Barring some significant development, this will be my last post on the subject. I simply don't have any more time to devote to this topic.
But as we already agreed, administrators either know about programs or dont because they only care about their competition (defined as region/similar academic profile or rank). If we can agree that the stability in the rankings disproves the unethical theory, then we can also posit that they would opt NOT to respond about schools they know nothing about. If you read up on the methodology of rankings schools can decline to comment if they do not have an opinion. Thus there is no reliance on previous rankings to ensure stability.
But going back to the unethical self-bias in ranking, the stability indicates either self-bias is neutralized naturally by being a small minority, or that they aren't doing it. So at the end of the day, we can still conclude whatever degree to which it exists, its insignificant. There is no escaping the fact that if self bias existed, it would be reflected by large turnover in rankings.
Oh come now, they aren't
that useless. Its a sliding scale. Me personally? I would say that compared to UCSF, the top 10 is a fair estimate. Compared to the #10 ranked school, go plus minus 10-15 in either direction. Of course there are outliers. As I readily admit, there are some lower tier and unranked schools that do an amazing job of training community pharmacists, better than some top 10 schools. But taken as an
average...
I have seen some post-graduation employment statistics, yes. Because of what I do and have done, I am privvy to some information to which students do not have access. Unfortunately, I will politely decline to comment further on what it is I do or for whom I do it because that would be rather compromising. If you would like to believe my ethos drops to zero with that, so be it. I am not concerned.
As for whether they want to be there or if they are happy there, I have no idea and couldn't even begin to guess.
Its not just physicians, its students who come in with masters, PhDs, significant professional accomplishments, and so on. Perhaps I lack the words to articulate the precise reason that accomplished individuals
generally gravitate towards schools ranked higher... I just know its true for various reasons. This doesn't mean they don't exist elsewhere, but these applicants know their accomplishments give them a great edge in applications and they can come as close as possible to writing their own ticket in admissions, so why not go to the top?
I never said that other schools cannot, would not, could not, or should not tackle these educational objectives. For example, when Jefferson was opening their program, they developed a very nice integrated multidisciplinary curriculum (which I have since heard is doing well) and lured away many top faculty members from other schools. I have all the confidence in the world that in due time, given their current efforts and leadership, Jefferson will be very well regarded pharmacy school - and they are a new school that hasn't graduated a single class yet.
I never said there were no diamonds in the rough. Only that there are less diamonds in the rough than the well reputed schools of high academic caliber. I will also very happily say that some of the faculty at lower ranked schools are quite good at teaching - many chose to be there because they wanted to
teach and not be burdened by research. And I am sure you will have no argument with the idea that a strong measure of an educator's success is their desire to teach (those apathetic PhDs who only want to do research are rarely good teachers despite being wonderfully gifted researchers).
But I do claim that the continuously evolving practice of pharmacy is being led by the pharmacists who are faculty at top pharmacy schools, graduates of their design, or other leaders in pharmacy associated with these schools. This doesnt mean that other individuals are not involved, only that there are fewer of them. There are exceptions to EVERY rule... but that doesnt mean that trends don't exist.
You, and everyone else, is really just missing my overall point. Just as with warfarin dosing, yeah, you have general guidelines for how to begin dosing a patient, but they are never accurate or precise because inter-patient variability is enormous and you need to take into account many patient-related variables. But none of that means the guidelines are irrelevant or useless!!!
Guidelines are a place to begin.
In the same way, rankings are roughly true though probably not perfectly accurate nor precise. They are a good place to start when deciding to apply to pharmacy school. You start by looking at the schools that best fit your academic profile or you match your academic goals/performance to the expectations of the schools, and then begin to narrow down your list based on other things you are seeking - your student related variables: location, cost, proximity to family/significant other, specific faculty members with whom you could learn or collaborate on research, opportunity for dual degrees, etc etc etc whatever it may be. None of these reasons is invalid, in my opinion, for choosing one school over another. But just because choice is as individualized as possible, that doesn't mean rankings lack a general value. I already stated that the most important thing when choosing graduate school is to find an advisor/mentor who can get you the experience and post-graduate contacts necessary for directing your career in the direction you want to go. That's completely irrespective of rank!
I am strictly responding to the people who are saying that rankings are entirely bogus and useless and lack value. That is just patently untrue and such opinions do future students a disservice - and that is something I seek to combat.
Not in the slightest. I have formal training in teaching controversy. I am no stranger to conflict and differing opinions, partly because I
teach out-of-the-box thinking. I am obviously having a
very civil conversation with R2pharmD2. There is no condescension in my voice there. Perhaps you wonder why?
I am extremely dissatisfied with your response because you
carelessly or
intentionally misrepresented my opinions in your response. And you accuse me of condescension and arrogance when I take issue with that? Just because you decide to FABRICATE ideas and put them in my mouth, doesn't mean that you have a leg to stand on. I couldn't care less if you disagree. But I DO care when you lie about what I write to score points with people who are reading this thread.
So no. You lose. But if you want a career in mudslinging politics, you're a winner!
That's why if you were asked to rank schools on their academic quality, I would suspect instead of simply relying on some amorphous second hand knowledge of other programs, you would write in "unknown" for UCSF - you would only comment on the schools for which you have significant knowledge of their academics. See my discussion above with R2PharmD2 on the definition of competing schools.
No. I have less of an opinion about my opinion than I have an opinion about All4MyDaughter LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID. Is your opinion then that its acceptable for him/her to do that?
I never said EVERYONE is perfect. Is your contention then that THE MAJORITY of deans and academic administrators act this unethically? If its not, then why are you throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Never once did I say rankings are perfect. In fact, I have been saying that they are inaccurate and imprecise. But the imprecision and inaccuracy doesnt mean that rankings don't have value. Is it your opinion then that therapeutic guidelines have no value because they are rarely "correct" for any given patient? No. Because despite the inaccuracy and imprecision, the guideline is a
place to start. And thats all I am advocating for rankings. They are a place to start. NEVER a place to finish. And I said long ago in this thread, students making decisions based purely on rankings are doing themselves a disservice!
