Latest Pharmacy School Ranking?

[DelawareStudent]

Yeah, rankings aren't incredibly important like law school but they also are not irrelevant. There are reasons for top 10 schools being in the top 10.

Quite frankly, if an employer sees someone from UCSF, North Carloina, or Ohio State and another from LECOM, Duquesne, or some other poorly ranked school, they certainly will not consider them "equal." There are obviously exceptions, but all things being equal except for what school you went to, the applicant from the well respected school will get preference over someone from a no name school that has only been around for a decade or two.

Hopefully, someday, this thread will die never to be revived.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[owlegrad]

Bad threads don't die, they just hibernate.

 

[rxlea]

Filet mignon souvlaki is yum!

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk

 

[PTG]

Pharmacy school rankings.. Right, because US News is going to tell me where I'm going to attend LOL

 

[PharmGuy404]

US News, apparently, posts Pharmacy School rankings every fours years. I am shocked to see top 10 schools U of Maryland, U of Illinois-Chicago, and U of Florida fall and Underdogs Rise amongst the ranks. Check out the 2012 full list below:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...-schools/top-health-schools/pharmacy-rankings

What are your thoughts? Any Surprises? Although rankings shouldn't be one's sole deciding factor, I feel that any volitility or consistency is worth analyzing. Congrats to the U of Utah and Wisconsin--They've garnered bragging rights at least for the next four years.

My biggest surprise was to Mercer plunge to 43. : ( Still a great school in my book

1. University of San Francisco; 2. U of North Carolina; 3. U of Minnesota
4. U of Texas; 5. U of Kentuck; 5. U of Wisconsin 7. Ohio State U, 7. Purdue, 7. MIchigan; 10. U of 10. Arizona; 10. U of Southern California; 10. U of Utah

 

[kcwang]

"All the health rankings are based solely on the results of peer assessment surveys sent to deans, other administrators, and/or faculty at accredited degree programs or schools in each discipline. All schools surveyed in a discipline were sent the same number of surveys. Respondents rated the academic quality of programs on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (outstanding). "

The ranking itself is misleading and doesn't mean much.

 

[confettiflyer]

#1 is UC San Francisco, not U of San Francisco.

Rankings don't mean *that* much, they'll add a halo effect to your residency applications, but an idiot is still an idiot and a gunner is still a gunner wherever you may be.

 

[headortail]

LOL I wonder if anyone had decided between two schools based on rankings that aren't too far apart and now is regretting it, some schools have jumped and some schools have really plunged

 

[rxlea]

#1 is UC San Francisco, not U of San Francisco.

Rankings don't mean *that* much, they'll add a halo effect to your residency applications, but an idiot is still an idiot and a gunner is still a gunner wherever you may be.

Halo plus potential unicorn status? lol I'll take it! I'm joking. It doesn't make a difference between the top 50ish anyway.those tend to be schools that have been around awhile. colleges of pharmacy that are a part of reputable
Existing medical schools or institutions (your school) are probably just as good in terms of the quality of education.

LOL I wonder if anyone had decided between two schools based on rankings that aren't too far apart and now is regretting it, some schools have jumped and some schools have really plunged

That would be silly. I do wonder what's up with florida...my first thought was the satellite campuses. As for maryland? That's A strange drop imo. That's a solid school. Met some of their students at the world health organization this past summer.they are sharp.

 

[confettiflyer]

Halo plus potential unicorn status? lol I'll take it! I'm joking. It doesn't make a difference between the top 50ish anyway.those tend to be schools that have been around awhile. colleges of pharmacy that are a part of reputable
Existing medical schools or institutions (your school) are probably just as good in terms of the quality of education.

Haha...darn those unicorns, I've seen a few while on rotation.

But yes, difference between 1 and 2, 1 and 10, 10 and 25, 25 and 50, etc... is really no difference at all.

But I do concede that, in a competitive environment, all things being equal, and in a direct head to head comparison for one final spot, rxlea will get an interview while I will not as my school is not within the top 50.

The problem is, it rarely/if ever comes to that. "All things being equal" is just another unicorn and is subject to bias. There are so many variables to an application package that identical candidates are about as likely as a million monkeys banging on typewriters churning out the works of Shakespeare.

In reality, we'd probably both get called, unless we run into a few of those purported "I'll never interview anyone from a school that opened post-2000" directors...yet another set of pharmacy unicorns out there.

Can we seeeeeeriously get a unicorn emoticon?

 

[confettiflyer]

That would be silly. I do wonder what's up with florida...my first thought was the satellite campuses. As for maryland? That's A strange drop imo. That's a solid school. Met some of their students at the world health organization this past summer.they are sharp.

Yeah that is strange, every UofMD graduate I've met is in a high ranking position somewhere (hospital, industry, academia...).

 

[Kansas Pharmer]

Can we seeeeeeriously get a unicorn emoticon?

This would definitely save time when posting...

 

[bw6]

US News, apparently, posts Pharmacy School rankings every fours years. I am shocked to see top 10 schools U of Maryland, U of Illinois-Chicago, and U of Florida fall and Underdogs Rise amongst the ranks. Check out the 2012 full list below:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...-schools/top-health-schools/pharmacy-rankings

What are your thoughts? Any Surprises? Although rankings shouldn't be one's sole deciding factor, I feel that any volitility or consistency is worth analyzing. Congrats to the U of Utah and Wisconsin--They've garnered bragging rights at least for the next four years.

My biggest surprise was to Mercer plunge to 43. : ( Still a great school in my book

1. University of San Francisco; 2. U of North Carolina; 3. U of Minnesota
4. U of Texas; 5. U of Kentuck; 5. U of Wisconsin 7. U of Ohio, 7. Purdue, 7. MIchigan; 10. U of 10. Arizona; 10. U of Southern California; 10. U of Utah

#7 is Ohio State not U of Ohio. Completely different schools chief.

 

[PharmGuy404]

#7 is Ohio State not U of Ohio. Completely different schools chief.

Corrected. Thanks

 

[PharmGuy404]

It actually depends on the prospective. Top ranked schools tout their ranking numbers on their official website and other communication formats extensively. Regardless of your opinion, schools that were seen as less competitive will benefit in numerous ways because of this recognition. I agree that they should not define your value as a professional; but
"meaningless" only to a degree. The rankings are actually based on several more factor (facilities, endowment, federal grant dollars / awards, retention rate, and etc); and serve as a great starting point for many students who value attending a well recognized / established institution (especially in this economic climate). Again, I feel that the best school is the school that meets your individual needs and goals, but these rankings will serve as a major acomplishment, especially for schools that were less known or competitve.

"All the health rankings are based solely on the results of peer assessment surveys sent to deans, other administrators, and/or faculty at accredited degree programs or schools in each discipline. All schools surveyed in a discipline were sent the same number of surveys. Respondents rated the academic quality of programs on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (outstanding). "

The ranking itself is misleading and doesn't mean much.

 

[PharmGuy404]

Pharmacy schools do not submit stats to any ranking organization so any list that ranks schools considers limited statistics and is not valid. Do you guys really want pharmacy to turn into law where only the top 14 matter and the rest limit you to regions?

Pharmacy schools that do not submit the appropriate, complete information will not be RANKED. They will not risk their reputation to be listed with the "unranked" schools. Your statement is not correct.

 

[bacillus1]

Crap...my school went down, a lot.

 

[KARM12]

Didn't go to a "top 10 school"...got into a great residency and have a good job at a great healthsystem. Our "worst" resident from my PGY1 year went to a top 10 school...

 

[rxlea]

Didn't go to a "top 10 school"...got into a great residency and have a good job at a great healthsystem. Our "worst" resident from my PGY1 year went to a top 10 school...

I talked with some of the faculty from your school over the weekend. They are super cool and have interesting stories/experience.

I've met some serious a-hole students from top 10 schools. Mine included. the effort students put in is just as important...so there will be good and bad students from every school imo. Students need to realize they can't learn by osmosis or not learn anything and then be arrogant about the school they come from

 

[owlegrad]

I have given my position many times on this topic, but I have to say...WTF UF?!

 

[rxlea]

I have given my position many times on this topic, but I have to say...WTF UF?!

Yeah, I'mconfused. The only thing I can think of is the satellite campuses and the perception around that.. I don't know. And maryland and pitt ? Hmmm....weird stuff going on there all awesome schools!

 

[confettiflyer]

aw damn my unicorn went away...such is life, i guess

 

[confettiflyer]

Pharmacy schools that do not submit the appropriate, complete information will not be RANKED. They will not risk their reputation to be listed with the "unranked" schools. Your statement is not correct.

lol...unlike law schools, which are obsessed with rankings...pharmacy by and large does not care. there's a more informal system of "rankings" that exists, though the US news top 50 more or less correlates nationally, regional "rankings" are more important for most graduates.

 

[Nelcovp]

It's pretty much the same crap they put out 4 years ago.

 

[owlegrad]

Yeah, I'mconfused. The only thing I can think of is the satellite campuses and the perception around that.. I don't know. And maryland and pitt ? Hmmm....weird stuff going on there all awesome schools!

We had satellite campuses four years ago though. Maybe it was cooler back then?

 

[owlegrad]

We only need one thread about the rankings. Merging.

 

[rxlea]

We had satellite campuses four years ago though. Maybe it was cooler back then?

Butthat's after the last rankings were actually done,right?

 

[Sine Cura]

It actually depends on the prospective. Top ranked schools tout their ranking numbers on their official website and other communication formats extensively. Regardless of your opinion, schools that were seen as less competitive will benefit in numerous ways because of this recognition. I agree that they should not define your value as a professional; but "meaningless" only to a degree. The rankings are actually based on several more factor (facilities, endowment, federal grant dollars / awards, retention rate, and etc); and serve as a great starting point for many students who value attending a well recognized / established institution (especially in this economic climate). Again, I feel that the best school is the school that meets your individual needs and goals, but these rankings will serve as a major acomplishment, especially for schools that were less known or competitve.

Because we obviously know from the methodology description that the "peer assessment surveys" are something more than a list of programs where someone is to rank programs on a scale of 1 to 5 on "academic quality" and an average of scores is taken afterwards. I don't see dental schools stooping to this level. (Survey takers might think about facilities, attrition rate, etc. when ranking but their perspective on these things would be conflated into a single score, not accounted for separately if we're going just by the meager US News description. BTW we don't even know the response rate by program.)

I just checked the 2008 rankings (which US News itself doesn't even post anymore? Found a list here: http://www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/administration/academics/pdfs/USNewsRanking2008.pdf) and UMB's "score" dropped from 4.0 to 3.8 (out of 5.0). Obviously this is a meaningful and significant drop especially when you account for all the ties in score.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

WVU's football team is better than it's pharmacy school.

Basketball team, not as much. (Unless they can win two...)

 

[owlegrad]

Butthat's after the last rankings were actually done,right?

I don't know how far the surveys are sent out before they publish the results. I also don't know exactly when we started the satelite campuses.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Damn, guess I gotta put in 'Top 20 effort' as opposed to 'Top 10 effort' on my rotations now...

39% response rate...

 

[JonPrePharmD]

Damn, guess I gotta put in 'Top 20 effort' as opposed to 'Top 10 effort' on my rotations now...

39% response rate...

It's amazing how much people let these US News (& world report) rankings affect their decisions...oh well, can't put it past some people I guess. C'mon guys, there is more that you should take into account than just a 39% response rate of a handful of school's deans selecting a number between 1 and 5 grading the nation's pharmacy schools. Reminds me of those long exit surveys after each class in College. You know there's some trolling Dean that gives everyone a 1.

 

[Farmercyst]

Damn, guess I gotta put in 'Top 20 effort' as opposed to 'Top 10 effort' on my rotations now...

39% response rate...

I probably should have put 'Top 10 effort in then'. I was hoping for top 20 tuition though. This top 10 tuition is overrated.

 

[Mila T]

Resurrecting the Old conversation that triggered my attention.

I want to reiterate for those reading my posts... I do NOT think that students at lower tier schools are bad, nor that the lower tier schools are bad. But there is a fundamental difference in the character of the student bodies, the academic and post-graduate opportunities afforded to the students by the schools, and the educational pedagogy of the schools - and that is a difference which results in the difference in ranking. Its a self-reinforcing "vicious" cycle which is why it is difficult for change to exist in rankings.

True !!! Malcolm Gladwell has a book "Outliers" it talks about that vicious cycle of luckiest and losers.

 

[Mila T]

, I have no experience with other schools classes - but if we are the cream of the crop, that's kind of depressing.

LOL



oh. there were two more pages to the conversation, I didn't realize at first.

In any case, Thank you for putting the Pharm. school rankings in perspective.

 

[BenJammin]

Im proud to say that my school refused to participate in the ranking.

 

[bw6]

Im proud to say that my school refused to participate in the ranking.

Can i ask what school you attend? Do you know why they refused?

I was informed that a lot of schools don't participate because they anticipate a poor rank and no rank is a less damaging reflection on the school. I do not mean to make assumptions about your school as it could certainly be for one of many reasons. I only say this because LECOM told me they did this because it is a relatively new school and is not associated with a large medical center so they would rather have no rank then a rank of, say, 60.

Just curious. Thx.

 

[BenJammin]

Can i ask what school you attend? Do you know why they refused?

I was informed that a lot of schools don't participate because they anticipate a poor rank and no rank is a less damaging reflection on the school. I do not mean to make assumptions about your school as it could certainly be for one of many reasons. I only say this because LECOM told me they did this because it is a relatively new school and is not associated with a large medical center so they would rather have no rank then a rank of, say, 60.

Just curious. Thx.

We were ranked in the 50s last time and it never seemed to hurt the number of people who applied. It just seemed like a waste of time to rank schools based on opinion of faculty. The other pharmacy school in the state is ranked in the bottom half in terms of NAPLEX passing rate while we are in the 30s. Just seems like a waste when you're ranked 40 slots below a school that does not perform better than you in lots of categories.

 

[Indypharm]

Look at Butler in Indiana. They have the 8th highest Naplex pass rate in the nation, and have had 100% pass rate for at least the last two years. They are ranked 42ish (can't remember the exact number). However, if I get into and go to Purdue instead, I will brag about that 7th rank all the time! It seems like the rankings only matter if you can boast about them.

 

[bw6]

Look at Butler in Indiana. They have the 8th highest Naplex pass rate in the nation, and have had 100% pass rate for at least the last two years. They are ranked 42ish (can't remember the exact number). However, if I get into and go to Purdue instead, I will brag about that 7th rank all the time! It seems like the rankings only matter if you can boast about them.

NAPLEX pass rates are only a small part of it. I am confident i will pass no matter what school trains me. However, look at the medical centers associated with the schools. It is important, doesn't affect NAPLEX pass rates, but certainly affects the rankings. Personally, i would rather follow the good medical center and go to the higher ranked school.

 

[DrDrugs2012]

NAPLEX pass rates are highly variable and not reflective of the school.
Some schools teach to the NAPLEX, others dont.
Some schools write exams similar to NAPLEX, others dont.
Some schools hold intensive NAPLEX reviews, others dont.

At the end of the day, its not the pass rate that matters. Its whether or not YOU are prepared to pass the NAPLEX, and given that the nationwide average is so high that basically everyone passes the first or second time around, you can make one of two basic conclusions: either the NAPLEX isn't something to worry about because its just that simple or every school's curriculum prepares you adequately to take the NAPLEX. Regardless of which you choose (or both), it just goes to show that its a meaningless statistic when it comes to evaluating schools.

 

[bw6]

NAPLEX pass rates are highly variable and not reflective of the school.
Some schools teach to the NAPLEX, others dont.
Some schools write exams similar to NAPLEX, others dont.
Some schools hold intensive NAPLEX reviews, others dont.

At the end of the day, its not the pass rate that matters. Its whether or not YOU are prepared to pass the NAPLEX, and given that the nationwide average is so high that basically everyone passes the first or second time around, you can make one of two basic conclusions: either the NAPLEX isn't something to worry about because its just that simple or every school's curriculum prepares you adequately to take the NAPLEX. Regardless of which you choose (or both), it just goes to show that its a meaningless statistic when it comes to evaluating schools.

I completely agree.

This is why I chose a school based on the reputation (history), academics, and associated medical center (if any). These are some things which are reflected in the rankings.

 

[BenJammin]

I plan on calling USNWW and telling them how embarrassed I am at how lousy their ranking is. A school that cannot pass 90% of their students on the NAPLEX should NOT be ranked higher than a school that passes 96%. A ranking based on academia opinion rather than objective data and job placement is NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Period.

 

[owlegrad]

Wait, objective measures are superior to subjective ones?

 

[Rx MPLS]

It seems like rankings after a certain number should mean very little, as it's unlikely that deans have any real familiarity with these programs...

 

[bw6]

I plan on calling USNWW and telling them how embarrassed I am at how lousy their ranking is. A school that cannot pass 90% of their students on the NAPLEX should NOT be ranked higher than a school that passes 96%. A ranking based on academia opinion rather than objective data and job placement is NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Period.

A lot of the data is objective. Funding, job placement, residency matching, size of the medical center, etc. And even the subjective data is relevant - academics, teaching staff, caliber of research, etc. Also see above... NAPLEX pass rates are a dumb measure of a school. My school boasts 99% but I don't care because I could go to the worst school in the country and still pass. The other school may have a lower passing rate but other credetials exceed your school. It always seems that the people at lowly ranked schools are saying ranks don't matter and say nothing about a school. Rank isn't everything but it is based off of relevant objective and subjective data.

Haha.. and if these people saying the ranks mean nothing truly believed that, they would not be bothered enough by a low rank to post all over SDN about it. Just funny that they argue against the relevancy of rankings yet get upset because they go to a poorly ranked school.

 

[owlegrad]

A lot of the data is objective.

False.

Do you know how US News ranks the schools? What is their methodology? They use absolutely zero objective data. You can argue that the deans consider the objective data when ranking schools (which you would have to be psychic to know), but that is not the same as actually using objective data to build the ranking. It is 100% based on survey results. How legit does that sound to you?

BTW I go to a top school and I am also saying the rankings are dumb. Just FYI.

 

[bw6]

False.

Do you know how US News ranks the schools? What is their methodology? They use absolutely zero objective data. You can argue that the deans consider the objective data when ranking schools (which you would have to be psychic to know), but that is not the same as actually using objective data to build the ranking. It is 100% based on survey results. How legit does that sound to you?

BTW I go to a top school and I am also saying the rankings are dumb. Just FYI.

How would you have to be psychic? What do you think the deans use to judge a college? They don't all get together and say F this school.. let's rank it low. Rankings are, like I said, not the best indicator of good schools. But they are not complete bs either. The deans dont know every program in the country which means 2 things:
They won't know every program well enough to judge it off the top of their heads
AND they have to gather objective data to judge schools.

I'm sure the dean of a school is familiar with all 130+ or however many schools there are now... yeah right. And don't say they just guess. It takes time for the rankings and to assume they don't use objective data is ridiculous. Top schools tend to stay top schools for a reason and it isn't just reputation because a few top schools also fall (if you haven't noticed from 2012 rankings).

 

[BenJammin]

A lot of the data is objective. Funding, job placement, residency matching, size of the medical center, etc. And even the subjective data is relevant - academics, teaching staff, caliber of research, etc. Also see above... NAPLEX pass rates are a dumb measure of a school. My school boasts 99% but I don't care because I could go to the worst school in the country and still pass. The other school may have a lower passing rate but other credetials exceed your school. It always seems that the people at lowly ranked schools are saying ranks don't matter and say nothing about a school. Rank isn't everything but it is based off of relevant objective and subjective data.

Haha.. and if these people saying the ranks mean nothing truly believed that, they would not be bothered enough by a low rank to post all over SDN about it. Just funny that they argue against the relevancy of rankings yet get upset because they go to a poorly ranked school.

You think it's funny but I think it's outrageous that a school that employees 100% of their grads is unranked. Just saying. Your 4.0 GPA doesn't impress anyone if you don't have a job.

 

[owlegrad]

What do you think the deans use to judge a college?

This is a funny question. I do not think the deans spend as much time filling out the rankings as you give them credit for. Of course I could be wrong, how would I know?