Interesting documentary on CNBC the other night

[BrandonUK03]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Watched an hour long documentary on for profit schools. Basically they reported the following:

1. Lots of new schools opening up programs in nursing, MBA, etc. (assuming some new pharmacy schools fall into this as well).
2. People at schools are promising once they graduate, they'll make X amount of dollars and have multiple job offers.
3. Programs are highly funded by government dollars via students from student loans (somewhere around 80%).
4. Government officials are finally taking notice of defaults from such programs and forming committees in congress to address issues. New ways to look at default rates and hold schools accountable.
5. Student loans can't be written off via any type of bankruptcy. They are with you for life.
6. Many financial experts are predicting this to be the next "financial bubble" to burst just like the housing crisis.
7. Profiled several students with massive student loan debt ranging from 70K to 250K that can not find jobs. Their credit scores are getting killed and one guy finally got a job only to have the government take money out of his paycheck to try to recoup the student loan money he'd borrowed leaving him to live off like $175 a week.
8. End result? Mass closure of programs?

My question to pose for debate, is do any of you think pharmacy schools are heading this route? Thoughts?

 

[R2pharmD2]

My question to pose for debate, is do any of you think pharmacy schools are heading this route? Thoughts?

I don't know about the mass closure of pharmacy schools thing, but I don't understand the concern about schools being for-profit. If anything, don't the for-profits have more incentive to ensure their students are successful? Massive numbers of students unable to find jobs can't be good for the bottom line in the long term.

 

[rxlea]

I think they should just stop opening pharmacy schools, prevent existing schools from opening satellite campuses and limit class sizes. I also think there should be a tier system like in medicine and law. The best students will want to go to the best schools, get the best residencies, and subsequently get the best jobs. This also means that students will want to perform well in school rather than maintain the C's get degrees mentality. I think all schools are concerned with attrition (not just for-profit schools). If you get the best students applying to your program, chances are they will finish and do well, which is the overall goal, I think. I also think they need to incorporate more factors into ranking, including where students go upon graduation, quality of rotation sites, faculty, and opportunities available to students. We can sit and debate and tell anecdotes of X vs.Y school but, ultimately, it comes down to perception (the perception of resdiency directors and employers that older schools with well-known and experienced faculty are more reputable) and performance of the students on rotation. I could talk about my own experiences and share the experiences of the pharmacists I work with but nobody would care 🙂 but, I can tell you that everyone in the pharmacy department (and I mean EVERYONE, including those who went to private, for profit schools AND who themselves went to MWG) told me to pick UofA or Minnesota over MWG. Similarly, they told me not to apply to certain schools. Yes, this is my own experience and no doubt everyone's experiences will vary, but in my neck of the woods and especially at my institution, school matters, especially for residencies.

 

[confettiflyer]

I think they should just stop opening pharmacy schools, prevent existing schools from opening satellite campuses and limit class sizes. .

ACPE's relationship with the DOE as an accrediting body prevents some of the above actions due to anti-trust regulations.

We'd be more successful on the back-end finding new niches/jobs for the deluge of graduates via things like JC regulations/requirements.

 

[eagles22]

I don't know about the mass closure of pharmacy schools thing, but I don't understand the concern about schools being for-profit. If anything, don't the for-profits have more incentive to ensure their students are successful? Massive numbers of students unable to find jobs can't be good for the bottom line in the long term.

Something like 40% of all student loan defaults are from private for profit colleges (approx. 10 % of the students in this country). Their incentive is to get people enrolled which isn't hard. They can make wild claims, get the student in, and then they don't give a ****. They're streamlined to get anybody a student loan. Once they have those loan dollars, the default doesn't bother them because they're not being paid back, the government is. Most of these schools aren't even regionally accredited.

 

[BrandonUK03]

here is the link to the documentary:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39911910/

Essentially it didn't come right out and mention pharmacy but mentioned schools such as university of phoenix and a few other for-profit colleges. The difference is that government money made up something like 80% of money that a for profit school takes in versus something like 20% for other schools. It stated that for profit schools were selling high hopes to students that weren't realistic and it went on to talk about our current system fails to look properly at student loan defaults from these institutions... which is was congressional committees are being formed to address it. I think the whole documentary can be applied to pharmacy soon. What's going to happen when the job market becomes so saturated because all these for profit schools open charging crazy amounts of tuition of which most is loaned by the government and these students can't afford to repay? The government will say enough is enough, quit lending to these programs and when 80% of your money comes from the government, you won't be able to survive. They don't really have any incentive except to get you into that program and get your money. The current system doesn't look enough into the picture of defaults which lets most schools continue to borrow government money. Its kinda interesting how they followed a few undergrad students with odd majors that you wouldn't expect to make much upon graduation and how they borrowed 30K per year for 4 years and weren't concerned with how they might repay that someday. If pharmacy doesn't slow down the rate of school openings and class sizes we will see some closure of schools IMO. Why would a student want to get into 150K+ in debt and spending 6 to 7 years of their life in college for a non-existent job? Check out this article written by a professor to UNC Chapel Hill:

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/issue/pharmacy/2010/February2010/EditorsNote-0210

 

[BrandonUK03]

Something like 40% of all student loan defaults are from private for profit colleges (approx. 10 % of the students in this country). Their incentive is to get people enrolled which isn't hard. They can make wild claims, get the student in, and then they don't give a ****. They're streamlined to get anybody a student loan. Once they have those loan dollars, the default doesn't bother them because they're not being paid back, the government is. Most of these schools aren't even regionally accredited.

Well stated. This is about to happen with pharmacy as well I'm afraid. We've got some sketchy for-profit schools popping up all over the US with only 1 thing in mind.... let's make tons of $$$ by charging 40K/year for our pharmacy program since there is a "shortage" and thereby tons of money for us to make. Who cares if we saturate the market because we'll be pumping out students left and right..... until the government catches on and closes us down, then by that time, our pockets will still be overflowing with cash.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Well stated. This is about to happen with pharmacy as well I'm afraid. We've got some sketchy for-profit schools popping up all over the US with only 1 thing in mind.... let's make tons of $$$ by charging 40K/year for our pharmacy program since there is a "shortage" and thereby tons of money for us to make. Who cares if we saturate the market because we'll be pumping out students left and right..... until the government catches on and closes us down, then by that time, our pockets will still be overflowing with cash.

Source? The vast majority of new (and existing) pharmacy schools are non-profit (not that it matters). I would bet there are fewer than 5 actual "for-profit" schools. Some of the highest tuition charges out there are at "non-profit" schools. Non-profit schools contribute to the shortage and saturation as much as any other type of schools. Being non-profit is no guarantee of quality education. Trying to make this into a "for profit" issue is a red herring.

 

[owlegrad]

Source? The vast majority of new (and existing) pharmacy schools are non-profit (not that it matters). I would bet there are fewer than 5 actual "for-profit" schools. Some of the highest tuition charges out there are at "non-profit" schools. Non-profit schools contribute to the shortage and saturation as much as any other type of schools. Being non-profit is no guarantee of quality education. Trying to make this into a "for profit" issue is a red herring.

Yup, say what you want about COPs popping up "everywhere", there are very few private COP's and I don't think there is a COP in the nation that does not put out competent practitioners, unlike true diploma mills (which do not exist in the pharmacy world). We are nowhere near DeVry or Univ. of Phoenix levels.

 

[BrandonUK03]

Source? The vast majority of new (and existing) pharmacy schools are non-profit (not that it matters). I would bet there are fewer than 5 actual "for-profit" schools. Some of the highest tuition charges out there are at "non-profit" schools. Non-profit schools contribute to the shortage and saturation as much as any other type of schools. Being non-profit is no guarantee of quality education. Trying to make this into a "for profit" issue is a red herring.

No clue on actual stats of # of for-profit pharmacy schools. Did a google search and nothing popped. I've been reading this forum for a while and note that a lot of people mention for-profit pharmacy schools. Wasn't necessarily trying to make this into a non-profit vs a for-profit issue, but a lot of what the documentary was based off of was for-profit universities. I know of another school in my state was recently trying to open up that was for profit and not sure where they are at in the process at the moment. That program for example has no affiliation with any medical college or hospital and known more or less for technical programs. See article below about a group of pharmacists hopping on the bandwagon and opening a for-profit school in CA http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/07/28/story14.html

Point be taken, whether the new school is for-profit or not-for-profit, continuing to open schools with reckless disregard for market conditions will lead to issues stated in the documentary.

 

[BrandonUK03]

Yup, say what you want about COPs popping up "everywhere", there are very few private COP's and I don't think there is a COP in the nation that does not put out competent practitioners, unlike true diploma mills (which do not exist in the pharmacy world). We are nowhere near DeVry or Univ. of Phoenix levels.

Hmm... if you define competent by scoring at least a 75 on the NAPLEX, I'd have to agree with you based on statistics of board pass rates by school. But keep in mind the NAPLEX is a minimal competency exam. I would also argue that there are a few schools out there that are borderline diploma mills, its just a matter of opinion and judging by numerous posts already SDN forums, others agree we have diploma mill schools out there. Are we near DeVry or Univ. of Phoenix levels? No. Are we heading in that direction? I'd have to say yes.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

No clue on actual stats of # of for-profit pharmacy schools. Did a google search and nothing popped. I've been reading this forum for a while and note that a lot of people mention for-profit pharmacy schools. Wasn't necessarily trying to make this into a non-profit vs a for-profit issue, but a lot of what the documentary was based off of was for-profit universities. I know of another school in my state was recently trying to open up that was for profit and not sure where they are at in the process at the moment. That program for example has no affiliation with any medical college or hospital and known more or less for technical programs. See article below about a group of pharmacists hopping on the bandwagon and opening a for-profit school in CA http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/07/28/story14.html

Point be taken, whether the new school is for-profit or not-for-profit, continuing to open schools with reckless disregard for market conditions will lead to issues stated in the documentary.

I still think there are probably fewer than five "for-profit" pharmacy schools in the US. I know of one in Georgia and one in Kentucky. There may be others planning to open, but they are still a small percentage compared to the numbers of public/non-profit and private/non-profit schools opening.

I bolded your sentence above b/c lack of a medical school affiliation or lack of a officially linked hospital means nothing. There are plenty of schools that have been open a long time that don't have either. It's certainly easier to have an official linkage for scheduling rotations, but it's not that unusual amongst new AND old schools.

I think we have too many schools. I think whoever is doing the economic forecasting/business plans for schools that are currently trying to open up should lose their job. But it's not just new schools. Existing schools have expanded class size in spite of existing economic conditions. Existing schools have opened up branch campuses and distance learning programs. The entire educational industry ("for profit" and non-profit) is driven mainly by the need to obtain tuition dollars (aka GREED) which is why we continue to see new schools opening despite market saturation and crappy job prospects.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Hmm... if you define competent by scoring at least a 75 on the NAPLEX, I'd have to agree with you based on statistics of board pass rates by school. But keep in mind the NAPLEX is a minimal competency exam. I would also argue that there are a few schools out there that are borderline diploma mills, its just a matter of opinion and judging by numerous posts already SDN forums, others agree we have diploma mill schools out there. Are we near DeVry or Univ. of Phoenix levels? No. Are we heading in that direction? I'd have to say yes.

Owlegrad is correct. There are no US pharmacy schools that currently meet the definition of a "diploma mill." If they meet the standards for accreditation and pharmacy education and students can pass the licensure exam, they aren't diploma mills. Please don't cite SDN members' perjorative use of the term "diploma mill" as evidence that they exist. People love to throw around that term and apply it to any new school that opens. But that is not a correct use of the term. Look up the actual definition for yourself.

 

[PharmD RPh]

Owlegrad is correct. There are no US pharmacy schools that currently meet the definition of a "diploma mill." If they meet the standards for accreditation and pharmacy education and students can pass the licensure exam, they aren't diploma mills. Please don't cite SDN members' perjorative use of the term "diploma mill" as evidence that they exist. People love to throw around that term and apply it to any new school that opens. But that is not a correct use of the term. Look up the actual definition for yourself.

I think that's a good point. Different people have different definitions of a diploma mill. Unfortunately, I don't agree with ACPE accreditation policies and no control over supply and demand during the process. I think a lot of people use the term when they see a lot of new programs opening whether for or non-profit just because they know there's a shortage and money to be made.

The NAPLEX is a joke and you'll soon see (assuming your a student by your username) it doesn't take much to pass it. Myself and a lot of colleagues agree that the board process needs to be beefed up a little bit. I scored a 133 out of 150 on the Naplex and I know there were questions I missed, but you'd have to miss a ton to only score a 75. Back in 2003 ish in Kentucky in order to get licensed you have to pass Naplex, pass state law, pass a counseling session with a board member on a few random drugs, do mock pharmacy stations where drugs were being dispensed and you had to find errors at the station or note anything incorrect and there was also a written compounding section. Now those are boards and if you could pass all that, then I'd believe you were "competent."

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I think that's a good point. Different people have different definitions of a diploma mill. Unfortunately, I don't agree with ACPE accreditation policies and no control over supply and demand during the process. I think a lot of people use the term when they see a lot of new programs opening whether for or non-profit just because they know there's a shortage and money to be made.

The NAPLEX is a joke and you'll soon see (assuming your a student by your username) it doesn't take much to pass it. Myself and a lot of colleagues agree that the board process needs to be beefed up a little bit. I scored a 133 out of 150 on the Naplex and I know there were questions I missed, but you'd have to miss a ton to only score a 75. Back in 2003 ish in Kentucky in order to get licensed you have to pass Naplex, pass state law, pass a counseling session with a board member on a few random drugs, do mock pharmacy stations where drugs were being dispensed and you had to find errors at the station or note anything incorrect and there was also a written compounding section. Now those are boards and if you could pass all that, then I'd believe you were "competent."

Am I to understand that you mean that since NO ONE in Kentucky passes those types of boards anymore (because they aren't offered) you don't think any new graduate in Kentucky is "competent?" I'm sure that's not what you mean. There is no one to blame but the State BOP for watering down licensing standards. Yes, the chains lobbied for it, but at the end of the day, the BOP is responsible. Maybe they will reinstate stricter standards in response to the surplus/economic conditions? I wouldnt object, but I also don't really see it happening for a number of reasons (mostly political and economic).

 

[owlegrad]

Owlegrad is correct. ...some other stuff....

😳

 

[PharmD RPh]

Am I to understand that you mean that since NO ONE in Kentucky passes those types of boards anymore (because they aren't offered) you don't think any new graduate in Kentucky is "competent?" I'm sure that's not what you mean. There is no one to blame but the State BOP for watering down licensing standards. Yes, the chains lobbied for it, but at the end of the day, the BOP is responsible. Maybe they will reinstate stricter standards in response to the surplus/economic conditions? I wouldnt object, but I also don't really see it happening for a number of reasons (mostly political and economic).

Nope, you're taking what I'm saying completely the wrong way. I'm a UK alum as well (saw you're a PY2 from profile). And I'm not against new schools opening, but I am against uncontrolled expansion of the pharmacy profession. There have been numerous publications in pharmacy journals indicating that such expansion is bad for our profession because it lowers standards and one could argue how the profession could expand with low standards that some of the schools have for admission and the ease in which pharmacists can obtain licensure now. It's kinda like in undergrad, physics, organic chem etc. were weed out courses that got out people that shouldn't be in pre-professional programs. Or even compare to medicine or dentistry in which boards consists of several components not just a multiple choice computerized exam. And I've worked with pharmacists that give people wrong medication advice and make many errors. Fortunately now that the shortage is over companies don't have to tolerate such a practitioner anymore because that's all they could get. I don't necessiarly agree with your point about not needing hospitals or medical institutions associated with the COP. I definitely think it gives advantage to the COP to have multiple medical disciplines interacting and having faculty such as that we have a UK that teach and practice amongst cutting edge hospital institutions. It has to make for a better program for the student versus a school in which a student just goes to a rotation site with a random preceptor. I guess I'm just frustrated with the outlook of the profession at the current moment.

 

[R2pharmD2]

I don't necessiarly agree with your point about not needing hospitals or medical institutions associated with the COP. I definitely think it gives advantage to the COP to have multiple medical disciplines interacting and having faculty such as that we have a UK that teach and practice amongst cutting edge hospital institutions. It has to make for a better program for the student versus a school in which a student just goes to a rotation site with a random preceptor.

I think the point was that a pharmacy school doesn't NEED an associated hospital or medical school for their students to be successful. There's no debating the fact that it's a definite advantage though.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Nope, you're taking what I'm saying completely the wrong way. I'm a UK alum as well (saw you're a PY2 from profile)...

I'm not a PY2 at UK.

...I don't necessiarly agree with your point about not needing hospitals or medical institutions associated with the COP. I definitely think it gives advantage to the COP to have multiple medical disciplines interacting and having faculty such as that we have a UK that teach and practice amongst cutting edge hospital institutions. It has to make for a better program for the student versus a school in which a student just goes to a rotation site with a random preceptor. I guess I'm just frustrated with the outlook of the profession at the current moment.

That wasn't my point and you've misquoted me in your paraphrase. My point was that not having a medical school or officially linked hospital is not uncommon amongst pharmacy schools, new or old. Not having those linkages is not a hallmark of a new school, nor is it proof that a school is bad. There are plenty of well respected pharmacy schools that don't share a campus with a medical school.

I did say that it's easier in terms of rotations, so I'm not why you thought I said there was no need for hospitals or medical institutions to be associated with the COP. Of course they need both. That's obvious. Furthermore, I doubt that there are any COPs that don't have any associations with other health care organizations. How would they conduct rotations otherwise?

I think the point was that a pharmacy school doesn't NEED an associated hospital or medical school for their students to be successful. There's no debating the fact that it's a definite advantage though.

Agreed.

 

[PharmD RPh]

I bolded your sentence above b/c lack of a medical school affiliation or lack of a officially linked hospital means nothing. There are plenty of schools that have been open a long time that don't have either. It's certainly easier to have an official linkage for scheduling rotations, but it's not that unusual amongst new AND old schools.

You said that means nothing? Guess I just misunderstood your comment there. Regardless I think I'm done with this thread now. 🙄

 

[All4MyDaughter]

You said that means nothing? Guess I just misunderstood your comment there. Regardless I think I'm done with this thread now. 🙄

Did something offend you? I know you are new to SDN but this debate is very mild compared to others that you'll see on the forums. Might need to toughen up? 🙂

Another poster said a for-profit pharmacy school was opening in their state and that the school had no medical school or official hospital affiliation. The implication [as I read it] was that this was a marker or proof that the for profit school is bad. I said that lack of affiliation meant nothing b/c there are tons of other schools that don't have those affiliations. Hope that lays it out more clearly for you.

 

[Smiles425]

All4mydaughter

I've read several recent articles on the pharmacy shortage debate that claim that the future of pharmacy will be team-based. Even though many schools in the past have done well as stand alone schools, there is evidence that suggests that these schools might not do too well in the future because of the direction that pharmacy is heading. Since pharmacy is changing, doesn't make sense to you to at least limit the number of this types of schools in the future? Thanks.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

All4mydaughter

I've read several recent articles on the pharmacy shortage debate that claim that the future of pharmacy will be team-based. Even though many schools in the past have done well as stand alone schools, there is evidence that suggests that these schools might not do too well in the future because of the direction that pharmacy is heading. Since pharmacy is changing, doesn't make sense to you to at least limit the number of this types of schools in the future? Thanks.

What's the evidence? Do you have a link I can review? What mechanism would you suggest for limiting "this types" of schools?

 

[Smiles425]

What's the evidence? Do you have a link I can review? What mechanism would you suggest for limiting "this types" of schools?

Here is something to start you off with but a simple google search on the future pharmacy will yield more.


Read observation number 9 in particular..
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/409605_4

All of this is good info, but read the section titled "Learning team based patient Care"…
http://www.pharmacist.com/Content/C...ing_Expansion_of_Pharmacy_Education_FINAL.pdf


By the way, you are correct. I should say there is concern not "evidence." Sorry about using the wrong word. I agree with the "concern" though. There won't be real "evidence" until we see how the grad can preform in the changing climate of pharmacy

As far as suggesting mechanisms to limit these schools, I know change isn't easy and I'm just a pre-pharm student about to enter pharmacy school. All I'm asking you is doesn't it make sense to change the face of pharmacy education if pharmacy itself is changing? I'm not saying I know the answer of how to change it, I'm just asking you if you agree that the way pharmacists are educated needs to change.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Here is something to start you off with but a simple google search on the future pharmacy will yield more.


Read observation number 9 in particular..
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/409605_4

All of this is good info, but read the section titled "Learning team based patient Care"…
http://www.pharmacist.com/Content/C...ing_Expansion_of_Pharmacy_Education_FINAL.pdf


By the way, you are correct. I should say there is concern not "evidence." Sorry about using the wrong word. I agree with the "concern" though. There won't be real "evidence" until we see how the grad can preform in the changing climate of pharmacy

As far as suggesting mechanisms to limit these schools, I know change isn't easy and I'm just a pre-pharm student about to enter pharmacy school. All I'm asking you is doesn't it make sense to change the face of pharmacy education if pharmacy itself is changing? I'm not saying I know the answer of how to change it, I'm just asking you if you agree that the way pharmacists are educated needs to change.

I don't disagree with any of the information you linked to. I very much agree that pharmacy students should work as part of an interdisciplinary team during their education. The vast majority of classroom coursework in pharmacy school (at new schools and old schools) is done in classes made up only of pharmacy students. In fact, the idea of multidisciplinary class work is very poorly implemented across the spectrum of health professions education.

I believe the majority of pharmacy students work in interdisciplinary teams at least some of the time during their rotations. Of course this is most easily accomplished when the pharmacy school exists on a campus with other health professional schools and an attached hospital. But neither of those things are required if schools secure adequate rotation sites and place faculty into local institutions and develop a good network of preceptors. It can be done. I've seen it.

I don't believe there is a mechanism by which ACPE can prevent schools that don't have on campus medical schools/hospitals (or whatever) from opening pharmacy schools if they meet accreditation standards. What I think ACPE should do instead is set and enforce high standards for the type of rotation experiences students are to have during their education. Require schools to demonstrate capacity to provide enough QUALITY spots for their students to rotate. I believe they already do this, to a degree. Perhaps even stricter requirements are in order?

 

[PharmD RPh]

All4MyDaughter;10469143]I'm not a PY2 at UK

I would change your profile information then as that is misleading.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I would change your profile information then as that is misleading.

What profile are you talking about? 😕

Edit: if you're talking about the blog entry that says

Welcome to my blog. 🙂

I'm a second year pharmacy student at the University of Kentucky. I'm married with one daughter. Here on SDN I am an administrator and a member of the Board of Directors.

then you might want to check the date it was posted. Thanks for the advice though.

 

[PharmD RPh]

What profile are you talking about? 😕

Edit: if you're talking about the blog entry that says



then you might want to check the date it was posted. Thanks for the advice though.

 

[owlegrad]

You crack me up dude. How is responding to your comment and explaining what you saw = you banging your head against a wall?

 

[PharmD RPh]

You crack me up dude. How is responding to your comment and explaining what you saw = you banging your head against a wall?

Some people are just difficult to get through to which makes me want to bang my head against the wall.... Lol

 

[rph3664]

Something like 40% of all student loan defaults are from private for profit colleges (approx. 10 % of the students in this country). Their incentive is to get people enrolled which isn't hard. They can make wild claims, get the student in, and then they don't give a ****. They're streamlined to get anybody a student loan. Once they have those loan dollars, the default doesn't bother them because they're not being paid back, the government is. Most of these schools aren't even regionally accredited.

The woman who cut my hair when I was in college told me about a beauty school in the region that was investigated by the state, not only because of the massive loan default rate, but because so few people who went there were passing boards. When they interviewed the graduates of this program, it was obvious why they weren't passing boards - they were mentally ******ed. 🙁 They had been funneled to this school in some misguided effort to get them off welfare.

Of course, these pop-up schools' tuition just happens to be the maximum student loan benefit allowed by law. 😡

 

[rph3664]

Its kinda interesting how they followed a few undergrad students with odd majors that you wouldn't expect to make much upon graduation and how they borrowed 30K per year for 4 years and weren't concerned with how they might repay that someday.

That's nothing new. There have always been people who majored in art history, religion, English literature, women's studies, etc. with no plans regarding what they planned to do with that degree after graduation. No, they weren't planning to teach or preach. But they were going to head straight to the CEO's office, oh, yes they were!

 

[All4MyDaughter]

You crack me up dude. How is responding to your comment and explaining what you saw = you banging your head against a wall?

Seriously.

Some people are just difficult to get through to which makes me want to bang my head against the wall.... Lol

What? You looked at a blog post from 2007 and assumed it applied to today (2011). I explained. Everything in that post was correct at the time it was written. What's your deal?

 

[rxlea]

I really don't see how asking A4MD to justify her profile or blog or whatever has anything to do with this thread. Let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

Now, I agree with A4MD's take on requiring schools to ensure there are quality rotation sites. Having rotation sites where pharmacy students function as a technician are not the best use of time/resources. How could 'quality' be measured, though?

 

[owlegrad]

I really don't see how asking A4MD to justify her profile or blog or whatever has anything to do with this thread. Let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

Now, I agree with A4MD's take on requiring schools to ensure there are quality rotation sites. Having rotation sites where pharmacy students function as a technician are not the best use of time/resources. How could 'quality' be measured, though?

Really good question, imo. It is just so subjective. Different students have different experiences at the same site. So student evaluations I think are worth considering, but you can't base too much off them. I don't know what other markers you can use. Site visits from faculty maybe? But if you make it to much work for the preceptors you won't have any sites.

Side not, I don't think it is entirely inappropriate to spend part of your time functioning as a tech. Of course if that is all you are doing, yes it's inappropriate. But if you have never stepped foot in a pharmacy, I don't think it is inappropriate to play technician for awhile. I may feel differently during rotations. 😉

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Really good question, imo. It is just so subjective. Different students have different experiences at the same site. So student evaluations I think are worth considering, but you can't base too much off them. I don't know what other markers you can use. Site visits from faculty maybe? But if you make it to much work for the preceptors you won't have any sites.

Side not, I don't think it is entirely inappropriate to spend part of your time functioning as a tech. Of course if that is all you are doing, yes it's inappropriate. But if you have never stepped foot in a pharmacy, I don't think it is inappropriate to play technician for awhile. I may feel differently during rotations. 😉

I think tech work is especially appropriate in IPPE, particulary for student who have never worked in a pharmacy before. It's less so for APPE, but any pharmacy student should be willing to pitch in and do some of the WORK required to keep the pharmacy going. I didn't routinely do tech work on my Advanced Community rotation, but when things got really busy I would pull drugs and help out with other stuff. It's not like there is a strict line between pharmacist and tech in most pharmacies. At least, there shouldn't be when it comes to getting the job done. JMO.

 

[rxlea]

I am under the impression that IPPE serve to teach students about how a pharmacy is run and what pharmacists and technicians do.

Rotations are meant for students to practice being a pharmacist. Rotations should mostly consist of doing that, not performing tech duties.

EDIT: A4MD beat me to that. I will also add that I also agree, pharmacy students should be willing to pitch in where needed.

 

[owlegrad]

I am under the impression that IPPE serve to teach students about how a pharmacy is run and what pharmacists and technicians do.

Rotations are meant for students to practice being a pharmacist. Rotations should mostly consist of doing that, not performing tech duties.

EDIT: A4MD beat me to that. I will also add that I also agree, pharmacy students should be willing to pitch in where needed.

😆

Nah I am just playing around. Some sites do a better job of this than others. My IPPE Institutional Site was worthless. We did an antibiotic stewardship thing, it didn't help us learn how a pharmacy operates at all. Goes back to a good vs bad sites I guess. A good IPPE site would teach a student how to operate in a pharmacy. I have spoken to very few classmates where this is the case though. We are almost always at best just given busy work or worse shoved to the side so the pharmacists can do their job. It is what it is.

The class behind mine (2014) had their IPPE 1+2 requirements changed to require (I think) 50 volunteer hours at a pharmacy. Most I think just volunteered with their IPPE preceptors, but it wasn't required to be at your IPPE site, I think any pharmacy is fine. I have only heard complaints from that class, but at least in concept I think it is a great thing. The more exposure you have early on, the more you can concentrate on higher ordered learning later on, imo.

Huh, I had intended to make this a smart alecy type reply to your post but ended up going a completely different direction. Oh well.

 

[owlegrad]

I think tech work is especially appropriate in IPPE, particulary for student who have never worked in a pharmacy before. It's less so for APPE, but any pharmacy student should be willing to pitch in and do some of the WORK required to keep the pharmacy going. I didn't routinely do tech work on my Advanced Community rotation, but when things got really busy I would pull drugs and help out with other stuff. It's not like there is a strict line between pharmacist and tech in most pharmacies. At least, there shouldn't be when it comes to getting the job done. JMO.

I know what you mean, and I agree.


This is what always makes me go 😕 when I hear classmates complain about summer internships where they -gasp- had to work as technicians. What do you think, that you are going to be so far above a tech that you wouldn't have to fill labels or answer phones? It's one thing to never get a chance to council or make a doctor call as an intern, but it's quite another to think you are to good to pitch in and help get the job done.