Naplex Huge Drop

[doubletwenty]

---

Members don't see this ad.

The naplex pass rate dropped from 87% to 79% nationwide. Is the new naplex that hard?

http://www.pharmacytoday.org/article/S1042-0991(17)30605-9/pdf

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Honestly, it needed to be much harder.

 

[CUpharmD2013]

No, diploma mills are pushing out people who aren't smart enough to pass the test. I work with a PharmD who probably shouldn't be licensed. Scary really.

 

[297point1]

Did anyone even bother to edit that article? (nevermind, it is Pharmacy Today).
That's the 2016 pass rate for all test takers. That table is all screwed up.
Pass rates for all test takers has always been lower than first time test takers.
We've discussed this already.

 

[Lnsean]

No, diploma mills are pushing out people who aren't smart enough to pass the test. I work with a PharmD who probably shouldn't be licensed. Scary really.

meh...it won't push out too many people. They'll retake it until they pass.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Honestly, it needed to be much harder.

This.

It was cakemode. I crammed ceutics calculations for 4 days and killed it.

 

[Pharmibippy]

This.

It was cakemode. I crammed ceutics calculations for 4 days and killed it.

Just to add another data point. Also a 2016 grad that took the exam. Studied for a week and scored well over 100. Questions were so basic it was ridiculous.

 

[Sparda29]

They should just take the material from the BCPS and make that the new NAPLEX.

 

[Niosh]

They should just take the material from the BCPS and make that the new NAPLEX.

That'd be entertaining. What's the first time pass rate for BCPS? 60%? And its known to be difficult.

 

[zelman]

That'd be entertaining. What's the first time pass rate for BCPS? 60%? And its known to be difficult.

They change the "passing score" every six months to control the number of failures. NAPLEX could do the same.

 

[Dred Pirate]

No, diploma mills are pushing out people who aren't smart enough to pass the test. I work with a PharmD who probably shouldn't be licensed. Scary really.

only one? heck I have seen so many come through on interviews that truly made me question how they got through school

 

[northeast-southwest]

The chart is missing 2015 as well. The people that run that website are questionable at best.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

only one? heck I have seen so many come through on interviews that truly made me question how they got through school

I once had a clinical coordinator rudely correct me that ARBs cause cough, not ACEi.
I was a wee P2 so I just nodded.

Everyone is dumb in moments

 

[npage148]

Should have asked them to explain the mechanism, you know, for your education

 

[owlegrad]

I once had a clinical coordinator rudely correct me that ARBs cause cough, not ACEi.
I was a wee P2 so I just nodded.

Everyone is dumb in moments

I have definitely had some moments like that. I once said that going from Lantus 10 units to Toujao 10 units was a huge increase. Oops. 🙁

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

 

[steveysmith54]

Look at the numbers of test takers:
2017 #18,125
2016 #16,661
2012 #14,578

in 2020 Maybe at least 21K takers?

This is insane... roughly 3.5k more test takers in 5 yrs...

 

[confettiflyer]

I have definitely had some moments like that. I once said that going from Lantus 10 units to Toujao 10 units was a huge increase. Oops. 🙁

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

It is a huge increase... in price! 🤣

 

[kboy23799]

No, diploma mills are pushing out people who aren't smart enough to pass the test. I work with a PharmD who probably shouldn't be licensed. Scary really.

I agree with this. A harder test will help weed out some of the people that don't deserve to be in this profession. Therefore, making it less saturated.

I too work with people that don't deserve to be licensed.

 

[zelman]

I agree with this. A harder test will help weed out some of the people that don't deserve to be in this profession. Therefore, making it less saturated.

I too work with people that don't deserve to be licensed.

But people will eventually pass. It's not like thousands of people will say "Well, I failed three times. I guess I wasted $200,000 and 4 years. Time to apply for PA school."

 

[Charcoales]

Sounds great, if they didn't study in school and don't know minimum competency of medications please do not allow them to dispense or modify medicatons

 

[Dred Pirate]

How could you tell just from the interview?

just how they answer questions - when you ask them what their biggest intervention is and they say they found an ancef that was made in 100ml vs 50ml, or when you ask then specific pt scenerios and they look at you like you have 4 eyes - we have had some people that seemed to have no comprehension.

 

[Dred Pirate]

I have definitely had some moments like that. I once said that going from Lantus 10 units to Toujao 10 units was a huge increase. Oops. 🙁

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

we all have brain farts from time to time - but sometimes you can just tell

 

[CYP-0]

Is creating a more difficult NAPLEX exam really the solution to "weeding out" less capable pharmacists?

If someone has the intellectual prowess to pass a significantly more difficult version of the NAPLEX, is that really sufficient to acknowledge him/her as an effective (or "deserving") pharmacist?

Chances are that the individual you think doesn't deserve to be a pharmacist probably scored higher than you on the NAPLEX; or maybe you did score higher, but not by a lot. I won't even take into account the endless variables that may have influenced the scores. But where does that place you then?

I mean, if the only full time job you had for 3 months was to study for NAPLEX, do you think the level of difficulty would matter? ...not to mention you've got up to 5 chances.

At best, a more difficult NAPLEX would produce a higher failure rate for first time attempts. I don't agree that a more difficult NAPLEX is enough to determine who does or doesn't "deserve" to be a pharmacist.

 

[Dred Pirate]

Is creating a more difficult NAPLEX exam really the solution to "weeding out" less capable pharmacists?

If someone has the intellectual prowess to pass a significantly more difficult version of the NAPLEX, is that really sufficient to acknowledge him/her as an effective (or "deserving") pharmacist?

Chances are that the individual you think doesn't deserve to be a pharmacist probably scored higher than you on the NAPLEX; or maybe you did score higher, but not by a lot. I won't even take into account the endless variables that may have influenced the scores. But where does that place you then?

I mean, if the only full time job you had for 3 months was to study for NAPLEX, do you think the level of difficulty would matter? ...not to mention you've got up to 5 chances.

At best, a more difficult NAPLEX would produce a higher failure rate for first time attempts. I don't agree that a more difficult NAPLEX is enough to determine who does or doesn't "deserve" to be a pharmacist.

Although I agree with most of your post - why did you feel the need to add the third paragraph? That seems to get a little personal and make your argument look like sour grapes. My comment was in regards to the fact I see so many people come across my desk that don't have a basic grasp on the job - that is not the naplex's role to rule them out - I place the blame on the schools and them lowering their standards

 

[Charcoales]

I feel like more pharm grads should grad intern for a minimum of a few months to get up to speed to the rest of the Rphs