Do School Rankings Matter In the Job Market?

[NakMuay]

Just the other day I was talking to my dad, whose a lawyer, about law schools, and he told me that where you go to school makes a BIG difference in gaining employment. Basically, not going to a big name law school can greatly limit a person career-wise. He didn't go to a big name law school, and he's often felt that his skills were brought into question b/c of it.

Now, I have no interest in law, but was just curious if its the same for pharmacy. Am I at any real advantage if I go to the University of Michigan over a pharmacy school that just opened up a couple years ago?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[1ive2die]

Nope it makes virtually no difference. As long as you have the degree and license you will be on the same level as any other pharmacist out there (not accounting for experience of course)

 

[minette]

I think it matters...especially for residencies....old school (usually higher ranking) vs new school...

 

[Dalteparin]

If you went to a brand-new school, employers might be a little hesitant. Aside from that, the school you attended makes little difference.

 

[Quiksilver]

They should. I'd be in good shape.

 

[janeno]

I think it matters...especially for residencies....old school (usually higher ranking) vs new school...

I agree with this one. The well-known residencies across the nation prefer students from higher ranked schools, which have been established for decades.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Right now, a relatively low percentage of the kids that graduated last May are facing unemployment right now, albeit many relocated to undesirable locales. But there aren't many new pharmacies opening and graduate numbers are increasing. This May, I think there will be many more unemployed graduates floating around. If you graduated today, no, where you graduate from won't matter. In 5 years or so? I think there will be more defined tiers like you see in another saturated profession - law. If I'm anyone looking to get into the profession, I'd try to get into the older schools for two reasons...they are cheaper AND more well regarded. It lowers debt risk and makes you more marketable.

 

[Quiksilver]

Right now, a relatively low percentage of the kids that graduated last May are facing unemployment right now, albeit many relocated to undesirable locales. But there aren't many new pharmacies opening and graduate numbers are increasing. This May, I think there will be many more unemployed graduates floating around. If you graduated today, no, where you graduate from won't matter. In 5 years or so? I think there will be more defined tiers like you see in another saturated profession - law. If I'm anyone looking to get into the profession, I'd try to get into the older schools for two reasons...they are cheaper AND more well regarded. It lowers debt risk and makes you more marketable.

I think about this from time to time. For me, it will be interesting to see what actually becomes of these people. Do they go and become pharmacy technicians? Will they get half-pay like grad-interns. I look at the example of lawyers and I think the situation is similar, but different. What will graduates do?

 

[gotdrugs]

I think about this from time to time. For me, it will be interesting to see what actually becomes of these people. Do they go and become pharmacy technicians? Will they get half-pay like grad-interns. I look at the example of lawyers and I think the situation is similar, but different. What will graduates do?

There is one option you left off:

They replace the older pharmacists because employers can (will) pay them less.

Happens in other professions - don't think it won't happen to a degree in a saturated pharmacist market.

 

[SHC1984]

I think it matters...especially for residencies....old school (usually higher ranking) vs new school...

+1

If you can't get into a top 50 school I would not go into pharmacy.

 

[Passion4Sci]

+1

If you can't get into a top 50 school I would not go into pharmacy.

Guess I shouldn't have gone then. Damn. Should I just be a truck driver?

Seems like a lot of UoP students are employed, very, very gainfully I might add both in residency and otherwise, in the bay area, despite its "undesirable" ranking.

 

[SHC1984]

Guess I shouldn't have gone then. Damn. Should I just be a truck driver?

Seems like a lot of UoP students are employed, very, very gainfully I might add both in residency and otherwise, in the bay area, despite its "undesirable" ranking.

You should have gone to UCSF! I know you could have gotten in if you have attended the interview!

UoP is top 50 isn't it? The point is I don't understand why people would attend those pre-candidate and candidate schools and pay over 40K a year for it. That's a waste of money. All that money can go towards a down payment on a nice beach house! LOL...

 

[pharm B]

I thought we didn't really have a top 50 yet. Are we just calling the first 50 schools the top 50, the second 40 the second tier, and then all new schools degree mills? What system are you guys using?

 

[SHC1984]

I thought we didn't really have a top 50 yet. Are we just calling the first 50 schools the top 50, the second 40 the second tier, and then all new schools degree mills? What system are you guys using?

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...raduate-schools/top-pharmacy-schools/rankings

 

[Passion4Sci]

You should have gone to UCSF! I know you could have gotten in if you have attended the interview!

UoP is top 50 isn't it? The point is I don't understand why people would attend those pre-candidate and candidate schools and pay over 40K a year for it. That's a waste of money. All that money can go towards a down payment on a nice beach house! LOL...

I'd have had living expenses in San Francisco. No thanks.

UoP is 51st, I was just making a point. You can't generalize pharmacy schools yet. There is no tier. Going to UCSF would not have at all been demonstrably better for my career, at all. Not like going to Harvard or Yale Law over, say, UC Hastings would have been better (Rank 1/2 vs. Rank ~50).

There is no stratification that has emerged IME. I've now spent a lot of time in 3 bay area hospitals and this may just be an artifact of the bay, but I've seen a lot of every school represented - Western, USC, UoP. Actually, I've seen far fewer UCSF students/grads.

 

[SHC1984]

I'd have had living expenses in San Francisco. No thanks.

UoP is 51st, I was just making a point. You can't generalize pharmacy schools yet. There is no tier. Going to UCSF would not have at all been demonstrably better for my career, at all. Not like going to Harvard or Yale Law over, say, UC Hastings would have been better (Rank 1/2 vs. Rank ~50).

There is no stratification that has emerged IME. I've now spent a lot of time in 3 bay area hospitals and this may just be an artifact of the bay, but I've seen a lot of every school represented - Western, USC, UoP. Actually, I've seen far fewer UCSF students/grads.

True and I really hope all the doom and gloom is FALSE on these threads....

How come you don't have living expenses at UoP? Living with relatives?

 

[pharm B]

I know about the US News Rankings, but I thought we all pretty much dismissed those as being irrelevant.

 

[Cloud 9]

I know about the US News Rankings, but I thought we all pretty much dismissed those as being irrelevant.

Yeah our dean of admissions said that too, he was like "yeah even though we're ranked well, the rankings don't mean anything" lol

 

[PharmDstudent]

Both schools in Louisiana are unranked (n/a). Yay!

Stupid ranking systems...

 

[Passion4Sci]

Both schools in Louisiana are unranked (n/a). Yay!

Stupid ranking systems...

Oh my GODS! You had better bail out, now! Right to the unemployment line for you...

 

[Neebs9]

I was interviewing for a CPhT position for a local hospital a while back, and I was chatting with a CPhT there, who got accepted into the UofAz Pharmacy; also applied to Midwestern. She chose the UofA, and declined Midwestern CPG because hospitals in Tucson over-look Midwestern graduates due to not retaining the information from the fast-paced school. She then told me to ask the pharmacy manager and pharmacist and they'll explain to me why.

I also read in one of the Midwestern-CPG thread, where people had friends who were denied hospital and clinical jobs here in Tucson, because they went to Midwestern. They also said that if you want to obtain a retail position then going to Midwestern-CPG wouldn't be a problem.

I believe UofA is ranked like 8 or 9 and Midwestern is unranked.

So definitely if you're looking for a hospital or clincial position, then school does matter.

 

[JackBeanstalk]

Yeah our dean of admissions said that too, he was like "yeah even though we're ranked well, the rankings don't mean anything" lol

VCU is ranked #21. I bet if VCU was top ten, your dean would toot a different tune, like the dean from my top ten school.

 

[Cloud 9]

VCU is ranked #21. I bet if VCU was top ten, your dean would toot a different tune, like the dean from my top ten school.

you managed to one-up me, someone you don't even know, on the internet. Do you feel better about yourself now?

 

[rph3664]

There is one option you left off:

They replace the older pharmacists because employers can (will) pay them less.

Happens in other professions - don't think it won't happen to a degree in a saturated pharmacist market.

This.

Ask me how I know THIS.

 

[rph3664]

I was interviewing for a CPhT position for a local hospital a while back, and I was chatting with a CPhT there, who got accepted into the UofAz Pharmacy; also applied to Midwestern. She chose the UofA, and declined Midwestern CPG because hospitals in Tucson over-look Midwestern graduates due to not retaining the information from the fast-paced school. She then told me to ask the pharmacy manager and pharmacist and they'll explain to me why.

I also read in one of the Midwestern-CPG thread, where people had friends who were denied hospital and clinical jobs here in Tucson, because they went to Midwestern. They also said that if you want to obtain a retail position then going to Midwestern-CPG wouldn't be a problem.

I believe UofA is ranked like 8 or 9 and Midwestern is unranked.

So definitely if you're looking for a hospital or clincial position, then school does matter.

You sure it was school ranking, and not maybe nepotism? Some places do that.

 

[PharmDstudent]

You sure it was school ranking, and not maybe nepotism? Some places do that.

I love how they make a conclusion about school ranking importance based on one hospital. ROFLMAO

 

[KARM12]

I was interviewing for a CPhT position for a local hospital a while back, and I was chatting with a CPhT there, who got accepted into the UofAz Pharmacy; also applied to Midwestern. She chose the UofA, and declined Midwestern CPG because hospitals in Tucson over-look Midwestern graduates due to not retaining the information from the fast-paced school. She then told me to ask the pharmacy manager and pharmacist and they'll explain to me why.

I also read in one of the Midwestern-CPG thread, where people had friends who were denied hospital and clinical jobs here in Tucson, because they went to Midwestern. They also said that if you want to obtain a retail position then going to Midwestern-CPG wouldn't be a problem.

I believe UofA is ranked like 8 or 9 and Midwestern is unranked.

So definitely if you're looking for a hospital or clincial position, then school does matter.

My understanding is that schools also have the option if they want to be "ranked" or not. It is my understanding that Midwestern chooses not to participate in rankings.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The school rankings are inaccurate and poorly calculated. Shame on their souls and a pox on their families.

 

[rxlea]

I was interviewing for a CPhT position for a local hospital a while back, and I was chatting with a CPhT there, who got accepted into the UofAz Pharmacy; also applied to Midwestern. She chose the UofA, and declined Midwestern CPG because hospitals in Tucson over-look Midwestern graduates due to not retaining the information from the fast-paced school. She then told me to ask the pharmacy manager and pharmacist and they'll explain to me why.

I also read in one of the Midwestern-CPG thread, where people had friends who were denied hospital and clinical jobs here in Tucson, because they went to Midwestern. They also said that if you want to obtain a retail position then going to Midwestern-CPG wouldn't be a problem.

I believe UofA is ranked like 8 or 9 and Midwestern is unranked.

So definitely if you're looking for a hospital or clincial position, then school does matter.

You sure it was school ranking, and not maybe nepotism? Some places do that.

This happens at certain institutions and is regional (read: probably a Tucson thing). Where I work in Phoenix, there are both Midwestern and UofA grads...in addition to Creighton, St Louis, Nebraska, St Johns, Duquesne, and many others. Then again, we get a lot of OOS applicants at this particular hospital.

My understanding is that schools also have the option if they want to be "ranked" or not. It is my understanding that Midwestern chooses not to participate in rankings.

True.

The school rankings are inaccurate and poorly calculated. Shame on their souls and a pox on their families.

Soon there may be a tier system like in medicine and law, but this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.

 

[Neebs9]

You sure it was school ranking, and not maybe nepotism? Some places do that.

If neptosim was the case, I think there would be a problem with the hospital, no?. However, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the reason.

My understanding is that schools also have the option if they want to be "ranked" or not. It is my understanding that Midwestern chooses not to participate in rankings.

I don't see why they shouldn't be ranked.They have a good rate of their graduates passing the NAPLEX on the first try. But of course there are other significant attributes to take into account for ranking.

 

[Neebs9]

I love how they make a conclusion about school ranking importance based on one hospital. ROFLMAO

What, huh? Hospitals in Tucson is one hospital? I am pretty sure I indicated"hospitals" in my previous post, if not, then boo me.

 

[R2pharmD2]

In my state, there are only two pharmacy schools, one of which is graduating its first class this year. The other is well established and "highly ranked", for whatever that's worth. Whether it's fair or not, there is already a (widespread?) perception that the new school's students aren't quite as knowledgeable as their "old school" counterparts. In my experience, and I've worked with interns from both groups, they generally seem to be on the same level, but this perception is almost certainly going to be working against them when it comes time to find a job.

There's also the fact that since there was only one pharmacy school in the state before the new school arrived, that school has a large number of their grads in positions of authority. Who do you think they're going to favor when they see applications come in, if some applicants attended the same well established school they graduated from while others did not?

I think that rankings are largely irrelevant, but reputations, on the other hand, do matter. Or at least they will become increasingly important as the job market tightens up.

 

[Neebs9]

Doesn't ranking play a part in making a school reputable, more or less?

I agree that the ranking system is irrelevent, and should be banished, but I guess some schools are proud of it.

 

[Electrode]

Doesn't ranking play a part in making a school reputable, more or less?

Obviously, it does make them more reputable...at least, from a prospective student's perspective.

But my question is this: on what exact basis are these schools ranked? Just the NAPLEX passing rate?

 

[quartel]

Right now, a relatively low percentage of the kids that graduated last May are facing unemployment right now, albeit many relocated to undesirable locales. But there aren't many new pharmacies opening and graduate numbers are increasing. This May, I think there will be many more unemployed graduates floating around. If you graduated today, no, where you graduate from won't matter. In 5 years or so? I think there will be more defined tiers like you see in another saturated profession - law. If I'm anyone looking to get into the profession, I'd try to get into the older schools for two reasons...they are cheaper AND more well regarded. It lowers debt risk and makes you more marketable.

this.

 

[CUpharmD2013]

+1

If you can't get into a top 50 school I would not go into pharmacy.

Phew, I'm in the top 50. I can shred that suicide note.

 

[pharm B]

Obviously, it does make them more reputable...at least, from a prospective student's perspective.

But my question is this: on what exact basis are these schools ranked? Just the NAPLEX passing rate?

I thought research money was part of it. It's funny to me how they don't have a crystal clear explanation of pharmacy rankings. Basically, they have this on their site:

We also rank programs in the sciences, social sciences and humanities, and many other areas, including selected health specialties. These rankings are based solely on the ratings of academic experts. This year, we've produced new rankings of Ph.D. programs in biological sciences, chemistry, computer science, earth sciences, mathematics, physics, and statistics. In addition to these new rankings, we republish older rankings that are based solely on peer ratings in various health fields, Ph.D. programs in the humanities and social sciences, master's of public affairs and public policy, master's of fine arts, and master's of library and information studies programs.
To gather the peer opinion data, we asked deans, program directors, and senior faculty to judge the academic quality of programs in their field on a scale of 1 ("marginal") to 5 ("outstanding"). In business, education, engineering, law, and medicine, we also surveyed professionals who hire new graduates. For the second year in a row, the two most recent years' surveys were averaged to compute the assessment scores among professionals.
The statistical indicators used in our rankings of business, education, engineering, law, and medical schools fall into two categories: inputs, or measures of the qualities that students and faculty bring to the educational experience, and outputs, measures of graduates' achievements linked to their degrees. Different output measures are available for different fields. In business, we used starting salaries after graduation and the time it takes graduates to find jobs. In law, we looked at the time it takes new grads to get jobs, plus state bar exam passage rates.

So I guess they have some stats, paired with peer opinions?

 

[pharmagirlie]

I think it matters...especially for residencies....old school (usually higher ranking) vs new school...

I disagree, what matters are your GPA, the rotations you did, teacher recommendations and sometimes extra curricular activities.

When I went on my interviews for residency programs they were most interested in the rotations that I did and my GPA.

 

[Electrode]

I thought research money was part of it. It's funny to me how they don't have a crystal clear explanation of pharmacy rankings. Basically, they have this on their site:


So I guess they have some stats, paired with peer opinions?

That pretty much sums it up for me. Their explanation about peer opinions sounds like an absolute BS to me; sorry for the japanese language.

 

[1TB4RKSB4CK]

Unless you are below top 50-60 and/or depending on if your are doing a residency or not, it should make little difference.

 

[Electrode]

Unless you are below top 50-60 and/or depending on if your are doing a residency or not, it should make little difference.

And what happens if your school is unranked? As I just discovered that schools can choose whether to be ranked or not.

 

[PharMed2016]

I thought research money was part of it.

So I guess they have some stats, paired with peer opinions?

Yup, I was looking for how schools was ranked one day by US News Today. The pharmacy school rankings were compiled based on 1) Research and 2) Perception by polling all the deans of pharmacy schools. It is not based to the best of my knowledge however on state board scores or the NAPLEX for that matter unless it indirectly factors in to the dean of pharmacy's thought.

 

[PharmaTope]

rankings do not matter. what matters is you have a pulse and can do the basic job functions. this is not a very cerebral job (sorry it isn't). you aren't trying to solve mental puzzles. you are entering orders, verifying medications and such. it becomes routine. sure you can read literature and such but it wont require this extensive education from Harvard to help you think through complex situations.

pharmacy should never have mandated the pharmd. the pharmd is not needed for 99% of pharmacy. school rankings aren't going to matter to anyone. the only time a school ranking would matter is if you are trying to get into a residency.

 

[R2pharmD2]

Doesn't ranking play a part in making a school reputable, more or less?

I agree that the ranking system is irrelevent, and should be banished, but I guess some schools are proud of it.

I don't think the rankings make any difference to a school's reputation, at least as far as the job market is concerned. The only ones who seem to care are students and the administrators of highly ranked schools. In the job market I think they're worthless.

 

[janeno]

rankings do not matter. what matters is you have a pulse and can do the basic job functions. this is not a very cerebral job (sorry it isn't). you aren't trying to solve mental puzzles. you are entering orders, verifying medications and such. it becomes routine. sure you can read literature and such but it wont require this extensive education from Harvard to help you think through complex situations.

pharmacy should never have mandated the pharmd. the pharmd is not needed for 99% of pharmacy. school rankings aren't going to matter to anyone. the only time a school ranking would matter is if you are trying to get into a residency.

Working like this could make you easily replaceable. There are jobs in pharmacy where you have to work hard and think hard.

 

[BrandonUK03]

There has to be some subjective way to differentiate between different pharmacy schools. They all can't be equal in quality. A few things to keep in mind.... Some of the higher ranked programs have higher admissions standards and some could argue would have on average a smarter student than other programs. After all, we have to have standards: PCAT, GPA, letter's of recommendation, interviewing to compare applicants and only the most worthy applicants in those categories obtain admission. Some schools don't even require a PCAT or have such low standards on the PCAT its ridiculous therefore making admission easy to their program and the quality of the practitioner that respective program produces is lower. Logic would tell you there has to be a correlation between GPA, PCAT etc. to the likely hood of one passing boards to the quality of a pharmacist you are.

Will this matter in the future for jobs? I'd have to say when the job market gets tough, it will. That doesn't mean its automatic for a student from a highly regarded program to automatically get a job, but it has to help in their favor as these programs have highly regarded reputations for producing quality pharmacy practitioners. Compare this to a new school that has opened that has easy admissions criteria (low PCAT and GPA) and it seems like a no brainer. Its like you're comparing Harvard Law to community college. Would you want a physician that went to the worst med school treating you or one that graduated from Harvard? The same analogy can be applied to pharmacy as well as any other professional program or school.

I don't think this has been posted yet, but take a look at NAPLEX pass rates by school: http://www.nabp.net/programs/examination/naplex/school-pass-rate/
In my opinion NAPLEX was a joke and definitely needs to be beefed up a tad.

We all need to work on the solution of the growing surplus of pharmacists that we're going to be facing in the coming years. Its bad for advancement of the profession, current practitioners, students and faculty. I wish everyone the best of luck in finding a job they like, but it seems like the days of multiple job offers and sign on bonuses are over unless we all be proactive to address the current state of our profession.

 

[NutMegAceTony08]

This is my belief. I go to a 0-6 program and getting in is fairly easy. When talking about GPA, I believe you cannot compare college to college. For instance to get into our program we need a 2.5 after the first two years. However, a neighboring pharmacy school students need a 3.8 to get into the program. I know many student from my college who have gone from my college barely making it and transfered to that other reputable program and made up the 3.8 they needed. In addition, according to our president GPA does not mean a thing. He said they all believe were smart enough to be pharmacists if we graduate and pass the boards. He said they see what you were involved in mostly and obviously your interview. I do agree that GPA will be weighted though when going for a residency. Also, I do not believe easy requirements necessarily mean a "community" program compared to others. Another example my school average SAT was around 1700, a different neighboring school average SAT was 2,000. I just looked at the NAPLEX boards and my school has a 4% higher passing rate than the school with the higher standards to get in. Either my school is better at preparing us or standards to get in a school dont really mean much, which i believe. Easily getting in doesnt mean easily staying in and we have only about a 70% retention rate through the 6 years. Most fail or choose to leave after the first 2 and half. Just because some kids have a higher GPA at other schools does not mean there smarter neccisarily. There program could be easier, such as a friend of mine did an online pharmacy program (fly in for a lab month every summer) and I know she said it was hard but that it was online so it wasnt that hard in comparison.

 

[BrandonUK03]

This is my belief. I go to a 0-6 program and getting in is fairly easy. When talking about GPA, I believe you cannot compare college to college.

Right because each school is different, you have to look at your respective class rank.

For instance to get into our program we need a 2.5 after the first two years. However, a neighboring pharmacy school students need a 3.8 to get into the program. I know many student from my college who have gone from my college barely making it and transfered to that other reputable program and made up the 3.8 they needed. In addition, according to our president GPA does not mean a thing. He said they all believe were smart enough to be pharmacists if we graduate and pass the boards.

You'll soon learn you need a 75/150 to pass NAPLEX which is considered a minimum standard. Do you want a pharmacist that barely scrapped by with a minimum standard? Although I haven't heard from friends or experience being asked what you board score is, I believe you can more than likely tell bad pharmacists from a good one via interviewing. Don't most people put their GPA on the CV? I know I did. From a hiring prospective, if you don't see GPA you might assume it was low and the applicant chose not to include it. There have also been studies that correlate GPA to work ethic which can be transferred into the pharmacy from a hiring perspective.

He said they see what you were involved in mostly and obviously your interview. I do agree that GPA will be weighted though when going for a residency. Also, I do not believe easy requirements necessarily mean a "community" program compared to others. Another example my school average SAT was around 1700, a different neighboring school average SAT was 2,000. I just looked at the NAPLEX boards and my school has a 4% higher passing rate than the school with the higher standards to get in. Either my school is better at preparing us or standards to get in a school dont really mean much, which i believe. Easily getting in doesnt mean easily staying in and we have only about a 70% retention rate through the 6 years

Yes there are some *****s that are admitted that don't make it through.

Most fail or choose to leave after the first 2 and half. Just because some kids have a higher GPA at other schools does not mean there smarter neccisarily.

Yes it does. See university of Iowa study showing how GPA, PCAT are directly correlated with board score on Naplex:

www.pharmacy.uiowa.edu/.../2009 NABP scores analyses (2).pdf

It also goes on to see correlations with ACT scores to your board score. With respect to pharmacy, the only means we would have to measure who might be the smarter pharmacist is by board scores. Someone that scores a 75 on Naplex is not "as smart" as someone that scores a 150.

There program could be easier, such as a friend of mine did an online pharmacy program (fly in for a lab month every summer) and I know she said it was hard but that it was online so it wasnt that hard in comparison.

These will be the people that have a harder time finding a job when the market gets tough.

 

[R2pharmD2]

With respect to pharmacy, the only means we would have to measure who might be the smarter pharmacist is by board scores. Someone that scores a 75 on Naplex is not "as smart" as someone that scores a 150.

Stats are nice, but don't get too caught up in the idea that they prove intelligence. Even if test scores were a perfect indicator of intelligence, there's far more to being a competent pharmacist than raw brain power anyway.

 

[BrandonUK03]

Stats are nice, but don't get too caught up in the idea that they prove intelligence. Even if test scores were a perfect indicator of intelligence, there's far more to being a competent pharmacist than raw brain power anyway.

Agreed, as I have worked with and know "crappy" pharmacists that I have went to school with. But as with everything else, there has to be a system of measurement to distinguish people from one another. Are they perfect? No. Are they the best we have? Yes. I just think its crazy that people in this forum think that the school you graduate from and your GPA has no influence on your job or future prospectus. That's like saying that if I got a business degree from a community college, I have a better chance of being CEO of a fortune 500 company than someone that went Ivy league. Ivy league schools can back the stats on this and stats don't lie. But I'll give you that other things come into play such as interview skills, references, experience, personality traits etc., but to be so dismissive of these factors as if they don't matter is absurd and bad advice. I do know the days of if you have a license and a heartbeat, you have a job are over (I've witnessed this).... at least for the foreseeable future. Unless we take a proactive stance and address some of the issues facing pharmacy we'll all be in tough positions no matter how good we are. And I do know people that hire applicants based partially on where you went to school. I've also had the opportunity to hire pharmacists and technicians and am well aware of the predictive factors for a good hire. It is what it is.