If you were an Adcom what would matter the most to u in determining success?

[Pharmpills]

---

Members don't see this ad.

what would u value the most in determining success of an applicant?

Keep in mind that GPA can be misleading because someone who made a 3.7 couldve taken easy classes and held back on the difficult ones like organic, physics until spring. Also, keep in mind about what the PCAT covers and what happens if ur bad in an area such as verbal but good at sciences.

 

[Allure]

If you don't use GPA and PCAT score, how are you going to differentiate between the applicants?

If I was an Adcom, those are the first 2 things that I would look at. I probably would not accept students without work experience and there are schools out there that do not accept students without work experience. I think it's pretty easy to get experience in pharmacy and the applicants should at least know what it is like working in the pharmacy. How are you going to answer the question, "why you want to become a pharmacist?" if you've never worked a day in the pharmacy. I would also look at the course loads and the difficulty of the classes. I'd also take into consideration of students who did poorly in the beginning, but took harder classes and improved significantly. I don't think I would weigh the interview that high since I believe it's just how well you can bs. There are so many people in my class that I don't even know how they got accepted.

You can't really wait until Spring to take Organic or Physics and plan to get accepted that fall if the courses are in series. I don't think many students would even think that way. Besides, organic and physics are not the only 2 hard courses. If the applicant was able to demonstrate that he/she did well in the gen chem series, I would give that person the benefit of a doubt that he/she will not fail o-chem if it comes down to that.

 

[UES Girl]

what would u value the most in determining success of an applicant?

Keep in mind that GPA can be misleading because someone who made a 3.7 couldve taken easy classes and held back on the difficult ones like organic, physics until spring. Also, keep in mind about what the PCAT covers and what happens if ur bad in an area such as verbal but good at sciences.

For me it sure as .... wouldn't be GPA. ( This is me ranting about my GPA ) It is sooooooo incredibly easy to rank up high GPA when you majored in literature or psycology and sooo much harder when you majored in physcis or chemistry. The classes and levels of classes are day and night.

Also things happen - I had a family emergency and nearly failed all my classes in one semester. Despite the fact that I have A's in fat majority of my classes I am stuck with mediocre GPA now. 🙁

 

[AbsoluteEthanol]

For me it sure as .... wouldn't be GPA. ( This is me ranting about my GPA ) It is sooooooo incredibly easy to rank up high GPA when you majored in literature or psycology and sooo much harder when you majored in physcis or chemistry. The classes and levels of classes are day and night.

Also things happen - I had a family emergency and nearly failed all my classes in one semester. Despite the fact that I have A's in fat majority of my classes I am stuck with mediocre GPA now. 🙁

i disagree with you on this one cheburashka! although I feel your pain, I have had a few extraneous family situations where school just had to take a backseat. Nonetheless, the only PRACTICAL way to rank applicants is by GPA and then maybe PCAT. It's not a perfect system, no one even pretends that it is... but it's what we have and we have to learn to cope with it.

In a perfect world adcoms would take everything into account, prestige of graduating university, difficulty of major, family background, personal experiences, EC's....etc...etc... but then our application cycle would no longer be 6-7 months, but more like 1-2 years🙁

 

[justyliz]

Well, one thing that I think you should add in the poll is interview performance. In my opinion, the most important factors for determining admissions should be GPA and interview. GPA should be considered because it shows drive and dedication over a prolonged period (2-4 years). I agree that the person with the "easier" major will have a better GPA, but most schools consider pre-req / science GPA as well as cumulative GPA. Interview is equally important because this is the opportunity you have to convey your work experiences in a professional setting and show the adcom what you've personally done to learn about pharmacy. The only instance where I would completely overlook GPA would be for non-traditional students who decide on a career change... this is where the PCAT can be an equalizer.

 

[Pharmpills]

Well i would go with a weed out program that eliminates anyone who dosnt have a 2.75 GPA and 50 pcat. Then use a point scale such as GPA 20 pts max meaning if u have 3.7-4.0 20 pts and lower as u go down and same for pcat. then add points for work experience (10 pts max for 5+ years and lower as u go down), ec and difficult classes such as upper level classes, degree or potential for degree (100 credits or more).

This in my view would be extremely fair bc someone who just did the pre-reqs and did ok on pcat wouldnt look so glamorous when compared with someone who has a biochem degree and other good aspects. it would be a fair system

 

[Hipharm7]

GPA, PCAT, work experience, extracurriculars... AND personal statements- to see a student's desire and determination in the field of pharmacy. I believe the willingness to devote yourself in the profession is as important as your stats. I would also take into consideration your communication skills during an interview.

 

[ExpressMaiL]

In order of importance:

1. GPA
2. PCAT
3. Interviewing skill (can they handle the pressure or are they just good at studying?)
4. Breadth of experience
5. LOR's

 

[Ethyl Methyl]

In a perfect world adcoms would take everything into account, prestige of graduating university, difficulty of major, family background, personal experiences, EC's....etc...etc... but then our application cycle would no longer be 6-7 months, but more like 1-2 years🙁

I think PCAT should take precedence over GPA precisely because of this reason. It's the equalizer, as Justyliz said.

PCAT is the non-subjective way for adcoms to determine whether a person who took the courses at a CC knows as much pertinent knowledge as the person who took the courses at a 4 year institution. It's also easy for someone to make good grades if they are taking fewer number of classes each semester than if they are taking a full load.

Interviews are very subjective. A person with great stat can have a bad day and do poorly at the interview which could mean a rejection for that person.

 

[nerv12345]

i never really thought about it till now...but picking candidates must be really really hard

 

[UES Girl]

Well i would go with a weed out program that eliminates anyone who dosnt have a 2.75 GPA and 50 pcat. Then use a point scale such as GPA 20 pts max meaning if u have 3.7-4.0 20 pts and lower as u go down and same for pcat. then add points for work experience (10 pts max for 5+ years and lower as u go down), ec and difficult classes such as upper level classes, degree or potential for degree (100 credits or more).

This in my view would be extremely fair bc someone who just did the pre-reqs and did ok on pcat wouldnt look so glamorous when compared with someone who has a biochem degree and other good aspects. it would be a fair system

I think this kind of system would be cool - but do not think anything like that would ever be implemented. Like Absolute Ethanol said - the process would take 1-2 years. As of now though I agree the system is extemely unfair - but that's just how life is. Sure I do not look as glamorous with my average GPA and a geeky science degree compared to a wholesome diverse sociology major with a 4.0 GPA but when pchem and medicinal chem comes around in pharmacy school - I'll be just reviewing my most fav classes.

 

[RNtoPharmD]

pre-req GPA > PCAT > overall GPA > degree> communication interview >>> LOR >>>>>> work experience

People have equal opportunity to be in school and compete for good grades. Same with PCAT. However, not every applicant have the luck and opportunity to obtain a glamorous work experience & EC. Of course, older applicants who has been out of school for a while will have some work experience and something to tell adcoms in the interview. This put sophomore college student at disadvantage. What about applicants who is a housewife raising kid? How she gonna find time to do a lot of extracurricular activities and leadership. And LORs could be quite subjective.
If this is a "job" interview, I would consider "experience & LOR" first. But this is a "school admission".

 

[mrblah]

My list would be the same as expressmail, and I would include bribery somewhere on the list (jk).

If we didn't have gpa's and test scores, everybody will say, "i'm a hardworking, dedicated individual who excells......", and schools won't have any quantifiable evidence that says otherwise.

I think schools have begun to see the disparity of gpa's from different programs (socio. vs. bio vs. ICS), and have started to look at pre-req gpa only, or science/math gpa, to make the application process a bit more "fair".

IMHO, i do agree the system is far from perfect, but I can't think of a more logical way of comparing and choosing applicants (considering there is always more applicants than seats, and within a very limited time frame).

 

[Pharmpills]

its funny how gpa and pcat are close like last election few years back with upper division classes trying to make a stand lol.

 

[jpharm445]

If I had to pick just one of the above, it would have to be the PCAT. An aptitude to learn and apply what has been learned should be prioritized when considering applicants. GPA can be representative of this ability, but, as you point out, it does have many variables that can be misleading. A standardized test is necessary to best compare candidates. Some subsections are certainly more important than others, but that's why there are subscores.

Having said that, I'm guessing that a lot of people here will go with experience as most important. However, experience is not always the best and fairest way to evaluate people. Demonstrated ability in pharmacy or a related field is admittedly a strong indicator of future success, but not everyone has the good fortune to take advantage of such early opportunities. It can also be hard to gauge just how successful a person truly was at a previous position. Recommendations aren't necessarily perfect all of the time, and the amount of time spent at a position doesn't necessarily imply excellence.

Anyway, it's a good thing that adcoms aren't limited to just one of the above. All of the given factors need to be considered in determining future success 🙂

 

[jpharm445]

I probably would not accept students without work experience and there are schools out there that do not accept students without work experience. I think it's pretty easy to get experience in pharmacy and the applicants should at least know what it is like working in the pharmacy. How are you going to answer the question, "why you want to become a pharmacist?" if you've never worked a day in the pharmacy.

Not all pharmacists work in a pharmacy though. Some openly admit to hating that kind of work. However, I do agree that students should seek early experience in whatever it is they hope to do in pharmacy.

 

[AbsoluteEthanol]

to all of you who say PCAT is most important:


so you guys feel that studying your @&& off for 3-4 months and NAILING the PCAT is more important than 4 years of education experience? Come one, be real, a standardized test is by far the easiest way to improve your application, GPA On the other hand is the most difficult one!

and yes, everyone, every single person here can score 95+ on the PCAT given the right study aides and enough study time, but not nearly everyone can get a 4.0 in pre-reqs regardless of where they were taken!

 

[Allure]

I don't think the PCAT should even be that important because it is VERY easy to score high on the PCAT. Here is how the PCAT scoring system worked when I took it (I don't doubt it's still the same): Not counting the writing section, each section is out of 600 points and you can get 99%TILE by getting 450 (give or take a few points) out of 600. You're not getting 99%tile because you got a perfect score. So a person with 550 out of 600 still gets 99%tile on that subject compared to someone who has a 480. Now, there is an advantage in getting 550 vs 480 even though it's both 99%tile for a particular subject. Let's say for math, you get 400, so when you average 550 and 400 out (still above 450-again, give or take a few points), you still get 99%tile, whereas 480 and 400, you won't get 99%tile. That's why there is a score for each subject and a total score. For that same reason, you can get 30%tile on reading section and still get 99%tile for the overall if you score high enough the other sections. I studied the PCAT for 2 days and scored in the 80's. You just have to know what to study. I only focused on 2 subjects (math and chem), never even looked at the other subjects when I studied.

 

[Allure]

Not all pharmacists work in a pharmacy though. Some openly admit to hating that kind of work. However, I do agree that students should seek early experience in whatever it is they hope to do in pharmacy.

Where do they work then? And because so many of them hate it, it's more of a reason for them to get experience before you apply to pharmacy school, that's why experience is even more important.

 

[mrblah]

I openly hate working in a retail pharmacy, but that hasn't stopped me from pursuing a career in pharmacy.

The skillsets learned as a tech/clerk, does not necessarily translate into becoming a good pharmacist, and vise versa. There are many successful and fast pharmacists who never set foot in a pharmacy prior to pharmacy school, and there are many technicians/clerks who want to become pharmacists, and well.....never will.

I believe pharmacy experience is definitely good to have on ones application, but it should never be weighed as heavily as the academic criteria...(as it is hard to determine how relative one's experience is vs. someone elses experience)

 

[steveysmith54]

How about everything taken into consideration?

I'd say for schools without PCAT

30 Points for interview/interview essay
40 points GPA
30 Experience

 

[Farmer83]

I'd have to go with PCAT. I feel like the PCAT is an honest measure of what you have learned through your pre-req's. I feel like grades/GPA is relative. Yes, some people have GPA's through hard work and dedication, but did they learn anything from their classes? I believe that a person who ends up with a C in a class may have learned as much as a person with an A. Maybe the "C" person is fighting against a curve, in competition with his/her classmates. Maybe, the person blanked out during a test yet still knew the material. I know that this isn't always the case, but it still is possible.

I might be biased since my PCAT score was much better in comparison with my GPA (especially when I took that PCAT my GPA was about a 2.6). My highest PCAT score, an 85, was based on previous knowledge, and I did not prepare at all for the PCAT. Yes, a low GPA may imply a person did not learn as much during their pre-req's, but how do you explain a good/high PCAT without studying? Purely guessing, would not be possible since the probability of getting 85% would be close to zero. Obviously, if a person was in this situation they must have learned something through their prerequisites to earn a good score.

In my opinion, PCAT should be first then GPA.

 

[mrblah]

I'd have to go with PCAT. I feel like the PCAT is an honest measure of what you have learned through your pre-req's. I feel like grades/GPA is relative. Yes, some people have GPA's through hard work and dedication, but did they learn anything from their classes? I believe that a person who ends up with a C in a class may have learned as much as a person with an A. Maybe the "C" person is fighting against a curve, in competition with his/her classmates. Maybe, the person blanked out during a test yet still knew the material. I know that this isn't always the case, but it still is possible.

I might be biased since my PCAT score was much better in comparison with my GPA (especially when I took that PCAT my GPA was about a 2.6). My highest PCAT score, an 85, was based on previous knowledge, and I did not prepare at all for the PCAT. Yes, a low GPA may imply a person did not learn as much during their pre-req's, but how do you explain a good/high PCAT without studying? Purely guessing, would not be possible since the probability of getting 85% would be close to zero. Obviously, if a person was in this situation they must have learned something through their prerequisites to earn a good score.

In my opinion, PCAT should be first then GPA.

I think you are forgetting that the GPA is the average of the student's academic history. A student with a C average, means he wasn't doing to well in a number of his classes, not just one class. Its a pretty fair assessment of students study habits and ability to compete with other students and to learn new material. The problem arises with any average is it also acts as a buffer (makes it hard for applicants to screw up their gpa or improve upon it, once they have alot of units under their belt), and thats where assessing a candidate based on GPA isn't fair either.

Suppose a C student w/ 120 units under his belt, all of a sudden becomes a straight A student, he is going to have to take ALOT of units to bring up his GPA. He's demonstrated that he is capable of being a great student, but his GPA won't show it.

The PCAT is a standardized test, and it should theoretically demonstrate how well a student will do in pharmacy school by testing the student's knowledge he gained in undergrad. However, as with any standardize tests, students can prepare for this, no matter how difficult you make the test. A student with a low gpa, if he has enough time and money, can beat this test. Instead of learning the material in undergrad, he can just learn to beat the test. This is the downfall of any standardize test.

So I propose a better solution, I think adcom should make a decision based on a coin flip (I was watching "no country for old men"), but I will settle for nerf wars and dodge ball

 

[Allure]

I openly hate working in a retail pharmacy, but that hasn't stopped me from pursuing a career in pharmacy.

The skillsets learned as a tech/clerk, does not necessarily translate into becoming a good pharmacist, and vise versa. There are many successful and fast pharmacists who never set foot in a pharmacy prior to pharmacy school, and there are many technicians/clerks who want to become pharmacists, and well.....never will.

I believe pharmacy experience is definitely good to have on ones application, but it should never be weighed as heavily as the academic criteria...(as it is hard to determine how relative one's experience is vs. someone elses experience)

If you hate working in retail pharmacy, which a lot of people seem to hate, then why are you pursuing pharmacy? Is it because pharmacy is not just about retail? How much you do know about the other aspects of pharmacy? If you said that you are interested in how drugs work, then I'd say go for a PhD in pharmacology. I have classmates who are dead set doing a residency and vow to never work in retails, but I do know a few residents who hate residencies. The grass is not always greener on the other side. The purpose for work experience is to let the students know that pharmacy might not be for them. We had 2 students in our class that dropped out because one day they just realized it wasn't what they wanted to do. It's not because they were failing or anything. They just didn't think the profession is what they thought it would be. The purpose of getting experience before applying is that it helps more of the students, not adcoms. I'd require all my applicants to have experience, but I probably would not weigh much of it in the whole process since you did make a good point (hard to determine the relative of one's experience vs. another)

 

[Allure]

I'd have to go with PCAT. I feel like the PCAT is an honest measure of what you have learned through your pre-req's. I feel like grades/GPA is relative. Yes, some people have GPA's through hard work and dedication, but did they learn anything from their classes? I believe that a person who ends up with a C in a class may have learned as much as a person with an A. Maybe the "C" person is fighting against a curve, in competition with his/her classmates. Maybe, the person blanked out during a test yet still knew the material. I know that this isn't always the case, but it still is possible.

I might be biased since my PCAT score was much better in comparison with my GPA (especially when I took that PCAT my GPA was about a 2.6). My highest PCAT score, an 85, was based on previous knowledge, and I did not prepare at all for the PCAT. Yes, a low GPA may imply a person did not learn as much during their pre-req's, but how do you explain a good/high PCAT without studying? Purely guessing, would not be possible since the probability of getting 85% would be close to zero. Obviously, if a person was in this situation they must have learned something through their prerequisites to earn a good score.

In my opinion, PCAT should be first then GPA.

You should go back and read my reply on how the PCAT is scored, then maybe you will have a different opinion.

 

[phuang06]

I thought this thread's topic was "If you were an Adcom what would matter the most to u in determining success?" and not "If you were an Adcom what would matter most to you in determining acceptances?"

Based on that, I would have to agree with those who said GPA is not something you would look for as a top statistic, since GPA is dependent on ease of professor, courses taken, etc. You can have a not so good GPA and be super hard working and still be successful in my eyes. PCAT, as people have said, is an equalizing test, and since it is just one test, it cannot accurately determine one's success except the fact that they either know the material or memorized it, only to forget it later.

That being said, I believe that work experience, extracurriculars, and number and quality of courses (not just upper level courses) taken per semester all together would better determine success than GPA or PCAT. Ability to take on a job, do lots of extracurriculars and take more courses than a minimal full-time student and being able to do well in those courses determines success. Sure, someone could take 12 credits every semester and obtain a 4.0 GPA, but I would think someone who takes 15-18 credits every semester to obtain a 3.90 GPA while doing lots of extracurriculars and holding down a job would be more qualified in the term of "success".

That's just my take on things.

 

[chibipinkbunny]

Well, after being in pharmacy school for two quarters I have a bit more perspective on why they look for some of the things that they do. Its important to have a high GPA to prove that you can handle the courseload. It's actually a pretty heavy coarseload, and some people are struggling a lot even as it is. My GPA from UC Berkeley was like a 3.35, while my GPA from community college was 4.0. I was always a little bit upset though because as a chem major I KNOW that I tried harder than a lot of other majors, but my GPA was lower. Ha, ha, if I could have done it over I would have picked another major. I actually had no pharmacy related experience, and I don't think that was a big problem. I believe character is SUPER important in becoming a pharmacist. That's something that you can't really teach. I think that kind of comes out in the interview. Hard work, and dedication are also very important, which comes out in both the interview and extracurricular activities. So if I were doing admissions I would go for GPA, character, and extracurricular activities.

 

[monsterbrain]

For all of you that feel PCAT and GPA should be the two most important factors in determining acceptance, then why do you think pharmacy schools even have interviews? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just thinking (or typing) outloud. These schools must place a decent amount of importance on the interview, otherwise they wouldn't invest the time and money to conduct them. Right?

I know of two pre-pharm students that have 3.9+ GPAs and scored 90+ on the PCAT, but neither has stepped one foot in a pharmacy. How do they know this is the career for them? One of them can't even talk to me, a classmate, without getting nervous. If he can't communicate with me, how will he communicate with patients.

Stats are certainly a must to get an interview, but I'm sure schools have been swayed many times during the interview process.

 

[Hels2007]

Well, when I were in those shoes, it was none of the above (well, we didn't do PCAT back then, but I have never been a fan of standardized test - they require about half a brain cell to do and do not in any way measure real knowledge, nor the skills that would truly matter in the pharmacy).

I place interview far and above anything else, but if you are only talking about stuff you submit on paper here, then I would go with the personal statement. It makes or breaks many people, both the content and the style. Then it is the extracurriculars (not the quantity but the quality, and generally it is good if people highlight why they have done it and what they got out of it either on the answer form or in the statement or in other place on the application as appropriate). Then the work experience, so people have an idea about what they are getting into.

The above applies when you have the luxury to review each package in detail. Otherwise, you weed out by something easy and obvious - which is GPA and/or PCAT. Anybody who doesn't make cut-off gets tossed, anybody who does gets their application package read.

 

[Farmercyst]

The above applies when you have the luxury to review each package in detail. Otherwise, you weed out by something easy and obvious - which is GPA and/or PCAT. Anybody who doesn't make cut-off gets tossed, anybody who does gets their application package read.

Given the number of applications received and the number of personnel available to review these applications I'd say that GPA/PCAT have been the primary filter the last few years and hence the most important. While not ideal, it seems to be the way it works for right now.

 

[FutureFarmDee]

I would say EC is #1 and work experience comes at a close #2. For those who believe that those with the highest gpa and highest pcat score will make the best pharmacist, better wake up and smell the coffee. Honestly, I wish that Adcoms work like this to give interviews/acceptances...
-Take the big stack of applicants. Those who have at least a 3.0 in their cum, science, pre-req gpa...then congrats, u prove that you can succeed in the academic aspect of pharmacy school. They make the 1st cut.
-Whats next in deciding the few spots for interviews? EC, personal statement, work experience, letters of rec. In that order. Why? Because these things show your personality traits, your desire to learn about the profession, your passion for the career, how other professionals view you as a human being. 2nd cut.
-Then the interview: those who make it should be viewed as equal...its like the playoffs...brand new season, anyone can make it! Admissions at this point should be determined SOLELY on interview result. Forget GPA. If a 3.0 gpa does better than a 4.0 gpa, then sorry 4.0 gpa, best of luck next cycle and welcome 3.0!

I've heard way too many people say gpa this gpa that, and tell me wow with your gpa you're going to have to apply again. I've met my share of high gpa's with a personality of a dried-up grapefruit. I fear that they are my future colleagues. Sure, they'll recite all the drug names, mech of action, blah blah blah...but see if that patient will understand/appreciate that complex language and dry, impersonal, robotic approach.

 

[CambioElMundo]

While I fear the same thing because I don't think that anyone wants to have a neighborhood pharmacist who cares about reciting drug facts while they are trying to explain a concern in their lives. Our profession needs compassion. On the other hand, there does need to be a standard for acceptance, a marker that prooves that this individual was dedicated to their classes, their degree, and ultimately their dream of becoming a pharmacist!

to all of you who say PCAT is most important: so you guys feel that studying your @&& off for 3-4 months and NAILING the PCAT is more important than 4 years of education experience? Come one, be real, a standardized test is by far the easiest way to improve your application, GPA On the other hand is the most difficult one!

and yes, everyone, every single person here can score 95+ on the PCAT given the right study aides and enough study time, but not nearly everyone can get a 4.0 in pre-reqs regardless of where they were taken!

I think Absolute Ethanol and I would be good friends! lol, THIS IS ABSOULTELY RIGHT and I AM SO GLAD YOU SAID IT! The PCAT is one-day indacator of ability, that is adventageous for those who did Kaplan or are simply brillant test takers. For those who aren't and faced the same SAT problem only 2 to 4 years ago, because some standardized test is supposed to truly quantify the knowledge that you aquired through four years of education on test topics/questions that were semi-studible, it is absoultey absurd. Four years of hard work = a GPA, which stands alone to prove the type of student that you are and of course the courseload taken should be considered as well.
On another note, the PCAT, SAT, and other such measures are supposed to be indicators of success throughout future schooling. I don't buy that one day proves that. I graduated with a 6.88 G.P.A. (4.00 unweighted) from high school, but "IVY" schools would not accept me because I only had an SAT score in the 1300's. I did not really want to go to an Ivy League school anyways because of personal preference, but it goes to show how rediculous these tests can really be. How was this an indicator of success, considering I am nearing the completion of a Biomedical Science B.S. Degree with a 3.7 G.P.A.? Those are just my thoughts on the matter

I wish personal statement was more of a contributing factor because I wroked so hard on mine, but I think we can all say that whose proabably figure lower on the totempole than we wish, even when that is our heart and soul!

Good Luck everyone!

 

[Knickerbocker]

I don't think the PCAT should even be that important because it is VERY easy to score high on the PCAT. Here is how the PCAT scoring system worked when I took it (I don't doubt it's still the same): Not counting the writing section, each section is out of 600 points and you can get 99%TILE by getting 450 (give or take a few points) out of 600. You're not getting 99%tile because you got a perfect score. So a person with 550 out of 600 still gets 99%tile on that subject compared to someone who has a 480. Now, there is an advantage in getting 550 vs 480 even though it's both 99%tile for a particular subject. Let's say for math, you get 400, so when you average 550 and 400 out (still above 450-again, give or take a few points), you still get 99%tile, whereas 480 and 400, you won't get 99%tile. That's why there is a score for each subject and a total score. For that same reason, you can get 30%tile on reading section and still get 99%tile for the overall if you score high enough the other sections. I studied the PCAT for 2 days and scored in the 80's. You just have to know what to study. I only focused on 2 subjects (math and chem), never even looked at the other subjects when I studied.

I kind of hate the scoring setup for the PCAT as well. I did well in all sections for the score I got. It's a little annoying that someone can get a 50 in a section or two and still wind up with a 90+ PCAT because they got a 99 in two other subjects.

 

[Knickerbocker]

Well, when I were in those shoes, it was none of the above (well, we didn't do PCAT back then, but I have never been a fan of standardized test - they require about half a brain cell to do and do not in any way measure real knowledge, nor the skills that would truly matter in the pharmacy).

I place interview far and above anything else, but if you are only talking about stuff you submit on paper here, then I would go with the personal statement.

One could say the same about the interview. Just because someone gets very nervous about something so important that can change the course of their life, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't do well as a pharmacist. Also, just because someone can dazzle/BS you in an interview, it doesn't mean that they'd be a good pharmacist.

 

[Pharmpills]

While I fear the same thing because I don't think that anyone wants to have a neighborhood pharmacist who cares about reciting drug facts while they are trying to explain a concern in their lives. Our profession needs compassion. On the other hand, there does need to be a standard for acceptance, a marker that prooves that this individual was dedicated to their classes, their degree, and ultimately their dream of becoming a pharmacist!



I think Absolute Ethanol and I would be good friends! lol, THIS IS ABSOULTELY RIGHT and I AM SO GLAD YOU SAID IT! The PCAT is one-day indacator of ability, that is adventageous for those who did Kaplan or are simply brillant test takers. For those who aren't and faced the same SAT problem only 2 to 4 years ago, because some standardized test is supposed to truly quantify the knowledge that you aquired through four years of education on test topics/questions that were semi-studible, it is absoultey absurd. Four years of hard work = a GPA, which stands alone to prove the type of student that you are and of course the courseload taken should be considered as well.
On another note, the PCAT, SAT, and other such measures are supposed to be indicators of success throughout future schooling. I don't buy that one day proves that. I graduated with a 6.88 G.P.A. (4.00 unweighted) from high school, but "IVY" schools would not accept me because I only had an SAT score in the 1300's. I did not really want to go to an Ivy League school anyways because of personal preference, but it goes to show how rediculous these tests can really be. How was this an indicator of success, considering I am nearing the completion of a Biomedical Science B.S. Degree with a 3.7 G.P.A.? Those are just my thoughts on the matter

I wish personal statement was more of a contributing factor because I wroked so hard on mine, but I think we can all say that whose proabably figure lower on the totempole than we wish, even when that is our heart and soul!

Good Luck everyone!

umm isnt a 6.88 GPA in HIGH school impossible?? isnt the max grade u cant get is A+ which would equate to 6.25 in AP level class but u would need to take pure AP's and hope ALL ur teachers give u an A+++ WTF??

 

[labrat024]

While I fear the same thing because I don't think that anyone wants to have a neighborhood pharmacist who cares about reciting drug facts while they are trying to explain a concern in their lives. Our profession needs compassion. On the other hand, there does need to be a standard for acceptance, a marker that prooves that this individual was dedicated to their classes, their degree, and ultimately their dream of becoming a pharmacist!



I think Absolute Ethanol and I would be good friends! lol, THIS IS ABSOULTELY RIGHT and I AM SO GLAD YOU SAID IT! The PCAT is one-day indacator of ability, that is adventageous for those who did Kaplan or are simply brillant test takers. For those who aren't and faced the same SAT problem only 2 to 4 years ago, because some standardized test is supposed to truly quantify the knowledge that you aquired through four years of education on test topics/questions that were semi-studible, it is absoultey absurd. Four years of hard work = a GPA, which stands alone to prove the type of student that you are and of course the courseload taken should be considered as well.
On another note, the PCAT, SAT, and other such measures are supposed to be indicators of success throughout future schooling. I don't buy that one day proves that. I graduated with a 6.88 G.P.A. (4.00 unweighted) from high school, but "IVY" schools would not accept me because I only had an SAT score in the 1300's. I did not really want to go to an Ivy League school anyways because of personal preference, but it goes to show how rediculous these tests can really be. How was this an indicator of success, considering I am nearing the completion of a Biomedical Science B.S. Degree with a 3.7 G.P.A.? Those are just my thoughts on the matter

I wish personal statement was more of a contributing factor because I wroked so hard on mine, but I think we can all say that whose proabably figure lower on the totempole than we wish, even when that is our heart and soul!

Good Luck everyone!

probably because you area horrible speller

 

[eelo]

i never really thought about it till now...but picking candidates must be really really hard

It is.

None of you are accounting for heart. A person can have amazing stats and be a real jerkwad..... and frankly, I don't want that person in my school, I don't want that person around my students, and I don't want that person walking around with a degree from my institution.

Those of you who have what seems like phenomenal stats might want to consider this. Frankly, just about everyone who applies to pharmacy schools is qualified. Adcoms have their own ways to separate the wheat from the chaff, and it's not always GPA and PCAT.

Face it- anyone can come up with any number of excuses for why they didn't do well on the PCAT ("English isn't my first language....") or why their grades are bad ("I had a rough year....") or anything else. Regardless of the reasons, legitimate or not, these really are nothing more than excuses for sub-optimal performance.

I have turned down people with 3.90 GPAs and PCATS over 85, for someone with more 'average' numbers but who showed heart, because that's the person who's never going to embarrass the institution, who's always going to 'do us proud.' Now, as far as quantifying heart, I can't. At this point in your life, either you've got it or you don't; you can't study for it or suddenly become someone you're not.

Good luck to you all.

 

[tharper14]

Hey thanks eelo for the insight. It totally makes sense seeing as soooo many applicants are completely qualified to do well in pharm school. Only problem is, how do you tell the jerks from the good guys? Do adcoms spy on us on sdn and try to figure out who we are?

 

[Hels2007]

One could say the same about the interview. Just because someone gets very nervous about something so important that can change the course of their life, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't do well as a pharmacist. Also, just because someone can dazzle/BS you in an interview, it doesn't mean that they'd be a good pharmacist.

If you have any experience interviewing, and aren't dense as a rock, you can spot a bull****ter very quickly.

And if someone cannot communicate effectively in an interview - the likelihood of them being a good pharmacist decreases dramatically.

If you cannot express yourself in a near-ideal situation of an interview, how are you going to answer questions of patients (or doctors, or nurses, or caregivers, depending on where you end up working) while around you is utter chaos with phones ringing off the hook, you being hungry and your feet hurting, and people unable to formulate their question correctly? And it may be about something you never heard of before, but if you don't answer it quickly and accurately, someone may die, and you may get sued, and loose you license, your property, or even end up in jail. Keeping your cool under pressure is one of the most important skills for any person, and especially for a health professional.

Also, a lot of the time candidates kill themselves by not listening and answering what they want to answer instead of what you have asked. Very, very bad thing to happen to a pharmacist (and believe me, I got burned on it more than once). Taking a bit of time to answer a question or asking a clarification does not equal a bad interview. Not listening or not bothering to clarify and answering a wrong question as a resul does.

Besides, most schools look for the right fit. And you cannot judge the personality by any other means than an interview. 🙂

Though some schools do rely on stats more than others. That's OK, but I would not have wanted to go into one. The most horrible person in my pharmacy school history was a nearly 4.0 GPA and nearly perfect test taker. However, he never participated in any APhA activities, was annoying as hell, and overall a pain.

 

[fiorio]

determine success: intelligence level+passion/interest in pharmacy field+a heart cares about patients
determine acceptance: academic performance, interview, if you have a great personality, likable, approachable, or even good at acting, you have a better shot.

 

[AggiePharmer]

I'm intrigued that no one's brought up the significance of personal statements. While GPA and PCATs are standardized sure, personal statements can really be important equalizers in terms of conveying financial, interpersonal, and familial challenges that have affected the pursuit of your dreams...

Can anyone really deny the significance of how Hurricane Katrina, the Southern CA wildfires, or flooding in the midwest might impact/have affected various applicants and their ability to academically excel to the same extent as others?

 

[Knickerbocker]

If you have any experience interviewing, and aren't dense as a rock, you can spot a bull****ter very quickly.

Well, it's too bad that many interviewers aren't as good as you. I've seen at least a few BS'ers get in so far. That includes one guy from my school who had been unable to get into medical school for the past three years. He jumped into pharmacy at literally the last possible moment for this cycle. It's funny that he got into a certain school and that I did not, despite my much longer commitment to the field.

One of my interviewers even had the nerve to imply that chemistry research that I had done was proof that I wasn't really very committed to pharmacy.

Also, no offense to certain people, but I'm seeing a number of people with very poor English skills getting into pharmacy school. I don't see how some of them were able to communicate well in an interview.

 

[Pharmpills]

What determines ur success in Pharmacy school and any Professionally school is ur ability to do well in classes, perform well in tests. The PCAT gives u as many times to retake it, MCAT gives u 3 times so a bad day is not an excuse. Experience cannot make u know biochem, anatomy (pharmacy not medicine), etc if u dont know ur classwork u WILL NOT do well. Extra curriculars CANNOT help u do well but it can make u a well round person.

Upper level classes show u are definitely more ready than the average pre-pharm. It comes down to GPA, PCAT, upper level classes that WILL DETERMINE UR SUCCESS IN PHARMACY SCHOOL, Extra curriculars, Experience, heart, caring attitude makes u a successful pharmacist outside of school. Experience gives u a head start in pharm school though when it comes to learning drug names but will not help u to pass most classes, academics is what should be counted the most but academics should be looked at more carefully than numbers bc its not fair for someone to take classes at an "easier" college or take the easy pre-reqs at first then do the more complex later. I am impressed upper level classes ranked second but then again i think PCAT should be ranked first bc im biased haha.

 

[Pharmco]

I'd have to go with PCAT. I feel like the PCAT is an honest measure of what you have learned through your pre-req's. I feel like grades/GPA is relative. Yes, some people have GPA's through hard work and dedication, but did they learn anything from their classes? I believe that a person who ends up with a C in a class may have learned as much as a person with an A. Maybe the "C" person is fighting against a curve, in competition with his/her classmates. Maybe, the person blanked out during a test yet still knew the material. I know that this isn't always the case, but it still is possible.

I might be biased since my PCAT score was much better in comparison with my GPA (especially when I took that PCAT my GPA was about a 2.6). My highest PCAT score, an 85, was based on previous knowledge, and I did not prepare at all for the PCAT. Yes, a low GPA may imply a person did not learn as much during their pre-req's, but how do you explain a good/high PCAT without studying? Purely guessing, would not be possible since the probability of getting 85% would be close to zero. Obviously, if a person was in this situation they must have learned something through their prerequisites to earn a good score.

In my opinion, PCAT should be first then GPA.

How about GOD given ability then? I could very well say, you were lazy and you were smarter than me. I worked hard and had less to work with, so by rights I deserve it more than you. Just giving you a different point of view. The PCAT DOES NOT IMHO test you on how much you know but on how QUICKLY you can take what you know and get the right answer. I will tell you now I knew 95% of of the questions but maybe I just don't assimilate as quickly as you!! I know there has to be an equilizer but don't think low PCAT scores show "HOW MUCH YOU KNOW". I've worked in a retail pharmacy 1 year and now in a hospital for 2 years and not once have I ever seen a pharmacist have to make an important decision in 20 seconds.

 

[Pharmco]

I think you are forgetting that the GPA is the average of the student's academic history. A student with a C average, means he wasn't doing to well in a number of his classes, not just one class. Its a pretty fair assessment of students study habits and ability to compete with other students and to learn new material. The problem arises with any average is it also acts as a buffer (makes it hard for applicants to screw up their gpa or improve upon it, once they have alot of units under their belt), and thats where assessing a candidate based on GPA isn't fair either.

Suppose a C student w/ 120 units under his belt, all of a sudden becomes a straight A student, he is going to have to take ALOT of units to bring up his GPA. He's demonstrated that he is capable of being a great student, but his GPA won't show it.

The PCAT is a standardized test, and it should theoretically demonstrate how well a student will do in pharmacy school by testing the student's knowledge he gained in undergrad. However, as with any standardize tests, students can prepare for this, no matter how difficult you make the test. A student with a low gpa, if he has enough time and money, can beat this test. Instead of learning the material in undergrad, he can just learn to beat the test. This is the downfall of any standardize test.

So I propose a better solution, I think adcom should make a decision based on a coin flip (I was watching "no country for old men"), but I will settle for nerf wars and dodge ball

I agree with the flip of a coin-oh and btw I hated how that movie ended 🙁

 

[Farmer83]

How about GOD given ability then? I could very well say, you were lazy and you were smarter than me. I worked hard and had less to work with, so by rights I deserve it more than you. Just giving you a different point of view. The PCAT DOES NOT IMHO test you on how much you know but on how QUICKLY you can take what you know and get the right answer. I will tell you now I knew 95% of of the questions but maybe I just don't assimilate as quickly as you!! I know there has to be an equilizer but don't think low PCAT scores show "HOW MUCH YOU KNOW". I've worked in a retail pharmacy 1 year and now in a hospital for 2 years and not once have I ever seen a pharmacist have to make an important decision in 20 seconds.

Hmm, what if you're a clinical/hospital pharmacist and your patient codes in front of you? I'm sure its possible that pharmacists have to make an important decision in 20 seconds. What about in retail pharmacy when you're filling 500+ scripts a day, and a problem arises? Doesn't the pharmacist have to make a quick decision, otherwise risking falling behind? I'm just proposing questions. Not to cause any dissent, but I thought this topic was a poll/discussion, I was just stating an opinion of what I thought about GPA and PCAT.

 

[RNtoPharmD]

Hmm, what if you're a clinical/hospital pharmacist and your patient codes in front of you? What about in retail pharmacy when you're filling 500+ scripts a day, and a problem arises? Doesn't the pharmacist have to make a quick decision,

Funny. Prospective nurses who have to deal with the codes directly don't have to take PCAT or any standardized test to get into nursing school... not even an interview.. LOL.. Maybe PCAT is there to weed out the larger pool of applicants in pharmacy.

 

[BlueCrayon]

It should be exactly as it is...a combination of everything, GPA, PCAT, EC, LOR, personal statement, work experience and interview. I know someone on the adcom for a medical school and they said (just like futurefarmdee put it) the GPA and PCAT are mainly a means of determining who is qualified and making first cuts then it's on the things that show character traits such as the essay, LOR and experience to determine who gets an interview. Then obviously a good interview goes a long way to see whether you can communicate and think under pressure. A negative under any of these catagories probably won't make or break you as long as you have a good balance of traits. Of course, most schools have definate minimums for GPA and PCAT so it's possible no matter how good the rest of your app is, you may still get rejected! Last year was the first year that UB did interviewing and I read somewhere that the 2011 class is the best one they ever had...concidence?

And yes, I agree with aggiepharmer 100%...many people don't realize the personal statement and LOR are very underrated. They can set you apart from the other 1000 people with the same stats as you. Again from people I know, they can give you a distinct advantage because they make you memorable!

 

[eelo]

What determines ur success in Pharmacy school and any Professionally school is ur ability to do well in classes, perform well in tests. The PCAT gives u as many times to retake it, MCAT gives u 3 times so a bad day is not an excuse. Experience cannot make u know biochem, anatomy (pharmacy not medicine), etc if u dont know ur classwork u WILL NOT do well. Extra curriculars CANNOT help u do well but it can make u a well round person.

Upper level classes show u are definitely more ready than the average pre-pharm. It comes down to GPA, PCAT, upper level classes that WILL DETERMINE UR SUCCESS IN PHARMACY SCHOOL, Extra curriculars, Experience, heart, caring attitude makes u a successful pharmacist outside of school. Experience gives u a head start in pharm school though when it comes to learning drug names but will not help u to pass most classes, academics is what should be counted the most but academics should be looked at more carefully than numbers bc its not fair for someone to take classes at an "easier" college or take the easy pre-reqs at first then do the more complex later. I am impressed upper level classes ranked second but then again i think PCAT should be ranked first bc im biased haha.

Really? Has your status changed from pre-pharm to all-knowing? Because I'm wondering how you know what makes a person successful in pharmacy school, seeing as how you're not a pharmacy school administrator or instructor, you don't sit on an adcom, you haven't graduated, you don't attend..... you haven't even started pharmacy school.

I'm sure you mean well, but this really isn't something you have any actual first-hand knowledge of now, is it? It's nice to see how you might judge something, but that's not reality, is it?

 

[Farmer83]

Funny. Prospective nurses who have to deal with the codes directly don't have to take PCAT or any standardized test to get into nursing school... not even an interview.. LOL.. Maybe PCAT is there to weed out the larger pool of applicants in pharmacy.

Hehe...yeah that's true. Just trying to view all the perspectives. 🙂 Though I agree with the other posts here, sorry for playing devil's advocate. It's always interesting to see the discussion that results from a different perspective. 😀