Good news, everyone! The sky isn't falling

[Secret_Informant]

UF actually closed a campus and cut enrollment, so while they are an easy target due to how large they had grown I personally think they are acting by far the most responsibly of any COP in Florida. Certainly more responsible than opening a new COP in south Florida!

I am interested in how pharmacy schools will react to the employment data in addition to their strategies to combat it (if they even choose to do so). I am more interested in the criteria used to keep the schools open, why the increase began in the first place, and how standards could be increased/mandated for schools and colleges of pharmacy across the United States; this includes the one in South Florida.

I have a some questions to propose to the group:

1. Was the reason behind the accreditation of pharmacy schools a faulty prediction on pharmacy demand versus supply or some other reason(s)?
2. Is there data to suggest the lack of jobs attained other than forum posts on SDN, gripes on Indeed, warnings from Daniel Brown's article in Pharmacy Times, and other alerts of oversaturation in Drug Topics? Is there peer-reviewed data on the subject posted in a high-impact factor journal (not JAPhA)?
3. Was the founding of our pharmacy college (and others) based on outdated pharmacist shortage data from 2005 to 2007 or earlier? If not, where did the data originate from and why was it used to justify accreditation despite the growing number of pharmacy students?
4. What stakeholders were present at the accreditation meeting and what were their reasons for approval? I would very much like to ask them myself.
5. What was the name of the agency or agencies used to justify accreditation?

If we know why this was done, we can reverse the trend. Input is appreciated. Could this subject be bumped to a new thread?

Also, to add to the information presented regarding the school in South Florida, I'm sure this news will pique some ears:

7-Year B.S./PharmD Program

Will they keep their enrollment cap at less than 100 or increase beyond that?

There is talk of moving the pharmacy campus to Downtown Tampa near CAMLS. If our college is thinking of developing a new campus there in addition to the one already founded, then I lose respect for them and their mission. Two campuses in South Florida would be irresponsible, even if more funding is granted.

Either more campuses or greater enrollment without consistent monitoring from any pharmacy school would be much worse; both simultaneous occurrences and we already know the outcome. Any average person who does their research and has a good head on their shoulders can deduce the outcome without prompting or encouragement. The true mind would come up with a strategy to benefit stakeholders, students, and preceptors all at the same time.

Newsflash: that mind may or may not come from a pharmacist. If you want analogies on leadership and engagement, think of the late Steve Jobs or some other leader that is not part of the "motivational speeches" every semester.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[beautifulrobot]

how would anyone know about your debt amount? or that you even have a debt?

Most employers will request that you authorize them to run a credit check on you as a condition of employment. They will then be able to see all (reported) debts that you have - school loans, mortgage, credit card debt, etc.

 

[flip33]

Was it student debt?

New grads must be really screwed if no one wants to hire them due to their $200k+ loans.

No. This was an older man in his 50's.

 

[sozetone]

Can i make this simple for everyone here? pharmacy is a dying profession for many reasons. There are no real indicators it will get better either. PERIOD. We can talk stats, metrics..etc all day, but in the end, open your eyes......read the writing on the wall.

 

[cometx3]

Thank you based stoichiometrist

 

[emac4rx]

The number of people admitted pharmacy school has been falling for 4 consecutive years. Word about the bad prospects is getting out. The class that begins this next fall is extremely likely to be smaller than last year based on everything I've seen. So we will have 5 years in a row with declining enrollment.

67% of new graduates are female. Women are much more likely to pursue part-time work and take time off for childcare responsibilities. On average, women work about 1/8 less than men for paid work (they're doing unpaid work at home usually).

There are states like New York which are requiring electronic RXs. This will add an extra layer of efficiency, allowing the chains to increase profits.

The sky is not falling, guys.

I just had a friend calling saying he just left his job because an agency came down with an offer of 35/hr for the owner..The market is saturated and the big chains are noticing ready to profit out of it. WBA froze salary already and I heard salary cuts are over the table for next year, in addition more stores closing under way and 24 hours are not longer of interest for the company, some other stores are cutting hours of operation to 9 to 9 only...as you can see is a mixture of good and bad news, the key to ride all this uncertainty is keep calm, learn from the practice as much as you can, be competitive, and keep your finances in balance, this is no time for excessive spending

 

[BidingMyTime]

1. Was the reason behind the accreditation of pharmacy schools a faulty prediction on pharmacy demand versus supply or some other reason(s)?
2. Is there data to suggest the lack of jobs attained other than forum posts on SDN, gripes on Indeed, warnings from Daniel Brown's article in Pharmacy Times, and other alerts of oversaturation in Drug Topics? Is there peer-reviewed data on the subject posted in a high-impact factor journal (not JAPhA)?
3. Was the founding of our pharmacy college (and others) based on outdated pharmacist shortage data from 2005 to 2007 or earlier? If not, where did the data originate from and why was it used to justify accreditation despite the growing number of pharmacy students?
4. What stakeholders were present at the accreditation meeting and what were their reasons for approval? I would very much like to ask them myself.
5. What was the name of the agency or agencies used to justify accreditation?
If we know why this was done, we can reverse the trend. Input is appreciated. Could this subject be bumped to a new thread?

Do you really not know the answers to all of these questions???

Here is what happened, the degree was changed 2+3 year BS to a 2 or 4 + 4 years Pharm.D. This mean their was essentially 1 whole year without any pharmacist graduates. This year coincided with the height of the retail wars, when CVS and Walgreens were expanding and building on opposite corners of the others. So, there was a temporary shortage of pharmacists. Which led to a bidding war, retail pharmacies had to compete offering ever increasing salaries and all kinds of bonuses and goodies to get pharmacists to work for them. Hospital's also, while having less money to throw around, also were forced to increase salaries somewhat and offer bonuses and goodies (comp-time, flex-time, full-time benefits for part-time work.)

Well, neither retail stores, nor hospitals, liked having to pay increasing amounts of money to pharmacists who were job hopping, because there was always a better offer coming around. And hospital was very much hurting, because they couldn't keep up with the salaries the chains could offer. Retail chains and stores, and hospital systems, have always donated to pharmacy schools. So higher powers started encouraging pharmacy schools to expand and/or networking with the right people who could open a new pharmacy school. And they greatly increased their donations to help pay for these new pharmacy schools and expanded pharmacy schools. All this made sense, even to pharmacists, because once you've paid off your school loans, it's nice to have a day off, or to take a vacation, and this was very hard to do, when there is literally no one else available to work.

So now we have the pendulum swing, where we are quickly reaching a glut of pharmacists. I doubt that retail chains or hospital systems saw this coming (although I'm sure they are quite happy with the result.) Knowing the short term thinking of businesses, I doubt they ever planned that far out. They responded to a temporary market shortage (only at the time, nobody knew that it would be temporary,) by working to increase the number of pharmacists. Now that the conditions causing the temporary shortage have stabilized, we are faced with a glut of pharmacists.

As to why pharmacy schools were continuing to open, even after it was clear that a glut would be occurring, 1) there are still people who don't believe in the glut, and that includes board members of pharmacy schools and 2) pharmacy schools don't open up overnight, several years of planning go into opening them, and when people have invested that much work in a school, they are going to open it and recoup their investment, regardless of whether the school is needed. (the same reason some companies bring out substandard me-too drugs, because they want to get something out of their investment, even if their statin or SSRI-reuptake inhibitor has worse side effects than the drugs already on the market.

 

[Secret_Informant]

Do you really not know the answers to all of these questions???

Here is what happened, the degree was changed 2+3 year BS to a 2 or 4 + 4 years Pharm.D. This mean their was essentially 1 whole year without any pharmacist graduates. This year coincided with the height of the retail wars, when CVS and Walgreens were expanding and building on opposite corners of the others. So, there was a temporary shortage of pharmacists. Which led to a bidding war, retail pharmacies had to compete offering ever increasing salaries and all kinds of bonuses and goodies to get pharmacists to work for them. Hospital's also, while having less money to throw around, also were forced to increase salaries somewhat and offer bonuses and goodies (comp-time, flex-time, full-time benefits for part-time work.)

Well, neither retail stores, nor hospitals, liked having to pay increasing amounts of money to pharmacists who were job hopping, because there was always a better offer coming around. And hospital was very much hurting, because they couldn't keep up with the salaries the chains could offer. Retail chains and stores, and hospital systems, have always donated to pharmacy schools. So higher powers started encouraging pharmacy schools to expand and/or networking with the right people who could open a new pharmacy school. And they greatly increased their donations to help pay for these new pharmacy schools and expanded pharmacy schools. All this made sense, even to pharmacists, because once you've paid off your school loans, it's nice to have a day off, or to take a vacation, and this was very hard to do, when there is literally no one else available to work.

So now we have the pendulum swing, where we are quickly reaching a glut of pharmacists. I doubt that retail chains or hospital systems saw this coming (although I'm sure they are quite happy with the result.) Knowing the short term thinking of businesses, I doubt they ever planned that far out. They responded to a temporary market shortage (only at the time, nobody knew that it would be temporary,) by working to increase the number of pharmacists. Now that the conditions causing the temporary shortage have stabilized, we are faced with a glut of pharmacists.

As to why pharmacy schools were continuing to open, even after it was clear that a glut would be occurring, 1) there are still people who don't believe in the glut, and that includes board members of pharmacy schools and 2) pharmacy schools don't open up overnight, several years of planning go into opening them, and when people have invested that much work in a school, they are going to open it and recoup their investment, regardless of whether the school is needed. (the same reason some companies bring out substandard me-too drugs, because they want to get something out of their investment, even if their statin or SSRI-reuptake inhibitor has worse side effects than the drugs already on the market.

It's nice to know I am not imagining things or perseverating as they call it. It is no wonder educational administrators and stakeholders would not listen: they were in on it, protecting their hard-earned investment(s). I guess I was right all along: schools will do anything to protect their reputation just as a company would after a substantial loss. Academia really is a business. It is no wonder some schools do not use data to compare each other: their data may be so bad that no intelligent student wants to buy-in to their educational approach and choose pharmacy as a career. This is a hard realization, but it is nice to know that I was right.

Thank you for taking the time to explain something no one else would and for answering my questions. No one in school said anything and no one in the profession did either. In fact, strategies within my college of pharmacy were used via the disciplinary approach to shut me up and not allow me to talk: even a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was initiated by the disciplinary committee (ARPSAC). Schools seem to be capitalizing off of a series of beliefs that hold their reputation in place. Whoever buys-in to that approach will be the most likely to promote it (and win awards). Those students who bought into their approach are saying nothing or are promoting the institution with greater ferocity to protect themselves and the value of their degree. The ARPSAC committee may change its name or acronym so it is not searchable: watch for that wanna-be pharmacists.

Knowing this, what strategies do you propose for addressing the glut of pharmacists? You can PM me if you wish.

Also, which year did this degree change happen?

 

[SoylentGreen]

As to why pharmacy schools were continuing to open, even after it was clear that a glut would be occurring, 1) there are still people who don't believe in the glut, and that includes board members of pharmacy schools and 2) pharmacy schools don't open up overnight, several years of planning go into opening them, and when people have invested that much work in a school, they are going to open it and recoup their investment, regardless of whether the school is needed.

I would add that schools get paid regardless of whether the student ends up getting a job. They get paid whether the student defaults on the loan or not. The lender gets paid by the government even if the student never gets a job and ends up defaulting on the loan. So nobody involved in making any of these decisions has any incentive not to open unneeded pharmacy schools and flooding the market with unemployable pharmacists.

The only losers in this scenario are the students themselves, who end up wasting four years of their life with nothing to show for it but defaulted student loans. In theory, students might choose not to apply to pharmacy school due to the declining job market, but in practice there's always some idiot who thinks it won't happen to them, if the school lowers their admissions standards enough (go look at the pre-pharm forums).

So don't expect the schools to regulate themselves. The whole system is rotten and needs to be thrown out.

 

[BidingMyTime]

Knowing this, what strategies do you propose for addressing the glut of pharmacists? You can PM me if you wish.

Also, which year did this degree change happen?

I think 2003 was the change-over, give or take a year.

As for what can be done....literally nothing. The ACPE could increase requirements of pharmacy schools, making it harder for pharmacy schools to get accredited, but realistically, they will not do this, and even if they did, pharmacy schools are making so much money, that they would have no problem doing whatever was necessary to meet the ACPE's increased requirement. Just as the JD degree has been saturated for years (decades?) now, I think that will be the future of the Pharm. D.

I suppose it would help if the US government cut back on college loans to, maybe only giving them out based on the likelihood of someone getting employed in their field and paying the loans back. Certainly, the college loan bubble effects most college students, not just pharmacists. If government backed college loans were reformed, that would probably help even things out. But salaries are going down, and the glory days are over.

My first pharmacist job in the early 90's, was $32,500/yr (equivalent to $58,000 in today's money.) And this middle-class salary was what pharmacists had been set at for quite some time. So if college loan reform happens and steady state is reached, I would expect $60,000/yr for a pharmacist's salary, eventually. But this will be 15 - 20 years out, after college loan reform happens (if it happens.)

 

[Secret_Informant]

How many students did that cut??


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not enough: n = 50 students

n refers to the number of students in their final graduating class.

Source: UF College of Pharmacy graduates 365 students in the class of 2018