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

[Its Z]

Residencies steal a potential job from a pharmacist, because the student is working for "free", paying tuition to the school, and the school is paying the site.

You're an idiot.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RxWildcat]

You're an idiot.

He's got 12 posts in about 3 years of being a member here so at least his next post won't be for another 3 months.

 

[njac]

last I checked, I'm not paying tuition to do a residency. And frankly, they wouldn't pay someone full time pay to do what I do.

 

[KARM12]

last I checked, I'm not paying tuition to do a residency. And frankly, they wouldn't pay someone full time pay to do what I do.

I sit around doing a lot of nothing some days and no one notices...

 

[njac]

I guess I worded that poorly - if I weren't doing these things, no one would be. so it's to the patients' advantage that I am there getting half pay!

 

[Its Z]

I sit around doing a lot of nothing some days and no one notices...

I notice fellows who are not productive.

 

[ucrx]

Residencies steal a potential job from a pharmacist, because the student is working for "free", paying tuition to the school, and the school is paying the site.

It sounds like you are talking about clinical rotations that are required for the PharmD, not residency. Residents are employed by the site and do get paid a stipend (although much less than pharmacist salary). Residency has nothing to do with the school someone went to and does not require tuition.

 

[FishPharm]

What I feel is going to hurt the pharmacy profession are all these satellite programs that are coming out. University of Florida has their main campus as well as like 4 other sites where the students just plop their asses in front of a tv, eat doritos and watch the lectures on tv. University of North Carolina is setting one up too I heard. I think this makes pharmacy look extremely unintelligent. These people graduate with a degree from the school and no one ever really knew if they were educated in front of a boob tube or not ............ well, I take that back, preceptors find out real quick when they start their APPE rotations. I just feel that so many schools are opening up that we are going to have a huge problem soon. It just shows that the mentality with med school is so much different than with pharmacy school. So the first thing I would ask when interviewing a pharmacy graduate for a residency is......."were you educated by an instructor or in front of a television." My second question would be how big the tv was......lol

 

[p-rog]

What I feel is going to hurt the pharmacy profession are all these satellite programs that are coming out. University of Florida has their main campus as well as like 4 other sites where the students just plop their asses in front of a tv, eat doritos and watch the lectures on tv. University of North Carolina is setting one up too I heard. I think this makes pharmacy look extremely unintelligent. These people graduate with a degree from the school and no one ever really knew if they were educated in front of a boob tube or not ............ well, I take that back, preceptors find out real quick when they start their APPE rotations. I just feel that so many schools are opening up that we are going to have a huge problem soon. It just shows that the mentality with med school is so much different than with pharmacy school. So the first thing I would ask when interviewing a pharmacy graduate for a residency is......."were you educated by an instructor or in front of a television." My second question would be how big the tv was......lol

Correct if I'm wrong, but don't med schools do the whole satellite campus thing too?

 

[PharmaTope]

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...

i got news for you, it won't matter. pharmacy doesnt provide a service that is based on the quality of work put out. dispensing is dispensing in people's minds. it is not like 1 surgeon vs another surgeon...

 

[PharmaTope]

What I feel is going to hurt the pharmacy profession are all these satellite programs that are coming out. University of Florida has their main campus as well as like 4 other sites where the students just plop their asses in front of a tv, eat doritos and watch the lectures on tv. University of North Carolina is setting one up too I heard. I think this makes pharmacy look extremely unintelligent. These people graduate with a degree from the school and no one ever really knew if they were educated in front of a boob tube or not ............ well, I take that back, preceptors find out real quick when they start their APPE rotations. I just feel that so many schools are opening up that we are going to have a huge problem soon. It just shows that the mentality with med school is so much different than with pharmacy school. So the first thing I would ask when interviewing a pharmacy graduate for a residency is......."were you educated by an instructor or in front of a television." My second question would be how big the tv was......lol

ya i saw that with UFL, i said wtf im not paying all that money for a freakin membership to blockbuster. talk about low quality education. what a disgrace.

 

[tungsten87]

ya i saw that with UFL, i said wtf im not paying all that money for a freakin membership to blockbuster. talk about low quality education. what a disgrace.

I don't understand why you think satellite campuses = lower quality education.

 

[rxlea]

I don't understand why you think satellite campuses = lower quality education.

+1

The lectures are video taped. What is the difference between a video tape of a lecture and actually being there?

 

[njac]

I think there is something to being there and being able to talk directly to the professor before/during/after class.

I have never participated in satellite classes, other than teaching them, so this is theoretical.

But as an instructor I didn't much care for it.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I don't understand why you think satellite campuses = lower quality education.

because you can't interact with the professor directly on the spot. Students are more likely to ask questions the moment they had one than making the effort/remember later to e-mail it. And even if one did, the others students wouldn't gain from it. Recorded lecture is always a poor substitute for real class room interaction. It is good as a review/supplement, but in my mind any school that use it as the primary method of teaching is a lower quality one.

 

[tungsten87]

because you can't interact with the professor directly on the spot. Students are more likely to ask questions the moment they had one than making the effort/remember later to e-mail it. And even if one did, the others students wouldn't gain from it. Recorded lecture is always a poor substitute for real class room interaction. It is good as a review/supplement, but in my mind any school that use it as the primary method of teaching is a lower quality one.

I am attending a school that has satellite campuses and will be attending the main campus, meaning that I will have the option to be present at all of the live lectures if I so choose. I'm the type of person that likes to go to every lecture and I would NOT attend a satellite campus. With this in mind, I don't think there is anything wrong with a satellite campus since if a student has a question there is little doubt that it can be answered through wikipedia, in a scientific journal, or SOMEWHERE on the internet. I don't think it's fair for you to call a school lower quality due to using online lectures as the primary method of teaching since there is no real way to gauge how these students perform vs. students who attend lectures live every day (unless you count the NAPLEX). Furthermore, I would hope that since these professors know that their lectures are being broadcasted to students that are not nearby they would be more attentive towards their e-mail and if a student has a good question he/she will convey this information in the following lecture to the rest of the students.

 

[rxlea]

When I interviewed with UMN, they explained that some of the lectures would be broadcast from the Duluth campus to the TC campus and vice versa. The students had microphones if they wanted to ask questions. Don't satellite campuses work the same way? Or are the lectures just recorded and students look at them later?

 

[tungsten87]

When I interviewed with UMN, they explained that some of the lectures would be broadcast from the Duluth campus to the TC campus and vice versa. The students had microphones if they wanted to ask questions. Don't satellite campuses work the same way? Or are the lectures just recorded and students look at them later?

I think it depends on the institution.

 

[ucrx]

When I interviewed with UMN, they explained that some of the lectures would be broadcast from the Duluth campus to the TC campus and vice versa. The students had microphones if they wanted to ask questions. Don't satellite campuses work the same way? Or are the lectures just recorded and students look at them later?

Some of my large lectures at UConn were broadcast to one of the regional campuses because they didn't have a professor for the class at the other campus. They also had a microphone and there was a camera focused on the other lecture hall so the professor could see and interact with them as if they were in the room.

 

[p-rog]

I don't think satelite campus necessarily equals lower quality. It does kinda open up the door for online pharmD's which could be very bad in the long run. UF is a good school though. I don't know why anyone would question the quality of a pharmD from there.

 

[FishPharm]

I don't really have a problem with satellite campuses in general. Lecom has one in Bradenton, Fl but its staffed with instructors. I do have a problem with what UF is doing. I feel that they are wanting just warm bodies. I'm currently on rotations in Florida and have worked at sites that had students from other schools. So far, I've heard preceptors complaining about the students that are at UF's satellite program. Matter of fact, one facility, which is a huge hospital, will no longer take UF students. I personally don't think UF should have been allowed to open that many campuses. Here's an example of why I think this. A couple months ago, I was on a rotation at a local (large chain) pharmacy in Florida. There were two other students also on rotations at the same site. We got a script for Amoxil 400mg/5mls with directions for the patient to take 1.5 teaspoonsful twice daily. The pharmacy had been having a hard time getting that strength so we were told to use the Amoxil 250/5 and adjust the dose. The UF person (who attends a satellite campus) couldn't figure out how to do this common problem. This shocked me because they had just taken a class in calculations. The reason why I'm bringing this up is because preceptors are starting to complain about it. I'm not meaning to imply that the students are stupid, I just feel that there is something lacking with how they are being educated.

 

[confettiflyer]

I don't really have a problem with satellite campuses in general. Lecom has one in Bradenton, Fl but its staffed with instructors. I do have a problem with what UF is doing. I feel that they are wanting just warm bodies. I'm currently on rotations in Florida and have worked at sites that had students from other schools. So far, I've heard preceptors complaining about the students that are at UF's satellite program. Matter of fact, one facility, which is a huge hospital, will no longer take UF students. I personally don't think UF should have been allowed to open that many campuses. Here's an example of why I think this. A couple months ago, I was on a rotation at a local (large chain) pharmacy in Florida. There were two other students also on rotations at the same site. We got a script for Amoxil 400mg/5mls with directions for the patient to take 1.5 teaspoonsful twice daily. The pharmacy had been having a hard time getting that strength so we were told to use the Amoxil 250/5 and adjust the dose. The UF person (who attends a satellite campus) couldn't figure out how to do this common problem. This shocked me because they had just taken a class in calculations. The reason why I'm bringing this up is because preceptors are starting to complain about it. I'm not meaning to imply that the students are stupid, I just feel that there is something lacking with how they are being educated.

What the hell...I learned how to do stuff like that in high school. C'mon now...

 

[FishPharm]

What the hell...I learned how to do stuff like that in high school. C'mon now...

I know!.........but this is the kind of stuff preceptors have been seeing.

 

[rxlea]

I have heard similar complaints about accelerated programs. We had students rotate through our hospital who were from accelerated programs and the pharmacists were shocked at how much the students did not know. However, there were 2 students from that school (out of the many, many others) that performed well on the rotation. But, when the majority of the students coming through just aren't up to par, I wonder if it is a product of the school or simply that those students were not quality students to begin with and just do the minimum to get through.

 

[confettiflyer]

I have heard similar complaints about accelerated programs. We had students rotate through our hospital who were from accelerated programs and the pharmacists were shocked at how much the students did not know. However, there were 2 students from that school (out of the many, many others) that performed well on the rotation. But, when the majority of the students coming through just aren't up to par, I wonder if it is a product of the school or simply that those students were not quality students to begin with and just do the minimum to get through.

I'm gonna go with the latter here, simply because basic skills (like researching topics, looking things up, grammar & communication skills, basic calculations, study habits, time management, etc..) are developed over the course of 4-8 years of high school and undergrad. By the time a student enters P-1, there's not much a pharm school can do to turn that ship around.

If the foundation is weak, no matter how well you pile the pharmacy curriculum on top (with top faculty, top rotation sites, etc...), you're going to have a weak student/practitioner.

This comes at the root of what you're saying about new vs. old programs in other threads. New programs inherently have lower academic requirements because the sheer numbers aren't present at the time of admissions (fewer students wanting to take the pre-candidate vs. fully accredited risk, among other things). What you see on your end is a poor student that reflects on the institution, but in a way it's a red herring and in another way it's an indirect piece of evidence.

It's mostly the student's fault but the institution is at fault as a gatekeeper. When someone says, "it's a poor program," is it regarding the teaching? admission's standards? you can dig deeper and argue that an adcom is functioning just fine, but the applicant pool was poor to begin with. You can have the best/most published/most dedicated faculty, the most discerning/optimal admission standards picking the top students at each cycle...but if you've got clunker students with sub-3.0's and community college only educations coming in the door, that won't bode well for the next 4 years.

gitwhatimsayyyinnn?

 

[rxlea]

I'm gonna go with the latter here, simply because basic skills (like researching topics, looking things up, grammar & communication skills, basic calculations, study habits, time management, etc..) are developed over the course of 4-8 years of high school and undergrad. By the time a student enters P-1, there's not much a pharm school can do to turn that ship around.

If the foundation is weak, no matter how well you pile the pharmacy curriculum on top (with top faculty, top rotation sites, etc...), you're going to have a weak student/practitioner.

This comes at the root of what you're saying about new vs. old programs in other threads. New programs inherently have lower academic requirements because the sheer numbers aren't present at the time of admissions (fewer students wanting to take the pre-candidate vs. fully accredited risk, among other things). What you see on your end is a poor student that reflects on the institution, but in a way it's a red herring and in another way it's an indirect piece of evidence.

It's mostly the student's fault but the institution is at fault as a gatekeeper. When someone says, "it's a poor program," is it regarding the teaching? admission's standards? you can dig deeper and argue that an adcom is functioning just fine, but the applicant pool was poor to begin with. You can have the best/most published/most dedicated faculty, the most discerning/optimal admission standards picking the top students at each cycle...but if you've got clunker students with sub-3.0's and community college only educations coming in the door, that won't bode well for the next 4 years.

gitwhatimsayyyinnn?

Yes, I get what you're saying. There is one additional piece here, though. I have read in many other threads that one thing that established schools have that newer schools don't is affiliations and better rotation sites. IMO, the clinical year is the most important. Your rotations are where you actually learn how to be a pharmacist and put all that theoretical knowledge to use. I have read numerous times on here that students are doing menial jobs or are doing what a tech does at some of the rotation sites. I do not see how this teaches someone to be a pharmacist (i.e. putting pills into packages all day or something like that). Some of the members here have said that newer schools just don't have the affiliations and resources that older schools (especially those affiliated with a teaching hospital or research institution) have. Maybe it is regional, I don't know. But, what I do know, is that I am glad to be going to such a respected, clinically oriented program. Older programs know how to run things- they know what works and what doesn't. They know if their rotation sites are good (or not). The faculty have taught the curriculum numerous times. They have research going on that students can participate it. Schools affiliated with major state universities certainly have all those and more resources at their disposal. I think this is what makes the difference between candidate/newly accredited and older programs. I guess I just wouldn't want to be in a program that is still trying to "work out all the quirks".

 

[b1234]

I'm gonna go with the latter here, simply because basic skills (like researching topics, looking things up, grammar & communication skills, basic calculations, study habits, time management, etc..) are developed over the course of 4-8 years of high school and undergrad. By the time a student enters P-1, there's not much a pharm school can do to turn that ship around.

If the foundation is weak, no matter how well you pile the pharmacy curriculum on top (with top faculty, top rotation sites, etc...), you're going to have a weak student/practitioner.

This comes at the root of what you're saying about new vs. old programs in other threads. New programs inherently have lower academic requirements because the sheer numbers aren't present at the time of admissions (fewer students wanting to take the pre-candidate vs. fully accredited risk, among other things). What you see on your end is a poor student that reflects on the institution, but in a way it's a red herring and in another way it's an indirect piece of evidence.

It's mostly the student's fault but the institution is at fault as a gatekeeper. When someone says, "it's a poor program," is it regarding the teaching? admission's standards? you can dig deeper and argue that an adcom is functioning just fine, but the applicant pool was poor to begin with. You can have the best/most published/most dedicated faculty, the most discerning/optimal admission standards picking the top students at each cycle...but if you've got clunker students with sub-3.0's and community college only educations coming in the door, that won't bode well for the next 4 years.

gitwhatimsayyyinnn?

Many people would argue that part of what makes a school "good" is it's ability to attract top students. This usually results in graduates being able to secure "enviable" positions which in turn gives the school a better reputation and makes it easier for future graduates of that school to get good positions.

 

[rxlynn]

...
It's mostly the student's fault but the institution is at fault as a gatekeeper. When someone says, "it's a poor program," is it regarding the teaching? admission's standards? you can dig deeper and argue that an adcom is functioning just fine, but the applicant pool was poor to begin with. You can have the best/most published/most dedicated faculty, the most discerning/optimal admission standards picking the top students at each cycle...but if you've got clunker students with sub-3.0's and community college only educations coming in the door, that won't bode well for the next 4 years.

gitwhatimsayyyinnn?

My opinion is that the newer schools might end up with at least a slightly better quality of student if they didn't try to start out with such large classes to begin with.

 

[confettiflyer]

My opinion is that the newer schools might end up with at least a slightly better quality of student if they didn't try to start out with such large classes to begin with.

do you consider 80 large? Ever since the 2004 HICP debacle (with something like 240+ students), ACPE has limited each new school to approx. 70-90 students.

Yes, I get what you're saying. There is one additional piece here, though. I have read in many other threads that one thing that established schools have that newer schools don't is affiliations and better rotation sites. IMO, the clinical year is the most important. Your rotations are where you actually learn how to be a pharmacist and put all that theoretical knowledge to use. I have read numerous times on here that students are doing menial jobs or are doing what a tech does at some of the rotation sites. I do not see how this teaches someone to be a pharmacist (i.e. putting pills into packages all day or something like that). Some of the members here have said that newer schools just don't have the affiliations and resources that older schools (especially those affiliated with a teaching hospital or research institution) have. Maybe it is regional, I don't know. But, what I do know, is that I am glad to be going to such a respected, clinically oriented program. Older programs know how to run things- they know what works and what doesn't. They know if their rotation sites are good (or not). The faculty have taught the curriculum numerous times. They have research going on that students can participate it. Schools affiliated with major state universities certainly have all those and more resources at their disposal. I think this is what makes the difference between candidate/newly accredited and older programs. I guess I just wouldn't want to be in a program that is still trying to "work out all the quirks".

Yeah I see the rotation thing too, but the main thing I've noticed is the lack of international rotations, that's about it. At least with my school, we're actually taking rotation capacity away from the established schools and keeping them in-house for our own students.

Then again I haven't been affected by any "lack" of rotation sites...most of my friends have secured some across the country due to networking and will be filing affiliation paperwork this summer. That was kind of the deal in that "you find it, you keep it."

Plus, all of our IPPE sites look to be translating into APPE sites, and as I mentioned before in another thread, I'm mixed in with students from the established programs.

I'm now heavily leaning toward adcom standards as the catalyst for these differences between students. You'll have many at the mean of the entering GPA and a few outliers who entered for other reasons (ie all4mydaughter, previous thread) who will account for the 1-2 great students you saw working at the hospital. Knowing that, rx school GPA will serve as a good differentiating factor to find those good students. In that way, selecting an "average" student at the established school is easier than finding the outlier at a new school.

 

[aboveliquidice]

Anecdotal evidence does not correlate with actual differences. This is the major problem with the Old vs. new school issue.

However, all of the instances above are anecdotal. A singular instance, even if repeated several times, cannot correlate a norm or fact. However, I would like to share a small factual number.

Of the 86 graduates of Pacific U (newer school), 26 will be doing a PGY1 residency this upcoming year. Two students went unmatched. When 30% of a class is able to secure residencies, it is increasingly difficult to argue the quality of education.

The match list included Rush in chicago, Umass in boston, Walter Reed in DC, major health systems in 6 states, and both VA and IHS residencies.

Cliff version: Take what others have said as a grain of salt. Formulate your own opinion based upon your own observations.

 

[rxlea]

do you consider 80 large? Ever since the 2004 HICP debacle (with something like 240+ students), ACPE has limited each new school to approx. 70-90 students.



Yeah I see the rotation thing too, but the main thing I've noticed is the lack of international rotations, that's about it. At least with my school, we're actually taking rotation capacity away from the established schools and keeping them in-house for our own students.

Then again I haven't been affected by any "lack" of rotation sites...most of my friends have secured some across the country due to networking and will be filing affiliation paperwork this summer. That was kind of the deal in that "you find it, you keep it."

Plus, all of our IPPE sites look to be translating into APPE sites, and as I mentioned before in another thread, I'm mixed in with students from the established programs.

I'm now heavily leaning toward adcom standards as the catalyst for these differences between students. You'll have many at the mean of the entering GPA and a few outliers who entered for other reasons (ie all4mydaughter, previous thread) who will account for the 1-2 great students you saw working at the hospital. Knowing that, rx school GPA will serve as a good differentiating factor to find those good students. In that way, selecting an "average" student at the established school is easier than finding the outlier at a new school.

Thanks for this...you make an excellent point. With that said, do you think the minimum GPAs should be higher (3.0 instead of 2.5, for example)?

And, if you can arrange your own rotation sites then I guess it doesn't matter. That's cool. Sounds like it isn't hard to do, is it?

 

[confettiflyer]

Anecdotal evidence does not correlate with actual differences. This is the major problem with the Old vs. new school issue.

However, all of the instances above are anecdotal. A singular instance, even if repeated several times, cannot correlate a norm or fact. However, I would like to share a small factual number.

Of the 86 graduates of Pacific U (newer school), 26 will be doing a PGY1 residency this upcoming year. Two students went unmatched. When 30% of a class is able to secure residencies, it is increasingly difficult to argue the quality of education.

The match list included Rush in chicago, Umass in boston, Walter Reed in DC, major health systems in 6 states, and both VA and IHS residencies.

Cliff version: Take what others have said as a grain of salt. Formulate your own opinion based upon your own observations.

This is true, I've heard good things about Pacific U. I'll be around in 2 years to provide hard #'s with residencies & employment rather than my admittedly anecdotal observations. Heck, you guys are a new AND 3-year program, both have their detractors. How's your class doing on the employment front? Anyone with zero options?

 

[confettiflyer]

Thanks for this...you make an excellent point. With that said, do you think the minimum GPAs should be higher (3.0 instead of 2.5, for example)?

And, if you can arrange your own rotation sites then I guess it doesn't matter. That's cool. Sounds like it isn't hard to do, is it?

Ah you're going to see lots of opinions on 2.0 vs. 2.5 vs. 3.0 programs. On one hand, many argue that 3.0 programs will grade easier to maintain a constant "bottom %" within the class. Basically, if you take a previously 2.0 minimum school with a 3.0 median GPA and suddenly bump them up to 3.0 minimum without a corresponding change in the way they grade, that automatically fails HALF of the school. That's not exactly sustainable.

It's tough to compare the two systems, I'm at a 3.0 min. school and I don't know how to describe/approach this question.

On the other hand, people look at the bottom and argue that a 2.0 student shouldn't be getting a PharmD, even if it's technically "passing with a C."

And on another hand still, you have people arguing that if a curriculum is sufficiently challenging/difficult and you have to fight to get a 2.0, then that 2.0 is just as good as a 3.0 at the 3.0 minimum school.

It's the same argument on the undergrad level... is a 3.0 at UC Berkeley in engineering equivalent to a 3.0 at community college in social studies?

Bah, I didn't even answer your question...this is why I'm GPA is one of many factors in ANY admissions decision, be it residency, grad school, undergrad, etc...


Oh, and rotations...the only difficult thing occurs when the two institutions have to come together and hammer out an affiliation agreement where there was none before. Again, established programs have it easier (in that agreements are already in place), but if you push hard enough, you can have the same types of experiences.

I know students at USP who complain about the process on their end because apparently the guy/girl who does the assigning is an "ass hole" (their words, not mine) and won't let any changes/customization happen. But, with an established institution, there's LESS of a need to find your own rotation site as chances are it's already in-network.

 

[rxlea]

Ah you're going to see lots of opinions on 2.0 vs. 2.5 vs. 3.0 programs. On one hand, many argue that 3.0 programs will grade easier to maintain a constant "bottom %" within the class. Basically, if you take a previously 2.0 minimum school with a 3.0 median GPA and suddenly bump them up to 3.0 minimum without a corresponding change in the way they grade, that automatically fails HALF of the school. That's not exactly sustainable.

It's tough to compare the two systems, I'm at a 3.0 min. school and I don't know how to describe/approach this question.

On the other hand, people look at the bottom and argue that a 2.0 student shouldn't be getting a PharmD, even if it's technically "passing with a C."

And on another hand still, you have people arguing that if a curriculum is sufficiently challenging/difficult and you have to fight to get a 2.0, then that 2.0 is just as good as a 3.0 at the 3.0 minimum school.

It's the same argument on the undergrad level... is a 3.0 at UC Berkeley in engineering equivalent to a 3.0 at community college in social studies?

Bah, I didn't even answer your question...this is why I'm GPA is one of many factors in ANY admissions decision, be it residency, grad school, undergrad, etc...


Oh, and rotations...the only difficult thing occurs when the two institutions have to come together and hammer out an affiliation agreement where there was none before. Again, established programs have it easier (in that agreements are already in place), but if you push hard enough, you can have the same types of experiences.

I know students at USP who complain about the process on their end because apparently the guy/girl who does the assigning is an "ass hole" (their words, not mine) and won't let any changes/customization happen. But, with an established institution, there's LESS of a need to find your own rotation site as chances are it's already in-network.

It is interesting that people would say someone with a 2.0 shouldn't be a PharmD when many med schools are on a P/F system for their first years, including Mayo, Harvard and Yale (which doesn't have grades). I would like the P/F system except that then there wouldn't be the GPA gauge for residencies (like you mentioned). I wonder if schools should establish a Honors Pass, Pass, and Fail for the first years and then grades for the last ones (which includes your rotations). I dunno...I am just rambling now LOL

 

[KARM12]

Anecdotal evidence does not correlate with actual differences. This is the major problem with the Old vs. new school issue.

However, all of the instances above are anecdotal. A singular instance, even if repeated several times, cannot correlate a norm or fact. However, I would like to share a small factual number.

Of the 86 graduates of Pacific U (newer school), 26 will be doing a PGY1 residency this upcoming year. Two students went unmatched. When 30% of a class is able to secure residencies, it is increasingly difficult to argue the quality of education.

The match list included Rush in chicago, Umass in boston, Walter Reed in DC, major health systems in 6 states, and both VA and IHS residencies.

Cliff version: Take what others have said as a grain of salt. Formulate your own opinion based upon your own observations.

Mediocre programs. Umass is in Worcester, not Boston, which is the middle of nowhere. Rush is only an okay program, by no means a top program.

 

[aboveliquidice]

Mediocre programs. Umass is in Worcester, not Boston, which is the middle of nowhere. Rush is only an okay program, by no means a top program.

and???

 

[joetrisman]

Ah you're going to see lots of opinions on 2.0 vs. 2.5 vs. 3.0 programs...

I neither see a problem with the variance of programs in terms of gpa nor the pass/fail instances mentioned. If the admissions policies are stringent enough, you're taking out of the top ~20% from undergrad and then dividing that into a distribution. It is like when I went from my high school as a 3.5 student in the top 20% to a competitive engineering college in chicago where I quickly became a 2.8 student in like the 50% (I do think if I had actually cared for engineering this might have fared differently, but I digress).

The problem I see with pharm D programs is the admissions requirements. The PCAT needs to be harder and required by all schools along with higher gpa requirements imo. But really, this isn't just pharmacy...I graduated with kids in my upper level biology classes at my university that could tell you what DNA is but couldn't tell you what the acronym stood for

 

[tungsten87]

But really, this isn't just pharmacy...I graduated with kids in my upper level biology classes at my university that could tell you what DNA is but couldn't tell you what the acronym stood for

unfortunately a decent amount of these kids enter pharmacy because they aren't qualified enough for med/dental school.

 

[b1234]

I neither see a problem with the variance of programs in terms of gpa nor the pass/fail instances mentioned. If the admissions policies are stringent enough, you're taking out of the top ~20% from undergrad and then dividing that into a distribution. It is like when I went from my high school as a 3.5 student in the top 20% to a competitive engineering college in chicago where I quickly became a 2.8 student in like the 50% (I do think if I had actually cared for engineering this might have fared differently, but I digress).

The problem I see with pharm D programs is the admissions requirements. The PCAT needs to be harder and required by all schools along with higher gpa requirements imo. But really, this isn't just pharmacy...I graduated with kids in my upper level biology classes at my university that could tell you what DNA is but couldn't tell you what the acronym stood for

The scores everyone looks at on the PCAT is the percentile score. It only needs to be sufficiently difficult so that (nearly) no one gets every question correct, and there is sufficient disparity in the number correct among everyone else (including others with almost all correct).

 

[rxlea]

I'm not sure if the higher GPA admissions standard would be better than requiring a certain amount of pharmacy experience. I have heard time and time again that incoming students with pharmacy experience (mostly as a tech) tend to perform much better because they are already familiar with the meds, compounding, role of the pharmacist, etc.

 

[confettiflyer]

I'm not sure if the higher GPA admissions standard would be better than requiring a certain amount of pharmacy experience. I have heard time and time again that incoming students with pharmacy experience (mostly as a tech) tend to perform much better because they are already familiar with the meds, compounding, role of the pharmacist, etc.

I mean I agree pharm experience helps, but it shouldn't be an absolute requirement. Some of the best pharm students I know (again, anecdotal), had zero pharmacy experience. Most of them did chemistry or biology research and a good # were published. Don't forget all of the nurses and medical assistants that change careers. Also non-traditional students (with finance/accounting or management backgrounds, etc...) and the work ethic they bring to the pharmacy is a HUGE asset.

The problem with interns/techs/etc... that have lived their whole lives in an academic setting don't understand what it's like to have a job (and its responsibilities). They forget a job isn't like class and that people depend on you. It's kind of annoying.

Tech experience only brings you so far...at some point, the advantage disappears midway through school. Pharm school is much more cerebral and I would weigh research & academic pursuits higher than knowing random brand/generic drugs & dosage forms you pick up as a tech.

This is my personal pref/observation, I'm sure some will disagree...also this is regarding undergrad --> rx school. My opinion matches yours for rx school --> residency/work.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Of the 86 graduates of Pacific U (newer school), 26 will be doing a PGY1 residency this upcoming year. Two students went unmatched. When 30% of a class is able to secure residencies, it is increasingly difficult to argue the quality of education.

My class at Ohio State is graduating with >30% going into residency as well. But the big difference here is Ohio has 7 colleges of pharmacies but is 1/4 the size of California (which has 8 COPs). So things are a lot more competitive over here.

I feel bad for some of the newer COPs in Ohio. Most can't get good rotations, and many preceptors think those students are sub par. Being able to arrange top quality rotation sites and residency match rate when things gets tough and crowded, that's a true indicator of how a school's ranking and reputation matters.

The days when recruiters comes begging for anyone who can limp over the finish line are gone. If MBA and law schools give us a hint of how school proliferation and market saturation change things, then you can predict where things are headed.

 

[confettiflyer]

The days when recruiters comes begging for anyone who can limp over the finish line are gone. If MBA and law schools give us a hint of how school proliferation and market saturation change things, then you can predict where things are headed.

Yeah, I gave up on the idea that jobs/bonuses were going to fall into my lap before I even started school. To be sure, my friends that went the JD or MBA route are doing fine...the harder working/more flexible ones are getting the better jobs.

 

[xiphoid2010]

It's obvious to me that in the coming years, the school you go to and how the reputation/network is, will matter more and more.

 

[aboveliquidice]

It's obvious to me that in the coming years, the school you go to and how the reputation/network is, will matter more and more.

Your first job / residency, yes. Everything thereafter is based upon merits.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Your first job / residency, yes. Everything thereafter is based upon merits.

And your network. My pharmacist at walgreens had zero hospital experience. But he got a clinical pharmacist job paying $122K a year at a hospital because his classmate/buddy is now the DOP there. Nepotism... er, net working at its finest. When I was at pfizer, there was a set up that any student of our consultants got a sure fired high paying job offer.

That's what some of the newer MBA, law, and probably COPs lack. Old schools have alumni from 10-20 years ago that now holding key positions in major institutions. In an ideal world, everything should be based on meritocracy, but as long as things are done by men, there will always that human/emotional factor.

 

[confettiflyer]

And your network. My pharmacist at walgreens had zero hospital experience. But he got a clinical pharmacist job paying $122K a year at a hospital because his classmate/buddy is now the DOP there. Nepotism... er, net working at its finest. When I was at pfizer, there was a set up that any student of our consultants got a sure fired high paying job offer.

That's what some of the newer MBA, law, and probably COPs lack. Old schools have alumni from 10-20 years ago that now holding key positions in major institutions. In an ideal world, everything should be based on meritocracy, but as long as things are done by men, there will always that human/emotional factor.

Yeah, works in weird ways too. I have family in healthcare and they know several DOP's across the west. Since our founding faculty essentially came transplanted from USP, I've actually used that connection (via name dropping of faculty) more than once to either gain employment or some sort of experiential piece.

So it's who you know...and more importantly, how you work it.

 

[aboveliquidice]

And your network.

I agree... that goes without saying.

 

[FishPharm]

unfortunately a decent amount of these kids enter pharmacy because they aren't qualified enough for med/dental school.

I value your opinion but I really don't feel that this is true. I'm sure its true for med school but I really don't think dental school is anything in comparison. I put it on the same level as pharmacy school. Anyone who can make it through pharmacy school I'm sure could make it through dental. That being said, I think two main things are going to hurt the pharmacy profession. The first is the constant opening of new schools. I think its ridiculous that UF (an excellent university) would open as many satellite sites that they did and saturate Floirda's market. Now, University of South Florida is opening a school. This is going to kill the market in Florida! The second thing I feel is going to hurt the profession is how we are continually letting more and more foreign pharmacists into the market. They don't even have PharmD's and we have to compete for them for jobs!!! I sincerely don't mean this to hurt anyone but I don't feel its fair for us to go to school and pay back 150 -200k dollars in tuition/fee's and have to compete with someone from another country for a job. I have worked for many years for a popular grocery chain in Florida and the company, about a year ago, got rid of a pharmacy DM who had been with the company for many years only to hire someone from another country here on a work VISA. I have no problems hiring people temporarily while the demand is high for pharmacists but I don't feel that we should have to compete for university spots or jobs. Another thing that I would like to see is a change to mandatory BS degrees for pharmacy admission. This would put us in line with dental and med schools. I feel this would make people think more about what road they want to take instead of what the quickest way to a 6 figure salary would be.

 

[bacillus1]

I value your opinion but I really don't feel that this is true. I'm sure its true for med school but I really don't think dental school is anything in comparison. I put it on the same level as pharmacy school. Anyone who can make it through pharmacy school I'm sure could make it through dental. That being said, I think two main things are going to hurt the pharmacy profession. The first is the constant opening of new schools. I think its ridiculous that UF (an excellent university) would open as many satellite sites that they did and saturate Floirda's market. Now, University of South Florida is opening a school. This is going to kill the market in Florida! The second thing I feel is going to hurt the profession is how we are continually letting more and more foreign pharmacists into the market. They don't even have PharmD's and we have to compete for them for jobs!!! I sincerely don't mean this to hurt anyone but I don't feel its fair for us to go to school and pay back 150 -200k dollars in tuition/fee's and have to compete with someone from another country for a job. I have worked for many years for a popular grocery chain in Florida and the company, about a year ago, got rid of a pharmacy DM who had been with the company for many years only to hire someone from another country here on a work VISA. I have no problems hiring people temporarily while the demand is high for pharmacists but I don't feel that we should have to compete for university spots or jobs. Another thing that I would like to see is a change to mandatory BS degrees for pharmacy admission. This would put us in line with dental and med schools. I feel this would make people think more about what road they want to take instead of what the quickest way to a 6 figure salary would be.

Med school might need 4 years of prereqs to thoroughly learn physiology to diagnose diseases (even that's a stretch), but why do 4 years for pharmacy school, or even dental or PT school?
Maybe it'll make some people think twice, but it'll make people spend a lot of time and money for those extra 2 years, and having a BS will not necessarily make people better pharmacists.
HOWEVER, I do agree that the admission and retention requirements for 0-6 programs should be more rigorous. Saying this, I don't agree with schools who make retention more rigorous while letting the same quality of people as before into the program (for example people with low GPAs and 1150 SAT scores), as many people unsuspecting of "what they signed up for" suffer. I have noticed that my school is going this route.