Uhm, no. Residency is not absolutely required. We hire plenty of RPh's without residency for clinical/staff hybrid positions and I know a lot of other hospitals in the area do too. Also, residency for PharmD is 1-2 years vs. 3-4 for MD. So, no, you are not correct.
EDIT: I think there is a lot of hearsay about the residency required. There may be positions that state "residency preferred", sure. But if you make a really good impression on your rotations, you might have the upper hand against the applicant with residency. Also, it is sometimes about who you know...that is why networking is so important. Two of our last hires were straight out of school (no residency) but they knew people in the department...</p>
I'm not talking about special circumstances where people knew other people in some department or have connections via friends/family. Those are rare cases and should not be discussed as such. I'm talking about normal situations where you just graduate with a pharmD vs someone who has a residency. All else being equal, your chance of getting a hospital related job is slim to none compared to a candidate with a residency.
Furthermore, you are not the only one who can make a good impression on your rotation. The candidate with residency most likely have made good impression not only on their rotation but also on their residency (thats one of the reason why they got their residency to begin with).
Pharmacy is changing very quickly. 10 years ago, you dont ever need a residency to get a hospital related job, and you don't need a bachelor degree to get into a pharmacy school, but now everything has changed. Most pharmacy schools now require bachelor degree prior to admission into pharmacy school, especially in competitive regions like California. It only gets more competitive down the line, especially to the orignal poster since he/she is only in highschool and by the time he got into pharmacy and graduates (maybe another 8-10 years in the future assuming he got his Bachelor first), residency may not be optional anymore. That's just hospital related job. For Amcare position, right now 1 year residency is required and 2 years is prefered, but in 8-10 years, that may change to 2 years requirement.
What I'm saying is that the original poster and many others who haven't absolutely decided that pharmacy is their career choice, they may not know that they can spend roughly the same time studying other medical related fields such as MD/DO/DDS and have a much more rewarding result than pharmD in terms of job/monetary compensation. You may spend an additional 1 to 2 years for MD compared to PharmD assuming residency is the path you take, but if you already spend 10 years of schooling in either path, an additional 1 to 2 years of residency is not that significant compared to what you will get out of it in the end.
As I mentioned before, when I decided that pharmacy is for me (by volunteering in a pharmacy/hospital/working as an inpatient tech in the weekends), I did not know how much clinical is involved in a PharmD and I wanted a quickest way to finish school, not that I am less intelligent nor capable as other MD/DO student. I'm sure many prepharm students on this forum are like me. This is my advice for them. If you are capable, hardworking, smart, don't narrow down your choice to just PharmD based on your initial thoughts of the length of study and how "easy" it is.
However, if you don't have much time and you know your capabilities and you are absolutely sure that pharmacy is the only career you like, by all means choose pharmacy since you already knew what you want.