Today, if you graduate from a "better" school, you have better chances of getting into specific fields of pharmacy where you make less money, but may enjoy your job more. Pharmacists are so scarce today that retail pharmacies would hire a chimp if he had a PharmD. However, who knows what will be in the future. I think if you graduate from a strong pharmacy program, you would be making a better investment of yourself for yourself. If that's not important to you or if money is the strongest drive for you, then I would say that for the current times it does not matter where you graduate from.
No, since there is a shortage in most areas. Just make sure the school is fully accredited. NAPLEX test really shows how you stack up against all candidates / graduates across the US.
I think they should implement the old California board equivalent. I've heard of pharmacists complaining that NAPLEX standards have been lowered to bare minimums. Virtually every school now has 90+% pass rates.
the pass rate should be high... i mean having all those loans and not being able to get licensed hurts. The thing is GPA, NAPLEX score from pharmacy school, etc should be included as a factor in terms of getting into more competitive fields... not so much for retail.I think they should implement the old California board equivalent. I've heard of pharmacists complaining that NAPLEX standards have been lowered to bare minimums. Virtually every school now has 90+% pass rates.
Schools matter in curriculum structure, emphasis, and quality of rotation sites if that's important to you for future residency/clinical advancement. But like what's been said above about school choice, aiming for retail/community practice won't likely affect you at all. Most of the pharmacy shortages are happening in the rural areas - you'd be surprised how the urbanized areas where everyone wants to live actually has competition. I don't know how pharmacies hire, but at least in the future, I'm banking on UofM's reputation to hopefully get me a slot in where I'd like to work. They better considering how much hell they put us through
Exactly, but the NAPLEX I don't think would help differentiate PharmD quality. Like you said, you'd have to look at extraneous factors. That's also not to say that just because you didn't go to a good school you won't be an excellent clinician - they're just mostly trends in reputation.
It doesn't have to be fully accredited because new schools don't get the full accreditation until after they graduate their first class.
Yeah, but if they have Candidate status, it is pretty much a closed case that they will get the full accreditation unless some sort of disaster happens.
Mercer is a very clinical program, which is one of the reasons I chose them. They are also one of the most established pharmacy schools in the country, with one of the largest alumni bases. They informed me that schools ranked in the top 40 are more clinically oriented. I asked specifically about Mercer at the residency showcase, and all informed me that Mercer was a top school whose graduates usually have an in-depth knowledge of clinical pharmacy.
Antimony, did you go to a residency showcase in Atlanta? How can I find when and where they have another showcase in my area (any links)? Knowing that I have to give up my seat at Mercer to someone else (since I chose another school) makes me sad for a while because I know Mercer is a very good school and focuses on clinical pharmacy which is also my future goal.
