1100 unmatched. Where are we headed in the next 2-4 years?

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

Where do you think residencies are headed

  • Expect a rapid expansion of programs over the next 3-5 years, 38% unmatched is the peak.

    Votes: 8 10.4%

  • Expect to hit 50% unmatched within the next 3-5 years.

    Votes: 28 36.4%

  • A sustained/long-term disparity between those seeking and those receiving residency slots.

    Votes: 47 61.0%

  • The #'s of unmatched applicants 5-7 years out will decrease.

    Votes: 10 13.0%

  • We will meet ACCP 2020.

    Votes: 3 3.9%
  • Total voters
    77
confettiflyer

confettiflyer

Model Citizen™
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
10,410
Reaction score
4,038
The numbers are, for the most part, sobering.

2900 applicants
1100 unmatched
100 scramble spots

The numbers have been trending this way for a few years, and we knew it would be bad...now what? Where do you think we're headed in the immediate future? Can we realistically meet the ACCP 2020 official position?

Answer the poll question, you can select multiple statements. 2+4 means it'll get worse before it gets better, 2+3 says it gets worse and stays bad, 1+3 means it'll stay this way but not get worse/better. 1+5 would be the most optimistic outlook.
Members don't see this ad.
 
confettiflyer said:
The numbers are, for the most part, sobering.

2900 applicants
1100 unmatched
100 scramble spots

The numbers have been trending this way for a few years, and we knew it would be bad...now what? Where do you think we're headed in the immediate future? Can we realistically meet the ACCP 2020 official position?

Answer the poll question, you can select multiple statements. 2+4 means it'll get worse before it gets better, 2+3 says it gets worse and stays bad, 1+3 means it'll stay this way but not get worse/better. 1+5 would be the most optimistic outlook.
Click to expand...

ACCP 2020 might occur in the near future. If you think about how many schools are opening up they are bound to put out some residency programs. Plus with all the pharmacists i bet you will need a residency just to staff at a hospital/retail.

WOW there is a LOT less scramble positions than last year.
 
yes, but even if more residency sites become available - will they be quality sites? I think that most hospitals that have a successful clinical program and can support a residency have one.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
njac said:
yes, but even if more residency sites become available - will they be quality sites? I think that most hospitals that have a successful clinical program and can support a residency have one.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one, I think that most hospitals that are capable of starting a program have already done so. I would suspect that the current programs might expand to support more positions but even that will be limited.
 
pharmwannebe2 said:
ACCP 2020 might occur in the near future. If you think about how many schools are opening up they are bound to put out some residency programs. Plus with all the pharmacists i bet you will need a residency just to staff at a hospital/retail.

WOW there is a LOT less scramble positions than last year.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many positions there were last year vs. how many people didn't match? Just curious. I really wonder how flooded with phone calls and e-mails the residency directors at some of the unmatched programs are.
 
confettiflyer said:
The numbers are, for the most part, sobering.

2900 applicants
1100 unmatched
100 scramble spots

The numbers have been trending this way for a few years, and we knew it would be bad...now what? Where do you think we're headed in the immediate future? Can we realistically meet the ACCP 2020 official position?

Answer the poll question, you can select multiple statements. 2+4 means it'll get worse before it gets better, 2+3 says it gets worse and stays bad, 1+3 means it'll stay this way but not get worse/better. 1+5 would be the most optimistic outlook.
Click to expand...

DEFINITELY sobering and it will only get worse in the coming years. Imagine how bad it will be next year? this has me heavily considering a pharmd/phd program as opposed to residency/fellowship. scary stuff...
 
tungsten87 said:
DEFINITELY sobering and it will only get worse in the coming years. Imagine how bad it will be next year? this has me heavily considering a pharmd/phd program as opposed to residency/fellowship. scary stuff...
Click to expand...

me too...while i'm still going to apply, i'm shifting some of my time into developing more relationships for straight employment out of school. Basically, a back-up plan in the event I don't match, seeing as it's essentially going to be a 50/50 toss-up by the time I graduate (IMO).
 
ACCP's initiative is a good idea, but more hospitals need to get on board and offer more PGY1 and PGY2 programs to meet the demand. It's scary how poor the job prospects are in my area. It's also has to do with the poor economy. I know some programs had to cut down then number of residents they could have because of budget cuts. I do find it quite frustrating that I may have to staff after completing my PGY1. I'd like do be able to do some clinical work after completing a residency. I will do a PGY2 if I have to to land a full-time clinical position. Also, I feel that a bachelors degree should be required as well before going to pharm school. Every other professional program requires a bachelors degree. I'm sure there will be a lot of changes in pharmacy school and the residency process over the years to come. Change is good. It will hopefully advance the profession.
 
its honestly due to the job market and economy.

didnt happen to me personally but i had many friends who said they were on interviews with people who blatantly stated they couldnt get any other job so they applid for residencies, which flooded the system and screwed a lot of people who were in it for what they truly want to do in life

(yes im bitter and quite bummed)
 
ACCP 2020...don't get me started.
I really don't see too many more programs opening, as there really isn't much of a demand for residents.
 
confettiflyer said:
me too...while i'm still going to apply, i'm shifting some of my time into developing more relationships for straight employment out of school. Basically, a back-up plan in the event I don't match, seeing as it's essentially going to be a 50/50 toss-up by the time I graduate (IMO).
Click to expand...
DUH!!!!!!!! Finally! Someone is thinking in terms of options, not gut feelings or pie-in-the-sky ideals. :thumbup:
 
Many institutions, esp larger ones, require a PGY2 for a clinical-only position.

My institution is that way, even on the gen-med floors. I work in a large teaching academic hospital.
 
Last edited:
rrr10 said:
Many institutions, esp larger ones, require a PGY2 for a clinical-only position.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, PGY-1 will usually be good enough for a clinical pharmacist on the gen med floors. But you need a PGY-2 to be in ICU, heme/onc, ID... pharmacist.

Having said that, the pharmacist surplus in some areas is such that PGY-1 are signed on as staff pharmacists, and wait for current ones to retire.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Data on program spots vs applicants trend
applicants.jpg
 
2010 data:

# of PGY-1 spots = 1951; # of applicants = 2915; # matched = 1801

-----------

Notice how the gap between # of applicants vs # of spots has increased from ~ negative 100 in favor of applicants in 2003. Today, the gap is ~ + 1000 in favor of the programs.

What could you do if you were a program? You can (1) afford to be more picky, and demand more from the applicants (better grades/qualification, lower stipends, more projects/work load). (2) interview the same or fewer candidates. Because even if fails to match, you have 10 applicants fighting for each vacant spot post-match.

The candidates on the other hand will need to work and study harder during school, apply and rank more residency sites, and work their butts off more during the residency.

But this is not all a bad thing. The stiffening competition will likely result in overall higher quality of the residents and even those who competed but didn't match. Some say that competition brings out he worst in people, but I think more often it brings out the best. A meritocracy, in its pure form, is more rational and fair than democracy.
 
Last edited:
xiphoid2010 said:
2010 data:

# of PGY-1 spots = 1951; # of applicants = 2915; # matched = 1801

-----------

Notice how the gap between # of applicants vs # of spots has increased from ~ negative 100 in favor of applicants in 2003. Today, the gap is ~ + 1000 in favor of the programs.

What could you do if you were a program? You can (1) afford to be more picky, and demand more from the applicants (better grades/qualification, lower stipends, more projects/work load). (2) interview the same or fewer candidates. Because even if fails to match, you have 10 applicants fighting for each vacant spot post-match.

The candidates on the other hand will need to work and study harder during school, apply and rank more residency sites, and work their butts off more during the residency.

But this is not all a bad thing. The stiffening competition will likely result in overall higher quality of the residents and even those who competed but didn't match. Some say that competition brings out he worst in people, but I think more often it brings out the best. I personally believe that a pure meritocracy is the best and fair governance system.
Click to expand...

the problem being that they are turning it into an elitist position which it is never marketed as.

for the 6 years ive been in school residencies were pitched as a way to persue further training in an area of interest, and gain experience regardless of your grades past work history etc.

now its turned into only for those straight A suckups (sorry i dislike them) that participate in everything, and excluding people who for example had to work retail to pay for school and didnt have time for clubs/groups etc.

IMHO if thats what it is going to be market it that way, dont pitch it as something anyone can do, because at this point it is the EXACT opposite.

its not fair to relegate someone to a staff/retail position because of their extracurricular activities...if i wanted this level of competition i would have gone to med school.
 
I kind of agree...while a certain level of selectiveness is good, turning it into an elitist position can pose a few hazards for the profession (all stated by killer penguin). It's one of those things where a highly qualified individual would have easily gotten in 4-5 years ago no longer would qualify purely because of being born at the wrong time.

I don't wanna turn this into a complaint/entitlement debate, though. It is the way it is...time to be flexible and figure stuff out for ourselves.

On another note, the Medical Match also experienced the highest # of applicants in its history with 30,543 (an increase of 3,800 from 2006).

Fundamentally, the US population is still growing, the growing geriatric population requires more interventions, and the potential for HC reform might increase the paying patient pool. Residency or not, I don't think we're all exactly out of a job...I just wish I can pursue a clinical specialty based on interest and aptitude, and not figuring out ways to inflate my CV so I can get my foot in the door in an ever growing arms race against other students.
 
This is very interesting to me, as I am considering a residency when the time comes.

I'm curious: do schools of pharmacy that have residencies associated with their university typically give preference to their own graduates? Or is it a more open competition?
 
killerpenguin21 said:
now its turned into only for those straight A suckups (sorry i dislike them) that participate in everything, and excluding people who for example had to work retail to pay for school and didnt have time for clubs/groups etc.

IMHO if thats what it is going to be market it that way, dont pitch it as something anyone can do, because at this point it is the EXACT opposite.

its not fair to relegate someone to a staff/retail position because of their extracurricular activities...if i wanted this level of competition i would have gone to med school.
Click to expand...

Ah, but it's not. I pulled off a near perfect grade while working 2 internships simultaneously all year long. Met and is now engaged to a girl in my class. There was no leadership positions on my CV, but I didn't need them.

I think alot of people tried to use personal life, extracurricular activities as excuses for not putting in the efforts they should have during school. It's perfectly doable to do both, and everyone knows. And would any job/program wants someone who make excuses for things they didn't get done?
 
xiphoid2010 said:
Ah, but it's not. I pulled off a near perfect grade while working 2 internships simultaneously all year long. Met and is now engaged to a girl in my class. There was no leadership positions on my CV, but I didn't need them.
Click to expand...

Would this even be enough in 2-4 years? I feel like I get the impression that if your CV didn't take a rain forest to produce + you didn't get published/presented posters + no leadership positions = you're effed. Today's stellar applicant will be tomorrow's mediocre one.

I don't have a problem with people doing everything and getting 3.9's, but I do find it annoying when I have to potentially do something I don't like doing (dealing with on campus orgs, etc...) or skimping on in-depth activities just to keep up with the joneses to keep from getting shut out.

This would inherently put someone who HAS to work, raise kids, etc... at a disadvantage simply because the # of hours per day don't add up. I'm sure you can skimp on family time or be a crappy officer in an org to fill lines...but then you're just going through the paces.

Again, I'm borderline bitching, and I generally hate bitching...I guess sometimes changes take some getting used to.
 
confettiflyer said:
Would this even be enough in 2-4 years? I feel like I get the impression that if your CV didn't take a rain forest to produce + you didn't get published/presented posters + no leadership positions = you're effed. Today's stellar applicant will be tomorrow's mediocre one.

I don't have a problem with people doing everything and getting 3.9's, but I do find it annoying when I have to potentially do something I don't like doing (dealing with on campus orgs, etc...) or skimping on in-depth activities just to keep up with the joneses to keep from getting shut out.

This would inherently put someone who HAS to work, raise kids, etc... at a disadvantage simply because the # of hours per day don't add up. I'm sure you can skimp on family time or be a crappy officer in an org to fill lines...but then you're just going through the paces.

Again, I'm borderline bitching, and I generally hate bitching...I guess sometimes changes take some getting used to.
Click to expand...

I guess the reasoning may be if you are raising kids, how will you be able to raise them through residency (not saying that's the correct reasoning). And I would think work experience would play more favorably than orgs. I mean, I am on my chapter's APhA board, but only work in retail, and I think I'd be less competitive than someone who doesn't have a board position but spends much of their time working at a hospital.
 
xiphoid2010 said:
Ah, but it's not. I pulled off a near perfect grade while working 2 internships simultaneously all year long. Met and is now engaged to a girl in my class. There was no leadership positions on my CV, but I didn't need them.

I think alot of people tried to use personal life, extracurricular activities as excuses for not putting in the efforts they should have during school. It's perfectly doable to do both, and everyone knows. And would any job/program wants someone who make excuses for things they didn't get done?
Click to expand...

see thats the attitude i dont like tho. i mean congrats on your hard work, but people like me who had to spend their time studying because im not a straight a student lost on on the opportunity to get my dream job because of the way the system is changing.

i mean i worked, and im in no way making excuses i only ranked one place so my chances were slim but still, in general, the pharmacy residencies are still being marketed in my school as something anyone can do which it now isnt!

confettiflyer said:
Would this even be enough in 2-4 years? I feel like I get the impression that if your CV didn't take a rain forest to produce + you didn't get published/presented posters + no leadership positions = you're effed. Today's stellar applicant will be tomorrow's mediocre one.

I don't have a problem with people doing everything and getting 3.9's, but I do find it annoying when I have to potentially do something I don't like doing (dealing with on campus orgs, etc...) or skimping on in-depth activities just to keep up with the joneses to keep from getting shut out.

This would inherently put someone who HAS to work, raise kids, etc... at a disadvantage simply because the # of hours per day don't add up. I'm sure you can skimp on family time or be a crappy officer in an org to fill lines...but then you're just going through the paces.

Again, I'm borderline bitching, and I generally hate bitching...I guess sometimes changes take some getting used to.
Click to expand...

i totally agree with you. im not bitching at not matching personally, ill find a job, but the way the system works now is just crap.
 
I am under the impression that the interview carries quite a bit of weight as well. Its not just about the CV and GPA
 
bacillus1 said:
I guess the reasoning may be if you are raising kids, how will you be able to raise them through residency (not saying that's the correct reasoning). And I would think work experience would play more favorably than orgs. I mean, I am on my chapter's APhA board, but only work in retail, and I think I'd be less competitive than someone who doesn't have a board position but spends much of their time working at a hospital.
Click to expand...

Well with residency, you are getting paid, and all your activities encompass that income whereas in school, most of your activities are unpaid. I can't speak for bringing home work, but I feel like it's more job-like than school-like (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

I do work in a hospital and love it so much that I work a LOT (the money helps defray expenses as well), but my worry is that the # of hours put in won't translate into a more engaging CV than someone who comes in once a week. It'll still show up as:

Pharmacy Intern. Random hospital. June 2004-May 2008.

not:

Pharmacy Intern. Random Hospital. June 2004-May 2008 but I busted my ass 30 hours a week to support a kid while devoting my time to understanding in depth how to make peace with a pharmacy robot.

well, not exactly that, but you get what I mean? I feel the application process skews toward breadth and not depth...that is, at least getting your foot in the door.

like xiphoid's example of working two internships while maintaining a 3.9...we have no idea how many hours he spent at each site, already on paper he looks like the better candidate.

maybe i'm better off paring back and finding CV fillers....ugh, i thought i left this arms race behind in undergrad.
 
Argentium said:
I am under the impression that the interview carries quite a bit of weight as well. Its not just about the CV and GPA
Click to expand...

it does, but as njac posted in another thread (was it njac? it was one of you prolific residents :cool:) that apps were being tossed aside because of sheer volume and time constraints.

My school has a competitive residency program and I've seen the # of applications they don't call for an interview. To think, the # of applicants in that pile could be the # for EVERY program in a few years :(
 
Your CV gets you the interview....once your in the interview you personality and reasons for being there land you the spot. As has been mentioned in previous threads....GPA,Publications, Leadership positions are ways to cut down the field. You can't interview all 50 people that apply. It sucks but thats the reality of it. Also, the point of doing a residency is to further your clinical/leadership/managerial skills. If you have utilized these skills while in school by being president of XYZ it shows programs that you are a person who meets their program goals and someone who is interested in becoming a leader. They eat that stuff up.
 
Moxxie said:
Do you know how many positions there were last year vs. how many people didn't match? Just curious. I really wonder how flooded with phone calls and e-mails the residency directors at some of the unmatched programs are.
Click to expand...

MATCH RESULTS 2009
PGY1 PGY2 Total

Applicants Matched 1651 209 1860

Participating Applicants
Not Matched 857 87 944
 
This thread worries me...

My opinion: stop opening up so many damn diploma mills. I mean, for ****s sake, anybody with a pulse and at least a 2.5 can get in right now. In four years? What is the match going to be like then?

How are you going to differentiate yourself? Although people will argue with me, where you go to school is going to matter soon enough.
 
rxlea said:
This thread worries me...

My opinion: stop opening up so many damn diploma mills. I mean, for ****s sake, anybody with a pulse and at least a 2.5 can get in right now. In four years? What is the match going to be like then?

How are you going to differentiate yourself? Although people will argue with me, where you go to school is going to matter soon enough.
Click to expand...

It already does. I talked to a few residency directors and all of them said that pharmacy school matters - it's one of the criteria based on which they decide whether to invite you for an interview or not. There are other criteria as well including GPA, leadership, LORs, and etc.
 
confettiflyer said:
I do work in a hospital and love it so much that I work a LOT (the money helps defray expenses as well), but my worry is that the # of hours put in won't translate into a more engaging CV than someone who comes in once a week. It'll still show up as:

Pharmacy Intern. Random hospital. June 2004-May 2008.

not:

Pharmacy Intern. Random Hospital. June 2004-May 2008 but I busted my ass 30 hours a week to support a kid while devoting my time to understanding in depth how to make peace with a pharmacy robot.

well, not exactly that, but you get what I mean? I feel the application process skews toward breadth and not depth...that is, at least getting your foot in the door.

like xiphoid's example of working two internships while maintaining a 3.9...we have no idea how many hours he spent at each site, already on paper he looks like the better candidate.

maybe i'm better off paring back and finding CV fillers....ugh, i thought i left this arms race behind in undergrad.
Click to expand...

I worked 2 days every week, plus extra shifts when they needed me, averaging just shy of 20 hours/week.

Work is a great way to earn real world experience and practice/reinforce the knowledge you learned. But working excessively is not a good idea when your school performance suffers. After all, you are a student first.

What many residency coordinator want to see is that balancing skill. A good resident is someone who can both (a) a good learner and (b) an good worker. Lacking either is not good, and that should be obvious.

What will separate a real intern from one who barely works? It shows up (1) the letter of recommendation. If you worked somewhere for years, you better get a good LOR from there and it better say what you did and why you are good. (2) the projects you did during your internship, which will often come up during the interview.

Applying for residency is kind of like applying to pharmacy school again. You remember that, good grades & experience. Some complained about unfairness then, some now. But you know what they are looking for ahead of time. So set yourself up to meet it.

Even now >60% of the residency applicants will still get in. That's better odds than when you were applying to pharmacy school.
 
Honestly, I don't understand why more hospitals aren't creating PGY1 and PGY2 programs. It's cheap labor. I know it takes a lot to create a program, but the hospital wins out by having pharmacists do the job at a fraction of the normal salary.
 
rxlea said:
This thread worries me...

My opinion: stop opening up so many damn diploma mills. I mean, for ****s sake, anybody with a pulse and at least a 2.5 can get in right now. In four years? What is the match going to be like then?

How are you going to differentiate yourself? Although people will argue with me, where you go to school is going to matter soon enough.
Click to expand...

I don't think the growth of new schools is fully driving this glut, it's multi-factorial. I know at least 4 schools opened fall 2008...that's 4 x 75 average first class graduates = that's 300 TOTAL new graduates, assume the top 20% apply at residency, that's only 60-80 new people in the pool.

Another factor is the economy, how many people who didn't get the signing bonuses or choice job they wanted decided to duck into residency to wait it out and gain experience? Not everyone who applies is a clinical gunner, some are more pragmatic about it. Also, someone mentioned budget cuts by hospitals due to the economy, so this is a double hit.

Third factor could be this fanatical push toward residency by faculty & pharmacy gods.

But your comment about diploma mills and 2.5 GPA students...you're not competing against them, you're competing against the dark horse students that happen to go to those schools but are competitive with the UCSF grad. It's just now...that actual UCSF grad is no longer getting courted by CVS because of all the 2.0 no-interest-in-anything-PharmD's hitting the job market, so now you're competing against TWO stellar candidates.

Maybe you are right...in a roundabout kinda way... hmmmm
 
xiphoid2010 said:
I worked 2 days every week, plus extra shifts when they needed me, averaging just shy of 20 hours/week.

Work is a great way to earn real world experience and practice/reinforce the knowledge you learned. But working excessively is not a good idea when your school performance suffers. After all, you are a student first.

What many residency coordinator want to see is that balancing skill. A good resident is someone who can both (a) a good learner and (b) an good worker. Lacking either is not good, and that should be obvious.

What will separate a real intern from one who barely works? It shows up (1) the letter of recommendation. If you worked somewhere for years, you better get a good LOR from there and it better say what you did and why you are good. (2) the projects you did during your internship, which will often come up during the interview.

Applying for residency is kind of like applying to pharmacy school again. You remember that, good grades & experience. Some complained about unfairness then, some now. But you know what they are looking for ahead of time. So set yourself up to meet it.

Even now >60% of the residency applicants will still get in. That's better odds than when you were applying to pharmacy school.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, I'm at approx. 20hrs/week as well...but I feel like sometimes LOR's are a crapshoot. I've seen stellar ones for lazy candidates, I've seen poorly written ones for great candidates...it depends if the person writing it knows what buzzwords to include.

It's still a mess, and I think the lack of slots could be a real hindrance to the profession as a whole by creating a de facto two-tier system, something the powers at be CLEARLY did not want when they elevated the PharmD itself to 1st professional degree and eliminated the BSPharm (instead of keeping that two-tier system in place).
 
Interesting thread... situation really did change since I graduated. Though as the number of residency programs grows, I think residency will become (somewhat) devalued. Instead of an achievement that meant something, it would be just another item on the checklist...

But as far as competitiveness goes, it's a good thing. It's just that in the last ten years or so pharmacists (and pharmacy students) got completely unused to the idea of having to compete for positions. Except for those of us who took the plunge into the super-competitive world of corporate America straight out of school, of course. :D Competitive environment is better for the profession and better for each of you individually - it teaches you so much about yourself, IMHO. :)
 
confettiflyer said:
Yeah I agree, I'm at approx. 20hrs/week as well...but I feel like sometimes LOR's are a crapshoot. I've seen stellar ones for lazy candidates, I've seen poorly written ones for great candidates...it depends if the person writing it knows what buzzwords to include.

It's still a mess, and I think the lack of slots could be a real hindrance to the profession as a whole by creating a de facto two-tier system, something the powers at be CLEARLY did not want when they elevated the PharmD itself to 1st professional degree and eliminated the BSPharm (instead of keeping that two-tier system in place).
Click to expand...

Yeah, no system is perfect. We don't live in an utopian world.
The best we can hope for realistically is to have a system is fair and work semi-well. The US government is a democracy, but in real life we live more in a world that's more of a meritocracy.

Just as opening up 24574590345 diploma mills is a bad thing, opening up 3497593475 new residency slots is also. Now we got a ton of C average students from Jim-Bob college of pharmacy shooting for retail jobs lowering the quality of the pharmacist pool over all, how can we stop the same from spilling over to the hospital side? Opening the dam to let Jimbobs be residents isn't a good solution.

But if we merely hold fast the requirements for residency, the competition will increase from an increasing graduation pool. There is no getting away from it -- opening more pharmacy schools have inherently created a 2 tier system. It was in the schools system, and now it's spilling out into the post-graduate level. Just like the aging baby-boomers, the coming of it was easily predictable.
 
Honestly, I hope it becomes more of a meritocracy. That is the way it should be. There is an entitlement mentality that is plaguing our society. People think they should be handed everything without even working hard for it. I hope the people who work hard to get where they are going succeed in their endeavors. Enough with the sign-on bonus because you have a pulse. Our profession is going to change and it is up to us to determine how...too bad APhA has yet to impress me (and others). What are they doing to make our profession better? Allowing more and more schools to hand out degrees? I mean really...at my job, there are preceptors who comment on the knowledge/performance of the students that rotate there. I can tell you that PharmD at A school is NOT equal to PharmD at B school, and come 4 years from now, it will matter in the job (and residency) market. At least I hope...
 
Just wondering - is there any breakdown in the match statistics of people applying directly from schools versus people applying who were working/laid off/wanted a field change?
 
Silvermist said:
Just wondering - is there any breakdown in the match statistics of people applying directly from schools versus people applying who were working/laid off/wanted a field change?
Click to expand...


Yes.

Match Results By Year of Graduation (Matched,Unmatched, Total)
PGY1 Applicants: 2010 Graduates 1699 987 2686
Pre-2010 Graduates 102 127 229

PGY2 Applicants: 2009 Graduates 234 92 326
Pre-2009 Graduates 21 22 43
 
I suspect that we will see this situation improve from a couple angles as the economy improves. Certainly the number of applicants this year was staggering, but realize the number of people was driven up by people who only decided recently to do a residency because they didn't think they could get a retail job. Also, many hospitals are under hiring freezes due to the poor economy. They may want to create more resident positions (aka cheap labor) but can't make a strong enough case for it in the current market. You may want there to be tons of spots out there so any joe schmo can get a position, but then you'll be left with tons of residency trained pharmacists without enough clinical positions to go around.
 
confettiflyer said:
The numbers are, for the most part, sobering.

2900 applicants
1100 unmatched
100 scramble spots

The numbers have been trending this way for a few years, and we knew it would be bad...now what? Where do you think we're headed in the immediate future? Can we realistically meet the ACCP 2020 official position?

Answer the poll question, you can select multiple statements. 2+4 means it'll get worse before it gets better, 2+3 says it gets worse and stays bad, 1+3 means it'll stay this way but not get worse/better. 1+5 would be the most optimistic outlook.
Click to expand...


Geebus I didn't see this coming. This changes a lot of things. Grades do matter and the type of intern work will matter more as it's really become competitive to get a residency. Obviously I think we will see more and more hospital pharmacists will be residency trained. I am seeing more and more hospital staff pharmacist applicants who are residency trained. Only 5 years ago, I would have hired retail pharmacists as long as their work ethics were sound with a good attitude. But those resumes are going to the bottom of the stack unfortunately.

As far as starting a residency program, it aint that easy.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
Geebus I didn't see this coming. This changes a lot of things. Grades do matter and the type of intern work will matter more as it's really become competitive to get a residency. Obviously I think we will see more and more hospital pharmacists will be residency trained. I am seeing more and more hospital staff pharmacist applicants who are residency trained. Only 5 years ago, I would have hired retail pharmacists as long as their work ethics were sound with a good attitude. But those resumes are going to the bottom of the stack unfortunately.

As far as starting a residency program, it aint that easy.
Click to expand...

Got a question for you ... obviously, like you said, the pharm market is changing. How do you think the trend towards residencies will impact the market for experienced but non-residency-trained staff in a few years (both PharmD and Bpharm). I've been seeing quite a few positions listed recently which explicitly state that PharmD is "preferred" but Bpharm is "acceptable" - are we heading towards residency-preferred over non-resident but experienced candidates?
 
Silvermist said:
Got a question for you ... obviously, like you said, the pharm market is changing. How do you think the trend towards residencies will impact the market for experienced but non-residency-trained staff in a few years (both PharmD and Bpharm). I've been seeing quite a few positions listed recently which explicitly state that PharmD is "preferred" but Bpharm is "acceptable" - are we heading towards residency-preferred over non-resident but experienced candidates?
Click to expand...


That depends on the person doing the hiring. I'm blinded to PharmD vs. Bpharm as I don't believe PharmD = higher quality pharmacist.

But many don't agree as I know many pseudo intellectual Academia and clinical pharmacists will only hire PharmD.

Then again, that won't matter to you since BPharm is no longer matriculated in the US.

But I do think it's trending towards residency trained practitioners regardless of the type of degrees.
 
rxlea said:
Honestly, I hope it becomes more of a meritocracy. That is the way it should be. There is an entitlement mentality that is plaguing our society. People think they should be handed everything without even working hard for it. I hope the people who work hard to get where they are going succeed in their endeavors. Enough with the sign-on bonus because you have a pulse. Our profession is going to change and it is up to us to determine how...too bad APhA has yet to impress me (and others). What are they doing to make our profession better? Allowing more and more schools to hand out degrees? I mean really...at my job, there are preceptors who comment on the knowledge/performance of the students that rotate there. I can tell you that PharmD at A school is NOT equal to PharmD at B school, and come 4 years from now, it will matter in the job (and residency) market. At least I hope...
Click to expand...

You're running two arguments here it seems that may not be compatible, that a) individuals should work hard and shouldn't be entitled to a residency and b) groups of students from school A are not equal to students at group B and that residency programs should automatically prefer those from the higher school.

They run counter to each other in that presumably someone can "hide" within the cloak of the more established school. So do you advocate judging an individual and their rotation experiences or blanket rank students based on their school and then drill down after?

Take a model student with a 3.6 from an old and new school with identical rotation experiences at identical facilities and identical preceptors, average length of faculty tenure at all institutions taught are comparable and so is the student:faculty ratio. Curriculum follows ACPE standards (most recent revision). Other than the interview, at what point do you drill down to differentiate between old vs. new school? Date of establishment? # of alumni present? Average PCAT score?

Just want to know your take since the "old vs. new" argument has a few more nuances to it. It's like NCAA bball rankings...what's the story behind the number and what if you normalize the #14 seed and the #1 seed with respect to money, recruitment, coaching experience, etc...?
 
rxlea said:
Honestly, I hope it becomes more of a meritocracy. That is the way it should be. There is an entitlement mentality that is plaguing our society. People think they should be handed everything without even working hard for it. I hope the people who work hard to get where they are going succeed in their endeavors. Enough with the sign-on bonus because you have a pulse. Our profession is going to change and it is up to us to determine how...too bad APhA has yet to impress me (and others). What are they doing to make our profession better? Allowing more and more schools to hand out degrees? I mean really...at my job, there are preceptors who comment on the knowledge/performance of the students that rotate there. I can tell you that PharmD at A school is NOT equal to PharmD at B school, and come 4 years from now, it will matter in the job (and residency) market. At least I hope...
Click to expand...


Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions for someone who hasn't even started pharmacy school yet...
 
rxlea said:
Honestly, I hope it becomes more of a meritocracy. That is the way it should be. There is an entitlement mentality that is plaguing our society. People think they should be handed everything without even working hard for it. I hope the people who work hard to get where they are going succeed in their endeavors. Enough with the sign-on bonus because you have a pulse. Our profession is going to change and it is up to us to determine how...too bad APhA has yet to impress me (and others). What are they doing to make our profession better? Allowing more and more schools to hand out degrees? I mean really...at my job, there are preceptors who comment on the knowledge/performance of the students that rotate there. I can tell you that PharmD at A school is NOT equal to PharmD at B school, and come 4 years from now, it will matter in the job (and residency) market. At least I hope...
Click to expand...

I love how these comments come from people who haven't even started school yet. You aren't entitled to anything because you went to School A or School B.
 
IndustryPharmD said:
Though as the number of residency programs grows, I think residency will become (somewhat) devalued. Instead of an achievement that meant something, it would be just another item on the checklist...
Click to expand...

I'm afraid of residency becoming an item on the checklist, too. I'd be in favor of condensing P1-P3 years (I honestly feel as though my P1 year has been a lot of review) and incorporating aspects of residency into rotations, which could be lengthened. Just my wishful thinking.
 
confettiflyer said:
You're running two arguments here it seems that may not be compatible, that a) individuals should work hard and shouldn't be entitled to a residency and b) groups of students from school A are not equal to students at group B and that residency programs should automatically prefer those from the higher school.

They run counter to each other in that presumably someone can "hide" within the cloak of the more established school. So do you advocate judging an individual and their rotation experiences or blanket rank students based on their school and then drill down after?

Take a model student with a 3.6 from an old and new school with identical rotation experiences at identical facilities and identical preceptors, average length of faculty tenure at all institutions taught are comparable and so is the student:faculty ratio. Curriculum follows ACPE standards (most recent revision). Other than the interview, at what point do you drill down to differentiate between old vs. new school? Date of establishment? # of alumni present? Average PCAT score?

Just want to know your take since the "old vs. new" argument has a few more nuances to it. It's like NCAA bball rankings...what's the story behind the number and what if you normalize the #14 seed and the #1 seed with respect to money, recruitment, coaching experience, etc...?
Click to expand...

You make an excellent point. Thank you for pointing that out. I admit I am speaking from my own experiences (and the opinions of the pharmacists I work with) so I probably shouldn't generalize like you said. I apologize for that. But, even though all curriculum has to be ACPE approved, schools have the autonomy to tailor their program as they see fit. Some programs have clearly indicated that they focus on clinical vs. community. Some emphasize rural practice. With that said, I think it is fair to say that students coming out of a program that is clinically focused are going to perform differently than students who came from elsewhere. This is probably most evident on rotations. Since I work in a hospital, the students that have rotated from a clinically oriented program have performed better in the clinical environment than others. Of course, it is certainly dependent on the student. However, we have had numerous students from many schools come through our inpatient pharmacy and all of the pharmacists will say that where you go to school matters. It matters in terms of your performance in different settings (I suppose this can go the other way- a student from a clinically oriented program may not do so well in community?) and it matters when it comes to top residencies-- we can argue all day about the difference between a well-known or"no name" but at the end of the day, unfortunately in some places name matters. If it didn't, why would places like Hopkins or Harvard be so highly regarded? Why is UCSF so well-known? Do I make sense at all? lol I hope I do at least a little bit ;-)
 
Last edited:
rxlea said:
You make an excellent point. Thank you for pointing that out. I admit I am speaking from my own experiences (and the opinions of the pharmacists I work with) so I probably shouldn't generalize like you said. I apologize for that. But, even though all curriculum has to be ACPE approved, schools have the autonomy to tailor their program as they see fit. Some programs have clearly indicated that they focus on clinical vs. community. Some emphasize rural practice. With that said, I think it is fair to say that students coming out of a program that is clinically focused are going to perform differently than students who came from elsewhere. This is probably most evident on rotations. Since I work in a hospital, the students that have rotated from a clinically oriented program have performed better in the clinical environment than others. Of course, it is certainly dependent on the student. However, we have had numerous students from many schools come through our inpatient pharmacy and all of the pharmacists will say that where you go to school matters. It matters in terms of your performance in different settings (I suppose this can go the other way- a student from a clinically oriented program may not do so well in community?) and it matters when it comes to top residencies-- we can argue all day about the difference between a well-known or"no name" but at the end of the day, unfortunately in some places name matters. If it didn't, why would places like Hopkin's or Harvard be so highly regarded? Why is UCSF so well-known? Do I make sense at all? lol I hope I do at least a little bit ;-)
Click to expand...

That does make sense...I'm guilty of brand awareness all the time, but I'd make the argument that the deciding factor in a pharm student's performance will be the quality of clinical rotations and not the actual school.

Yes, there will sometimes be a correlation between how long a school has been around and the depth/breadth of its rotations, but in many cases sites will be identical.

In terms of hiring, it's more who you know than anything. The reason why Hopkins or Harvard alums are so successful is because the alumni base is so strong, but it's not everything.

Case-in-point...my old pharmacy needed techs, and one student was an alum of my school/the supervisor's school (a top 50 school). That got her in the door and we liked her on interview...but she was an unmitigated disaster. Wore jeans the first day...stopped showing up to work after 2 weeks w/out telling anyone. Next person from our university was outstanding.

So wrapping this up...school name may have a "halo" effect on your application, but that's about it. I think most hiring managers/program directors understand that disasters lurk within the student body of UCSF and new programs, and that proper vetting is needed.
 
confettiflyer said:
That does make sense...I'm guilty of brand awareness all the time, but I'd make the argument that the deciding factor in a pharm student's performance will be the quality of clinical rotations and not the actual school.

Yes, there will sometimes be a correlation between how long a school has been around and the depth/breadth of its rotations, but in many cases sites will be identical.

In terms of hiring, it's more who you know than anything. The reason why Hopkins or Harvard alums are so successful is because the alumni base is so strong, but it's not everything.

Case-in-point...my old pharmacy needed techs, and one student was an alum of my school/the supervisor's school (a top 50 school). That got her in the door and we liked her on interview...but she was an unmitigated disaster. Wore jeans the first day...stopped showing up to work after 2 weeks w/out telling anyone. Next person from our university was outstanding.

So wrapping this up...school name may have a "halo" effect on your application, but that's about it. I think most hiring managers/program directors understand that disasters lurk within the student body of UCSF and new programs, and that proper vetting is needed.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is difficult to tell what a person's performance will be like because they do their best to impress you in the interview. Some people have a talent for that LOL We had somebody that claimed to have all this experience in compounding and making IVs from a prior job (and it was believable because he did work at a hospital). However, he didn't know the first thing about it and it took a lot of extra effort to train him at our busiest time of the year :thumbdown:
 
OTOH - I always thought everyone knew UCSF is though of as the #1 pharmacy school.

Imentioned that to someone here on the east coast and they said "oh, there's a pharmacy school at UCSF?"

name recognition only goes so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Unmatched Phase II 2018
Replies
18
Views
6K
cockroaches34
C
G
Is it wrong to have 4 references for residencies?
Replies
2
Views
2K
PharmDizzle
P
C
Residency 6 years post grad?
Replies
13
Views
4K
bacillus1
bacillus1
F
Unmatched Phase II 2017
2 3 4 5
Replies
212
Views
38K
mookiebeeps
M
Freespirit91
Did anyone apply for residency after 2 years of graduation?
Replies
9
Views
4K
Timbo
T
Top