As someone currently driving to a PGY-1 interview, I do think a PGY-3 would be a bit of overkill in most scenarios. With that being said, I wanted to discredit some of these umbrella ideas of why students pursue residencies, and give you the reason I think it is important for my development.
1. Specializing: I have wanted to specialize since P2 year. I did not know what a residency was coming into pharmacy school, but fell in love with it when specialists came to teach lectures. Do I think I would be able to specialize in the timeframe that I have set out for myself without a residency? No. Does that make me not motivated? No. Do I think I would be a competent, critically thinking pharmacist without a residency? Yes. Would I succeed without a residency? Yes. Would I rather make a regular salary of a pharmacist rather than a reduced rate? Yes. Is it a sacrifice I'm knowingly willing to make? Yes. Am I scared about saturation, and wanting to specialize because of that? No (this is not saying it does not exist, but as mentioned highly motivated people find ways) Do I want to be a physician? Hell no. Do I think NP's and PA's are more integral to the team? No. I just wanted to highlight those points that sometimes I think people take for granted. This idea that highly, motivated residency candidates/residents want to be "physician-like" is completely unfounded.
2. Research: I thoroughly enjoy research. Do I think it's going to shatter the world of pharmacy? No. However, I think residency training at large academic medical centers will definitely hone my skills in research. Not saying it does not exist, but I personally have not seen many pharmacists without residency/fellowship training heavily involved in research. This is not a slight by any means as I obviously have limited exposure being a fourth year student, but it is enough exposure where I feel this training will be instrumental in achieving my career aspirations.
3. Academia: I thoroughly enjoy teaching, however, I have good self-awareness and feel it is something I need to practice. Although there are other forums to do this, I feel that residency will help me develop these skills. I also want to be an adjunct faculty member at a college of pharmacist associated with an academic medical center. Once again, I think further training will expedite this process.
4. Professional development: The transition from student to pharmacist is going to be difficult as all of you know. Would I sink without residency? No. I feel extremely well-equipped with my education and work experience. However, I looked for programs with large residency classes so I can go through this process with others and learn not only from my mistakes, but from theirs as well.
Sorry for long post, but wanted to make it clear that there are myriad candidates who are pursuing residency for reasons outside of "staying out of retail". Which for the record, I thoroughly enjoyed my time working in retail and I enjoy seeing the look on the interviewers faces when I say that at these large programs! The long post can also probably be attributed to the fact that I've driven 34 hours since Sunday.
Cheers!
1. I have my own private thoughts about it, but that's probably the best argument for a residency. I prefer the working apprenticeship like how BCNP's are made (meaning that you're learning at night while you're a full-fledged day pharmacist), but to each their own.
2. I disagree. If you like research, do the PhD. PharmD Pharmacist researchers are generally thought of as fairly unproductive in both impact in topical choice, and most importantly in funding success. The good ones are the exception, not the rule. The training difference is far too vast between a residency and a PhD track even for the soft majors. You just don't get around the contact requirements and the depth of exposure in a residency than a PhD.
3. Nope. Most colleges of pharmacy force PharmD's at all levels to be on clinical (i.e. expendable) track. Good luck trying to get funded as a straight PharmD and even better trying to secure lab space if 2 is an issue.
@297point1 might beg to differ with me, but I consider the PharmD clinical track a very different deal (not necessarily worse, but not as grounded) than the tenure track. Clinical track has the advantage of allowing you to leave, but clinical track has the disadvantage of you being a denizen in the department, not a citizen like the governing tenured faculty (and we can quibble about how far those rights go, but I know from experience that we have to be much more careful about being patently unfair with tenure-track faculty than clinical).
4. And that might be a PGY-1 concern, but a PGY-3, it's hard to say unless it's not a straight pharmacy residency but something more substantial.
Residents are professionals when it comes to care (but there are limits), but are dilettantes when it comes to research and pedagogy. But also (I really should pull the numbers), the number of revolving PharmD faculty is far higher than with the PhDs. Then again, you're much more job locked as a PhD, so if you get into a university or a laboratory where everyone hates each other and you hate life, it's much harder to walk than a pharmacist does with their clinical practice.
Reason #1 is more than sufficient in this day and though. I wish you luck in your interviews, and hope you don't interview with me as I'll get a cold chill (yes, I have interviewed SDN people before...).