Do BS pharms get paid the same amount as Pharm.D's?
Started by plsfoldthx
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Hell, yes......
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It might depend on the setting, but I would assume so seeing as they would both be fufilling the same job requirements..
They are pretty much thought of as equivalent for many positions, but the BS Pharm people have been working for at least 14(?) years...I'd say that buck for buck, they may very well be making more.
Then what is the point of going to the pharmD if BS pharms were perfectly fine? Don't fix what's not broke. These new "doctorates" like the pharmD, DNP, DPT, DOT, etc are the biggest scams of higher education.
Taurus, that's pretty mean to say that a 4 year degree costing $100k that qualifies one to hand out pills is a bad deal. Remember, we're all supposed to be part of one big integrated healthcare team 🙄, and everyone has a part to play. We can't all be decision makers saving lives and pulling the big bucks.
You could make the same argument for medicine. The MD is a "doctorate", too. Do you do a dissertation? Do you defend it? No. Honestly, I agree, the PharmD should be a BS. But medicine, dentistry, and the rest of the professional "doctorates" should, too. The "MD" should be earned after residency. That's more like graduate school. And typically you present posters at lame ass conferences...which are dissertation-esque.
The entire medical education universe is idiotic.
I have to step in and defend the M.D., now. I think what Taurus was trying to say is that the crucial parts of pharmacy school could be made to fit into a 4 year bachelors program, with prerequisites. AKA : start college, 4 years later, are a pharmacist. That is how it used to work, evidently.
It's not an argument about whether the degree is actually a 'doctorate' or a 'bachelors'. Such titles are meaningless, the years of education and the rigor of the courses is what matters.
Now, there's no way to finish the current pharmacy school curriculum in that time-span. Nor medical school, for that matter.
No way in hell that could be done today. Pharmacy was much, much more simplistic back in the 60s when it was a 4 year deal. And starting then, it was 5 years...then 6...pretty soon 7.
Who comes out better for moving to a pharmD? The pharmD who has to rack up an additional $50k in student loans to do the same job for the same pay as a BS pharm? Or the university that collects an extra $50k in tuition?
If I were pharms, I would pressure the pharm orgs to go back to the BS pharm. If we do reach an oversupply of pharms because of rampant expansion of pharm schools and technology disruptions like automation, then pharms will get laid off or not be able to find jobs or see their salaries shrink. How would people like to have $100k in student loans and get paid $40k per year? Well, that's the reality for lawyers who don't make it into biglaw.
Law school: the big lie
With the Downturn, It's Time to Rethink the Legal Profession
Read the threads about a law career on the law version of SDN, JD Underground. It's very eye-opening.
With the Downturn, It's Time to Rethink the Legal Profession
Read the threads about a law career on the law version of SDN, JD Underground. It's very eye-opening.
Higher education is a business. The sooner people realize that the better decisions they can make for themselves about their futures.
Well, that really doesn't fly. You NEED two years of pre-reqs MINIMUM because the classes from year one piggy back into year two (i.e. chem--> organic chem)...and into year one of pharmacy school(org chem to biochem). Then years two through four are jam-packed and continue the progression(biochem--->med chem/pharmacology--->therapeutics.) I guess you could do 3 years of prereqs, then 3 years of pharmacy school...but then its still 6 years...minimum. Most people take 7 years.
It just wouldn't work, sorry.
Name some things that's not a business.
just a side note... many countries have a Bachelors Degree in Medicine like in the UK but are pretty much considered equal to US MDs? i dunno
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
the pharmaceutical industry is also a business. thanks to that business, we have seen dramatic increases in numbers of drugs on the market and number of people taking drugs.
but there's no fundamental constant increase in demand for lawyers.
the law of the land is that demand for pharmacists is constantly increasing. either more people are getting older, new diseases and drugs are being discovered, or pharma is convincing more people that they need to take more of the existing drugs. yes, this is going to be offset by increases in efficiency. But think about it.. power and other programs are maybe going to increase efficiency by maybe 5-10%, and unfortunately for the chains, fortunately for us, each one of those programs (and they can only do so much) is a one time number. it's not going to stop demand from continuing to increase. a few short years later, the increased prescription volume from the general rate of increase will have already cancelled out any loss in pharmacists' jobs, and then will go on forward to create new ones.
Also, it's hard to imagine mail order and central fill will be profitable in the future given where gas costs are heading. Would mail order or POWER be as effective if their shipping costs were 4x or maybe 5x higher?? It's not that hard to imagine a situation where gas costs 4x as much as it does now. It also turns out that the US postal service is highly subsidized and is not passing on the real costs of shipping mail and small parcels. With rough economic times ahead and government cuts, you can bet the USPS will be passing on its *actual* costs to consumers (ie walgreens), plus increases for fuel.
To me, these new ideas just seem like business schemes similar to what you're talking about. Chain executives probably looking to make a quick buck by crafting the appearance of a really profitable system. mark my words, they'll be gone with golden parachutes before the whole thing turns out to be less profitable to shareholders than they've been advertising.
Last edited:
Paper difference in titles. The UK docs have been to 2 years of undergrad and 4 years of medical school. That's all that is actually required in the United States. In order to be licensed, you don't need an undergrad degree, just 90 credit hours and the core premed prerequisites. There are still programs in the U.S. that grant an M.D. within 6 or 7 years, and it is still possible to get into medical school after just 3 years of college. Many medical schools do state that they will consider your application, although the overwhelming majority of successful matriculants have at least a bachelor's degree.
The 4 year B.Pharm degree was dropped in the 1960s in favor of the 5 year B.Pharm.
At my school, the clear cut majority, ~80%, have a bachelors degree. A few schools do require them.
The next big academic fight in pharmacy will either be requiring a bachelors degree or requiring a one year residency.
At my school, the clear cut majority, ~80%, have a bachelors degree. A few schools do require them.
The next big academic fight in pharmacy will either be requiring a bachelors degree or requiring a one year residency.
As someone in one of the 6 year pharmD programs, it'll be impossible to cut it down to four years or even five years at this point. As of right now, we're already taking anywhere between 17-20 credits per semester, which is insane. Most pharmD's are moving towards the 7 year program to make things easier and (I'm going to guess) to put a stronger focus on genetics since biotech is the up and coming new thing.
If you're curious; curriculum: http://pharmacy.rutgers.edu/files/Entry_Level_PharmD_Program.pdf
If you're curious; curriculum: http://pharmacy.rutgers.edu/files/Entry_Level_PharmD_Program.pdf
and this is different from the pharm D. ???
Give taurus and geraldmonroe a break guys, they just invested over 250k in school loans and 12 years of school towards a job that a NP or PA will be taking from them which cost them an eighth of school loans they took. Not to mention how the government is leaning towards a centralized healthcare where taurus and geraldmonroe will be working more and be paid less...hell I would be mad too. Next time I go to the clinic to see the NP and avoid the hospital ill be thinking about you two. Hang in there I hear there's still a demand for doctors to sell and indorse those diet pills on tv, well for now I guess, until doctor nurse takes it too. 😉
Different strokes for different folks, so shut your mouth.
It's kind of funny when you try and rag on doctors. It's just doesn't pass the sniff test. Especially when you need one one day.
gotta agree with you. the pharmd should NOT be mandatory. it is a disgrace how things are being run now. this country is all about titles.
There's no rivalry here. I don't intend to go into primary care, so I'm not worried about NPs/PAs taking anything. Nor do I feel like pharmacists are a rival, either. I certainly hope they prevent me from accidentally killing someone with an overdose. Allegedly, 90,000 Americans die of prescription drug overdoses each year. Imagine what it would be without pharmacists.
Furthermore, I will take precisely one class in medical school on pharmacology. Actually, the school I'm going to doesn't even have a separate class, pharm is lumped into the pathology course. I will never learn the molecular details for the mechanism of action for most drugs. Nor am I likely to ever acquire exhaustive knowledge about potential interactions and side effects for any medication I don't routinely prescribe.
So I respect the tremendous knowledge of a pharmacist, although, as I said in another thread, it seems like overkill for someone to work at Walgreens.
Furthermore, I will take precisely one class in medical school on pharmacology. Actually, the school I'm going to doesn't even have a separate class, pharm is lumped into the pathology course. I will never learn the molecular details for the mechanism of action for most drugs. Nor am I likely to ever acquire exhaustive knowledge about potential interactions and side effects for any medication I don't routinely prescribe.
So I respect the tremendous knowledge of a pharmacist, although, as I said in another thread, it seems like overkill for someone to work at Walgreens.
Last edited:
I believe they get paid the same in retail settings like Walgreens, CVS, Wal-Mart, etc.
And yes it does seem ridiculous at the moment, but I think there's more to the Pharm.D than we can perceive. As far as I know, pharmacist's are expanding their role. Whether this requires a Pharm.D or not I don't know, but I do know that the Pharm.D includes more clinical aspects than the BS had. What with the desired change towards a service-oriented profession, this makes some rational sense.
Another reason could be respect. Most other professions have "Doctorate" equivalents, whereas pharmacists do not. This degenerates the authority and respect for the pharmacist when compared to other healthcare providers.
Also, this does provide a bit of job security for the moment, as many foreign nations do not have a Pharm.D equivalent. This helps keep the market more domestic for the time being.
And yes, in the future they could extend the program, possibly by requiring a year of residency or so.
And yes it does seem ridiculous at the moment, but I think there's more to the Pharm.D than we can perceive. As far as I know, pharmacist's are expanding their role. Whether this requires a Pharm.D or not I don't know, but I do know that the Pharm.D includes more clinical aspects than the BS had. What with the desired change towards a service-oriented profession, this makes some rational sense.
Another reason could be respect. Most other professions have "Doctorate" equivalents, whereas pharmacists do not. This degenerates the authority and respect for the pharmacist when compared to other healthcare providers.
Also, this does provide a bit of job security for the moment, as many foreign nations do not have a Pharm.D equivalent. This helps keep the market more domestic for the time being.
And yes, in the future they could extend the program, possibly by requiring a year of residency or so.
I would say for most major/more established hospitals, residency is kind of de facto needed to be a clinical pharmacist now. Some of the smaller hospitals will still take a newly grad pharm.D on, but the ones I looked at more or less require it, or at least 2x number of years of experience in clinical pharmacy work.
Are pharm residencies like medical residencies, with a year or two of low pay (~40k) and long hours?(60-88 hours/week)
yes. I'm not sure the hours get up to 88 hr/wk, but I see the residents get crappy hours + extra work/projects on the side. And the pay, well, it's $36K at my hospital here in Columbus Ohio. All the fun I got to look forward to. 😉
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
BS would never get too do clinical work in a hospital- thats the difference, soon you wont be able to do anything clinical without a residency... its a pretty clear difference, pharmacy has advanced since the days of BS (just like every other profession)
BS do clinical work in hospitals all the time. Several of the directors around here and clinic pharmacists are RPHs. You're wrong I am right.
As a new grad coming out today, residency can get you in the door. Yet, I've worked with too many BS clinicians who kicked my ass all over the place that I do not use BS/PharmD distinction to evaluate one's clincal prowess.
3 people I report to are BS pharms.
lol @ the "edumacation beats experience" line.
Hell no.
So much money are you making a year?
Listen to the people making the money and the people who hire the people who make the money.
