Last edited:
They can major in anything they want as long as there is a means to an end. For example, if said kid has set up a successful business already or plans to have a stable career outside the major, then it's fine. An art history major can still apply to medical school, afterall.

On a side note, fringe majors remind me of pyramid schemes. So, if one does say major in art history, one of the most common paths is to get a PhD in art history and teach it. This, in turns creates more art history majors and eventually a few more PhDs and so forth...

What if your kid wants to become a pharmacist?
 
I’d push them into a few parties and push them to develop an extremely strong network with very attractive people. We all know attractive people have easier lives, so even if my kid ain’t turning heads maybe they can get some fringe benefits from those that are. As far as specific subject matter? Who cares, does that even matter?
 
  • Hmm
Reactions: 1 user
something tech or engineering - we are always going to need roads/bridges and computers are taking over out lives.....

bascially anything but pharmacy lol
 
I fell into the military by accident and it was the most challenging...hazardous..interesting...fun job I could have had at the time...and I heard only a few shots fired in anger....Also had another job for a short time that was just demoralizing and dangerous..(neither of the above family friendly).......THEN I floundered into pharmacy which is well paid high speed drudgery...(but family friendly)....Sooo THE POINT...I would not push but nudge to get the mid level basics and hope they can decide from there...With automation quickly taking over..who knows?
 
Last edited:
What if your kid wants to become a pharmacist?

Heh, if that's what they really want to do, then so be it. Of course, I'd try to show them other opportunities because I can see 1st hand how much the landscape has changed. Retail, in general, will look radically different if at all around a decade or two from now, but clinical pharmacy remains pretty stable niche if not competitive.
 
My brother is in computer security and that field is in extremely high demand. If he walked out on his job today he would have a job next week, easily. Granted part of that is a security clearance, which of course takes a lot of time and money to get, but with that + computer security skills he's set for a long time (or at least I think so - we all thought the same thing about pharmacy in 2006-07)!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Heh, if that's what they really want to do, then so be it. Of course, I'd try to show them other opportunities because I can see 1st hand how much the landscape has changed. Retail, in general, will look radically different if at all around a decade or two from now, but clinical pharmacy remains pretty stable niche if not competitive.
Honestly, I see "clinical pharmacy" jobs go away sooner than retail. With advances of cloud computing and AI (neural network decision trees and NLP in particular), those so-called clinical pharmacists practically offer very little valuable input beyond 2nd opinion recommendations and DI to MDs, and that can definitely be automated and give near instantaneous feedback to MDs when needed. Pharmacy is doomed, no matter retail or "clinical".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Honestly, I see "clinical pharmacy" jobs go away sooner than retail. With advances of cloud computing and AI (neural network decision trees and NLP in particular), those so-called clinical pharmacists practically offer very little valuable input beyond 2nd opinion recommendations and DI to MDs, and that can definitely be automated and give near instantaneous feedback to MDs when needed. Pharmacy is doomed, no matter retail or "clinical".
"Clinical pharmacists" are the epitome of what real life "Doctors of Lexicomp" look like. I fail to see what value they add to the team if the MD had Lexicomp installed on their phone. Additionally, other routine tasks such as warfarin and vanco dosing/monitoring are things that can be distilled into algorithms and automated (via protocols). Once in place, you can just train your non-clinical staff to follow those protocols.

I do see "clinical pharmacist" roles in hospitals continue to exist in the next 20-30 years; however, you will see consolidation/elimination of all types of hospital roles tied to order verification, transitions of care, MTM. The pharmacists who remain will be focused on developing/implementing clinical protocols and providing in-services - in other words, pharmacists are NOT valuable as a drug information resource because anyone can google a drug question so they have to do provide services to justify their value. In the same way that retail pharmacy is headed to a telepharmacy model with remote order verification/counseling (by which the whole point of this is to get 1 pharmacist to do the job of 4-5), I think hospital pharmacy is headed that way as well.
 
"Clinical pharmacists" are the epitome of what real life "Doctors of Lexicomp" look like. I fail to see what value they add to the team if the MD had Lexicomp installed on their phone. Additionally, other routine tasks such as warfarin and vanco dosing/monitoring are things that can be distilled into algorithms and automated (via protocols). Once in place, you can just train your non-clinical staff to follow those protocols.

I do see "clinical pharmacist" roles in hospitals continue to exist in the next 20-30 years; however, you will see consolidation/elimination of all types of hospital roles tied to order verification, transitions of care, MTM. The pharmacists who remain will be focused on developing/implementing clinical protocols and providing in-services - in other words, pharmacists are NOT valuable drug information resources. In the same way that retail pharmacy is headed to a telepharmacy model with remote order verification/counseling (by which the whole point of this is to get 1 pharmacist to do the job of 4-5), I think hospital pharmacy is headed that way as well.
I was recently approached by a recruiter from a health tech startup called Project Ronin, which was co-founded by Larry Ellison, the co-founder and CTO of Oracle, for an informatics position.


Guess what, they are on the way to accomplish just that. I see a world without pharmacists, retail or clinical, in maybe 10-15 years. When in-cloud AI-driven real-time data-collection & clinical decision support software can do everything a "clinical" pharmacist do in just a fraction of a second, what's the use of those "clinical pharmacists" for MDs, really? What's their place in hospitals really? Just for order verification and MTM? Can't nurses or any experienced pharmacy tech do that too lol?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Guess what, they are on the way to accomplish just that. I see a world without pharmacists, retail or clinical, in maybe 10-15 years. When in-cloud AI-driven real-time data-collection & clinical decision support software can do everything a "clinical" pharmacist do in just a fraction of a second, what's the use of those "clinical pharmacists" for MDs, really? What's their place in hospitals really? Just for order verification and MTM? Can't nurses or any experienced pharmacy tech do that too lol?
I stated above that MTM and order verification will the FIRST pharmacist jobs to go. Every health system will still need a few "clinical" pharmacists - their roles will just have to adapt. Quite frankly if AIML becomes the new thing then "liaising with IT companies" may be the new type of pharmacist roles in health systems. Of course, you'd have to have clinical and IT savvy to be qualified.
 
I stated above that MTM and order verification will the FIRST pharmacist jobs to go. Every health system will still need a few "clinical" pharmacists - their roles will just have to adapt. Quite frankly if AIML becomes the new thing then "liaising with IT companies" may be the new type of pharmacist roles in health systems. Of course, you'd have to have clinical and IT savvy to be qualified.
In that case, adaptation will only help facilitate the transition. Once transition phase is over, they would be let go. Pharmacists can't prescribe or make any meaningful clinical decision anyway. Why would every health system keep a few of them around? AI can always learn from its mistake & never make the same mistake ever again, always updated to the latest guidelines, always get back to MDs instantaneously, is never sick or on leave, and never needs to be paid salary & benefits. If IT can directly liaise with doctors, where is pharmacists' role, anywhere, especially under today & near-future's budget pressure? I just don't see it lol.
 
In that case, adaptation will only help facilitate the transition. Once transition phase is over, they would be let go. Pharmacists can't prescribe or make any meaningful clinical decision anyway. Why would every health system keep a few of them around? AI can always learn from its mistake & never make the same mistake ever again, always updated to the latest guidelines, always get back to MDs instantaneously, is never sick or on leave, and never needs to be paid salary & benefits. If IT can directly liaise with doctors, where is pharmacists' role, anywhere, especially under today & near-future's budget pressure? I just don't see it lol.

Since you're someone who hasn't graduated yet nor worked as a pharmacist let me give you this insight: it's a credibility thing. Pharmacists are just going to trust other pharmacists more.

Do you have to be a pharmacy to qualify for an MSL role?

Do you have to be a pharmacist to be able to do an MTM with a patient?

Do you have to be a pharmacist to count pills and dispense medications?

Do you have to be a pharmacist to be a director of pharmacy at any institution?

Do you have to be a pharmacist to be a consultant?

Etc.

The answer to all of those is a resounding NO.

So if you're a vendor trying to get a contract with a hospital to implement a new software or an organization trying to understand what use cases there are for the software, both sides would be better off having people who can "speak clinical" as well as "speak technical."
 
Since you're someone who hasn't graduated yet nor worked as a pharmacist let me give you this insight: it's a credibility thing. Pharmacists are just going to trust other pharmacists more.

Do you have to be a pharmacy to qualify for an MSL role?

Do you have to be a pharmacist to be able to do an MTM with a patient?

Do you have to be a pharmacist to count pills and dispense medications?

Do you have to be a pharmacist to be a director of pharmacy at any institution?

Do you have to be a pharmacist to be a consultant?

Etc.

The answer to all of those is a resounding NO.

So if you're a vendor trying to get a contract with a hospital to implement a new software or an organization trying to understand what use cases there are for the software, both sides would be better off having people who can "speak clinical" as well as "speak technical."
Your working-pharmacist-seniority-complex is simply laughable to me, tbh. Do pharmacists' opinion matter at all in hospital? That's the resounding NO! I have seen that day in day out. Doctors shoot down pharmacists' recommendations all the time. As a pharmacist, you can trust whoever you want, but none of that would matter from a business perspective. It is doctors' opinion or technically the hospital senior management's opinion matter the most, not some pharmacists from the basement. If such a clinical decision software can save the health system millions of dollars, does the "credibility" thing mean anything? The answer is also a resounding NO.
 
Your working-pharmacist-seniority-complex is simply laughable to me, tbh. Do pharmacists' opinion matter at all in hospital? That's the resounding NO! I have seen that day in day out. Doctors shoot down pharmacists' recommendations all the time. As a pharmacist, you can trust whoever you want, but none of that would matter from a business perspective. It is doctors' opinion or technically the hospital senior management's opinion matter the most, not some pharmacists from the basement. If such a clinical decision software can save the health system millions of dollars, does the "credibility" thing mean anything? The answer is also a resounding NO.
It's not a seniority complex. It's a fact of life.

We're not even arguing the same thing so I don't understand your point.

You're arguing that pharmacists aren't needed for their "clinical" skills because a machine can be more accurate than someone manually looking things up.

I agree with that but I'm saying that pharmacist jobs will still exist in the hospital setting. Like you said in your previous post, it is hospital management's opinion that ultimately matters -- but who is more likely to convince a health system to purchase a new pharmacy software, a pharmacist who can speak IT or a pure IT person? That's where credibility comes into play.
 
It's not a seniority complex. It's a fact of life.

We're not even arguing the same thing so I don't understand your point.

You're arguing that pharmacists aren't needed for their "clinical" skills because a machine can be more accurate than someone manually looking things up.

I agree with that but I'm saying that pharmacist jobs will still exist in the hospital setting. Like you said in your previous post, it is hospital management's opinion that ultimately matters -- but who is more likely to convince a health system to purchase a new pharmacy software, a pharmacist who can speak IT or a pure IT person? That's where credibility comes into play.
Who is more likely? Doctors for sure, maybe with some input from the clinical informatics folks or IT department, but definitely not from pharmacists lol. Would management in any industry ever listen to employees soon to be laid off for guidance? Hell no~

Btw, The Project Ronin startup works on an IT solution that is not just a pharmacy software, but an integrated AI clinical decision support + patient real-time monitoring software. Pharmacists take very limited part in this domain, except occasional input when oncologists request a recommendation, so why would senior management ask for opinions from someone who is not directly involved? It doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
Who is more likely? Doctors for sure, maybe with some input from the clinical informatics folks or IT department, but definitely not from pharmacists lol. Would management in any industry ever listen to employees soon to be laid off for guidance? Hell no~
The gold standard degree in healthcare is the MD so yes doctors are going to be the most "credible" in that sense. And nobody in their right mind is going to trust the judgement of some MTM or order verification pharmacist when it comes to IT. But jobs like informatics pharmacists are positions that are still going to be around and the recommendations from informatics pharmacists are going to be infinitely more credible to management than non-clinical IT staff at their same rank.
 
The gold standard degree in healthcare is the MD so yes doctors are going to be the most "credible" in that sense. And nobody in their right mind is going to trust the judgement of some MTM or order verification pharmacist when it comes to IT. But jobs like informatics pharmacists are positions that are still going to be around and the recommendations from informatics pharmacists are going to be infinitely more credible to management than non-clinical IT staff at their same rank.
Last time I checked, from the hospitals I worked at, majority of the clinical informatics folks there had nursing background, and the two real informatics pharmacists are my preceptors. One did masters in health informatics, and the other started from inpatient but switched out to an external EHR consultant role before coming back, but both have never practiced in "clinical pharmacy" or any pharmacist role ever since the switch. And both of them don't consider themselves as "clinical pharmacists". Their offices are on the 6th floor, no longer in basement lol. The IT department downstairs had true IT folks there, someone who don't have any clinical background.

But guess what, I went to all sorts of conferences with them, and from what I saw, they clearly don't carry much convincing power to senior management. On the contrary, the senior management, which is often made up by MDs, will always listen to other prescribing MDs. Clinical informatics were just there to observe and take orders, never to give orders or influence opinions. Your "informatics pharmacists credibility" thing is clearly something imaginary and don't exist in reality.
 
Last edited:
Last time I checked, from the hospitals I worked at, majority of the clinical informatics folks there had nursing background, and the two real informatics pharmacists are my preceptors. One did masters in health informatics, and the other started from inpatient but switched out to an external EHR consultant role before coming back, but both have never practiced in "clinical pharmacy" or any pharmacist role ever since the switch. And both of them don't consider themselves as "clinical pharmacists". Their offices are in the 6th floor, no longer in basement lol. The IT department downstairs had true IT folks there, someone who don't have any clinical background.

But guess what, I went to all sorts of conferences with them, and from what I saw, they clearly don't convey much convincing power to senior management. On the contrary, the senior management, which is often made up by MDs, will always listen to other prescribing MDs. Clinical informatics were just there to observe and take orders, never to give orders or influence opinions. Your "informatics pharmacists credibility" thing is clearly something imaginary and don't exist in reality.
I'm not advocating for informatics pharmacy, all I'm saying is that if you were to bet money on what types of pharmacist jobs will have longevity in a health system then I would place my bets on something like informatics because there is more application to the skillset you get from working in that capacity than trying to play doctor. On the point of informatics pharmacists, my data points are from the VA, Kaiser, and academia (health systems affiliated with schools of pharmacy/medicine) so I have a pretty good feel for how much leverage informatics pharmacists have in those systems. One example is that informatics pharmacists will often attend P&T meetings and give input/recommendations on workflow and implementation challenges if they were to move a drug on or off formulary as they will often be asked the "is this doable" type questions, and this is a responsibility that a nurse or MD won't be effective at doing. But I'm sure an "informatics pharmacist" at an independent hospital, small health system or rural state may look very different or even be non-existent.

In the grand scheme of things though, the skillsets of informatics pharmacists are still very linear. To your point, if discussing the more broad "clinical informatics" departments in hospitals, pharmacists would be in the minority among their staff and anything non-pharmacy specific would probably be handled by nurses, MDs or non-clinical staff. After all, pharmacists aren't the ones prescribing or charting so how do you design UI/UX optimizations if you've never charted before? You can't.
 
Also, I don't consider informatics pharmacists to be "clinical pharmacists" either. I would describe them more as pharmacists who are having identity crises as there is no standardized definition of what an informatics pharmacist is.

What's sad about this profession is that schools and students perpetuate this message about how "flexible" pharmacy is with the "diversity of career options" available but once you step out of retail or traditional hospital you begin to realize that every "non-traditional" pharmacist job (besides a few defined exceptions in each industry) is a result of individual pursuit/achievement and NOT because companies organically define that they "need a pharmacist to do xyz." It's a sad story, really.
 
I'm not advocating for informatics pharmacy, all I'm saying is that if you were to bet money on what types of pharmacist jobs will have longevity in a health system then I would place my bets on something like informatics because there is more application to the skillset you get from working in that capacity than trying to play doctor. On the point of informatics pharmacists, my data points are from the VA, Kaiser, and academia (health systems affiliated with schools of pharmacy/medicine) so I have a pretty good feel for how much leverage informatics pharmacists have in those systems. One example is that informatics pharmacists will often attend P&T meetings and give input/recommendations on workflow and implementation challenges if they were to move a drug on or off formulary as they will often be asked the "is this doable" type questions, and this is a responsibility that a nurse or MD won't be effective at doing. But I'm sure an "informatics pharmacist" at an independent hospital, small health system or rural state may look very different or even be non-existent.

In the grand scheme of things though, the skillsets of informatics pharmacists are still very linear. To your point, if discussing the more broad "clinical informatics" departments in hospitals, pharmacists would be in the minority among their staff and anything non-pharmacy specific would probably be handled by nurses, MDs or non-clinical staff. After all, pharmacists aren't the ones prescribing or charting so how do you design UI/UX optimizations if you've never charted before? You can't.
Simple solution: why pharmacist jobs? Just why? If AI is taking over finance and healthcare, just go with computer science. It's like playing a game but being stubborn and deliberately selecting the "Ultra Hard" mode, when "Easy" or "Moderate" modes are just right there. For what? Self-torture?
 
Simple solution: why pharmacist jobs? Just why? If AI is taking over finance and healthcare, just go with computer science. It's like playing a game but being stubborn and deliberately selecting the "Ultra Hard" mode, when "Easy" or "Moderate" modes are just right there. For what? Self-torture?
Well it's the same principle as being the head coach of an NBA team who either has or hasn't played in the NBA before. Can you be effective and even win championships if you have no playing experience? Sure you can. But if you were a former championship-winning-player-turned-head-coach then your credibility and ability to connect to the players on the team would instantly be there because you can think like a player. Doesn't guarantee you a championship by any means but it makes your job a heck of a lot easier.
 
Simple solution: why pharmacist jobs? Just why? If AI is taking over finance and healthcare, just go with computer science. It's like playing a game but being stubborn and deliberately selecting the "Ultra Hard" mode, when "Easy" or "Moderate" modes are just right there. For what? Self-torture?

Students have the pipe dream of landing a job with low stress and liability and bankers' hours of IT professionals while earning the purported prestige, salary, and job security of a doctorate in the health professions. Thus, a lot of technology inclined students pursue the PharmD in the hopes of melding their drug knowledge and interest in technology.

Reality is that the PharmD provides none of the advantages listed above. Real opportunities, e.g. pharmacist informatics positions are far and few between and typically require candidates to move across the country.
 
Well it's the same principle as being the head coach of an NBA team who either has or hasn't played in the NBA before. Can you be effective and even win championships if you have no playing experience? Sure you can. But if you were a former championship-winning-player-turned-head-coach then your credibility and ability to connect to the players on the team would instantly be there because you can think like a player. Doesn't guarantee you a championship by any means but it makes your job a heck of a lot easier.
The most concerning thing in pharmacy education right now is pharmacy schools are advertising and training students for jobs that either don't exist or may soon disappear. What did I learn most from 4 years of pharm school? DON'T DO IT, EVER~ If you are in it already, drop it out ASAP. If you can't drop out, better do something else meaningful on the side and never study hard for pharm school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The most concerning thing in pharmacy education right now is pharmacy schools are advertising and training students for jobs that either don't exist or may soon disappear. What did I learn most from 4 years of pharm school? DON'T DO IT, EVER~ If you are in it already, drop it out ASAP. If you can't drop out, better do something else meaningful on the side and never study hard for pharm school.
Agreed 100%. My post history reflects these sentiments.
 
Top