New Pharmacy schools opening fall 2009???

[meteorstar]

Does anybody know any new pharmacy school that's accepting its first class of 2009 or any place that i can find such a list?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tellsarah]

How about opening in 2010 also?

 

[DeterminedGal09]

Have you guys tried googling it?
Google is your friend LoL

BUT yeah, thats a good question

 

[Klemmentine]

2009: California North State University

2011-2012: Central Valley School of Pharmacy (possibly) and I've also heard a school in Oakland may be opening up.

 

[drugdoc]

AACP.org is your friend for all these types of questions.

 

[collegegirl247]

I haven't really heard very much chatter about schools for fall 2009- but you would probably have just as much luck at schools that start their first class in fall 2008 such as Lipscomb University (Nashville). I think before the school graduates their first class (4 years), it makes its much easier to get into than more established schools...good luck!

 

[twester]

Regis University in Denver Fall 2009 50 students

 

[collegegirl247]

Regis University in Denver Fall 2009 50 students

wow thats a pretty small class size!

 

[wannabpharmbad]

University of Dallas is planning to open in fall 2010

 

[lychee719]

How do you apply to CA North state?

 

[Shelabo]

Husson College, Bangor, ME - Professional program Fall '09
University of New England, Biddeford, ME, although the actually pharmacy school is going to be at the Windham campus, near Portland. - Professional program Fall '09
Western Mass, somewhere in Western, MA - Prof. Program Fall '10

... all of these are pre-candidate status, so who really knows...

 

[Aggie07]

University of Dallas is planning to open in fall 2010

Wow, because we need more pharmacy schools in Texas.

 

[bacillus1]

Too many new pharmacy schools opening up. I hope the pharmacy field doesn't become oversaturated with qualified professionals. I want a good job upon graduation.

 

[meteorstar]

how come it's getting harder to get into pharmacy school even though there's a whole bunch of new ones opening?

 

[Aggie07]

Too many new pharmacy schools opening up. I hope the pharmacy field doesn't become oversaturated with qualified professionals. I want a good job upon graduation.

I think in a few years it will be a big problem. We will have 7 pharmacy schools in Texas after UD opens up. Eventually CVS is going to run out of street corners.

 

[bacillus1]

I think in a few years it will be a big problem. We will have 7 pharmacy schools in Texas after UD opens up. Eventually CVS is going to run out of street corners.

We already have 7 in Pennsylvania (where I go to school) as of this year. More are opening in the next few years.

Yet Delaware (my home state) still doesn't even have one , so I'm forced to go out of state.

It all started in 1998 when they made the PharmD mandatory (and my school increased its PharmD class from 15 or so to 300), and IMO will keep on going until soon enough pharmacy becomes a mandatory 8-year program.

 

[foreveryours07]

AACP.org is your friend for all these types of questions.

i see that you go to creighton pharmacy school? how do you like it there? and what was your gpa when you got accepted, because creighton is one of my top choices to go to pharmacy school .

 

[themulya]

i see that you go to creighton pharmacy school? how do you like it there? and what was your gpa when you got accepted, because creighton is one of my top choices to go to pharmacy school .

ok. so, if you want to find out more information about creighton you should use the search function that this forum provides. I think one of the old creighton threads has some students talking about their GPAs and such.

Also, if for some reason you really wanted to talk to drugdoc, you could click her name and send her a PM. Or, you could revive an old creighton thread or even start a new one and get responses from creighton students. However, the least likely way to get an answer to your question would be to ask it in a thread that is a year old and has nothing to do with the subject.

 

[k0ni]

Too many new pharmacy schools opening up. I hope the pharmacy field doesn't become oversaturated with qualified professionals. I want a good job upon graduation.

The field has already become saturated in many areas... It makes me sad when I think about it, especially after taking out more loans to pay for school.

 

[Passion4Sci]

The field has already become saturated in many areas... It makes me sad when I think about it, especially after taking out more loans to pay for school.

There are few professions around that aren't saturated to some degree. Granted, the money involved is pretty prohibitive, but you can do a lot with a Pharm.D. The flexibility is only growing, and if you can add, say, an MPH or an MBA onto your credentials, you'll be extremely well off. Even purely recession-proof jobs like police officers are seeing cuts, at least here in CA.

I am not too worried about saturation. I realize that, in any market, there will be competition. The time for pharmacists to walk in somewhere and pick up a $30,000 signing bonus are long gone but there are still options. I guess the only thing that'd be better would be an MD in general practice. But I mean, who wants to do that?

All I hope for is that there is a decent return for the investment, and that I can afford to pay off the loans by the time it is necessary, but I am optimistic.

 

[jasonbourne]

University of North Texas 2011

 

[117296]

i see that you go to creighton pharmacy school? how do you like it there? and what was your gpa when you got accepted, because creighton is one of my top choices to go to pharmacy school .

See other Creighton threads.

 

[BustyPharmD]

its too late... its going to happen.... =( nothing is going to stop people from making money from the profession ... unless pharmacist put their foot down and they won't... so... more schools... more supply>demand and so on... there's a whole thread on this...

 

[AKN16]

University of Dallas is planning to open in fall 2010

...

That would be such a sweet school to go to! Ahh the nightlife.....

 

[glory4england]

University of North Texas 2011

Both schools (UNT and University of Dallas) have cancelled/postponed indefinitely their plans to open a pharmacy school in Texas due to the economic downturn (UNT instead is trying to open up a law school). This is good because Texas already have 6 schools, two of which haven't graduated their first class yet. ^^

 

[Passion4Sci]

Yeah, the US needs another Tier 4 law school.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

nys has 7, soon to be 8. I never thought we would beat Penn but...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Yeah, the US needs another Tier 4 law school.

Better than a third tier pharmacy school....when there used to be only one tier...

 

[Passion4Sci]

Better than a third tier pharmacy school....when there used to be only one tier...

Well, I realize there has been a huge outgrowth in terms of pharmacy schools in the past 5 to 6 years, but I think law schools have already gotten to the point of audacity that pharmacy has yet to reach. At the point when you either go to UCSF, UT-Austin, UCNC, Purdue and a few others or they can't get a job, then it'll be comparable to law.

As it stands in the law world, unless you're coming out of a top 20 school (and even THAT is in contention depending on what circle you run in), you can expect a pretty dismal job outlook.

Granted, CNCP and other new schools have yet to graduate their first class, but folks graduating this year are finding jobs just as fine as they were a couple years ago. Look at you for example, Mikey. Graduated... Got a job... and according to US News Review, you didn't even graduate from a top 20 pharmacy school. Not trying to pick a fight here, but saying another Tier 4 law school is BETTER (in terms of the profession) than a Tier 3 pharmacy school is disingenuous.

 

[fenderbiz]

...like it really matters. You only have one life, so do what makes you happy (hopefully something productive). Monetary policy has ruined us. It is sad, really.

About the new schools...USF was working on getting a new school for '10, but they got delayed, though they said they will keep trying.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Granted, CNCP and other new schools have yet to graduate their first class, but folks graduating this year are finding jobs just as fine as they were a couple years ago.

No they aren't. I know from first hand experience with local folks...and from reading the actual pharmacy forums.

Look at you for example, Mikey. Graduated... Got a job...

And you conveniently left out the fact that I didn't get a job until two months after I graduated when I completely lucked out as a hospital I did a rotation at had someone retire and a recruiter just happened to call me about the job.

and according to US News Review, you didn't even graduate from a top 20 pharmacy school.

lmao....those rankings are terrible, anyway...

Not trying to pick a fight here, but saying another Tier 4 law school is BETTER (in terms of the profession) than a Tier 3 pharmacy school is disingenuous.

This is true...because we aren't at that point yet. However, I am concerned that we may get to that point. Especially if this influx of new grads from new schools that seem to multiply exponentially isn't curbed somehow.

 

[IrishHammer]

nys has 7, soon to be 8. I never thought we would beat Penn but...

I'm hoping it doesn't happen, but I'm surprised that no school around the Syracuse/Watertown/Binghamton/general Central New York area has yet piped up about having a school. Of the 8 schools, 5 are around Albany/NYC and 3 are in Western New York, which leaves a pretty big gap in the middle of the state.

 

[Passion4Sci]

No they aren't. I know from first hand experience with local folks...and from reading the actual pharmacy forums.

Two can play the anecdote game! People posting on Pharmacy forums about not getting employment are more likely going to be in de facto distress than their well-employed compatriots. Thus, there is a sample bias error in your example of SDN. Furthermore, I know 7 people who graduated this year who are already employed. 5 of them did need to travel outside of California, however 2 retained their California residency and got hired on at their first or second choice. 2 of my friends are being cherry-picked into industry jobs. Just because SDN says the sky is falling doesn't mean it is - Your .357 magnum brain should know that.

And you conveniently left out the fact that I didn't get a job until two months after I graduated when I completely lucked out as a hospital I did a rotation at had someone retire and a recruiter just happened to call me about the job.

Fair - I am not an expert on your career and I apologize for that oversight. However, you did get the job, and I don't believe in luck. Your qualifications and history got you the job, not some esoteric "good vibe" from the cosmos. "Right place at the right time" doctrine does have limitations.

lmao....those rankings are terrible, anyway...

Oh, is that so? And what metric would you prefer to use, Mikey? Something the "real" Pharmacy forum cooked up (The same sample bias error applies)? The criteria that USNR ranks on is recognized as being as impartial and fair as possible with rankings, and we DO need some way of stratifying schools in terms of reputation (As you yourself have used the verbiage "tier", you are tacitly agreeing to the need for such). I mean hell, you yourself used the example in the other thread - An employer has a choice between someone graduating from Belmont and someone graduating from U of Tennessee. All other things equal for the sake of argument, which does said employer choose? Your nested assumption is that, obviously, the employer chooses U of T over Belmont. In this sense, you're already in compliance with USNR, like it or not. They'd probably agree with you...

This is true...because we aren't at that point yet. However, I am concerned that we may get to that point. Especially if this influx of new grads from new schools that seem to multiply exponentially isn't curbed somehow.

Ah, we agree on something! I think you're right, we may get to that point, perhaps even in the near future. That being said, "A pharm.D is a Pharm.D" still applies unilaterally. In this sense, it's more like every OTHER job in America (And better than most).

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Two can play the anecdote game! People posting on Pharmacy forums about not getting employment are more likely going to be in de facto distress than their well-employed compatriots. Thus, there is a sample bias error in your example of SDN. Furthermore, I know 7 people who graduated this year who are already employed. 5 of them did need to travel outside of California, however 2 retained their California residency and got hired on at their first or second choice. 2 of my friends are being cherry-picked into industry jobs. Just because SDN says the sky is falling doesn't mean it is - Your .357 magnum brain should know that.

Anecdotal evidence is a bitch...but any study you see out there is going to be a few years behind using older data from when the economy was doing better. I can't rely on those for an accurate picture of right now, either. But without question, there is a hiring squeeze in the profession right not. You obviously don't know many people if you don't think this is the case. New grads are having a tough time getting quality jobs right now. Now the REAL question is whether not it is transient. Hopefully it isn't. But with all of these exogenous forces (Walgreen's POWER, the economy sucking balls, older people not retiring because if it...etc) AND add that to the fact that we have gone from around 80 pharmacy schools to, what, 120 schools? It has me worried - very worried.

Fair - I am not an expert on your career and I apologize for that oversight. However, you did get the job, and I don't believe in luck. Your qualifications and history got you the job, not some esoteric "good vibe" from the cosmos. "Right place at the right time" doctrine does have limitations.

Sure, it was impressing people on a rotation that ultimately got me THAT job...but if person didn't retire, I'd be scrapping by on temp jobs. It's a dash of luck for me, too.

Oh, is that so? And what metric would you prefer to use, Mikey?

We already developed one. It's the "decent, kinda shady but acceptable, and just flat out shady" system. We've found it works well.

Something the "real" Pharmacy forum cooked up (The same sample bias error applies)? The criteria that USNR ranks on is recognized as being as impartial and fair as possible with rankings,

Who recognizes them as fair? They are based upon very little empirical evidence...just grants and the opinions of academics. Why don't they send me a little card to vote? I have seen dozens of kids from a dozen different schools rotate through my hospital, and I think my opinion of who has the best education in my region would easily trump that of an academic. Plus, and the last time I looked the didn't take them into account, but average NAPLEX scores and NAPLEX passing rates weren't even part of the equaiton. Hell, that should be THE most important thing if we are really being emperical about it because its the only standard we have to compare the actual products of these schools.

and we DO need some way of stratifying schools in terms of reputation (As you yourself have used the verbiage "tier", you are tacitly agreeing to the need for such). I mean hell, you yourself used the example in the other thread - An employer has a choice between someone graduating from Belmont and someone graduating from U of Tennessee. All other things equal for the sake of argument, which does said employer choose? Your nested assumption is that, obviously, the employer chooses U of T over Belmont. In this sense, you're already in compliance with USNR, like it or not. They'd probably agree with you...

See...it's not that I disagree with the idea of tiers...not at all...in fact, I soon think we will pretty much need them...it's the methodology of the most referenced source that I find questionable. It's all smoke an mirrors to me.

That being said, "A pharm.D is a Pharm.D" still applies unilaterally. In this sense, it's more like every OTHER job in America (And better than most).

For now. In the very near future. But I have very real concerns, as do many people in the industry. I went to the PA hospital pharmacists' convention last October and the concern over the alarming rate of schools opening was a hot topic of discussion. This isn't just the ramblings of a few dorks on SDN...this is a real concern...from people with decades of experience in the industry. They are concerned about a decrease in quality - both in applicants and jobs available. Now, granted, PA has about a blue billion pharmacy schools and is surrounded by state with new schools opening...so they are naturally going to be saturated...but what if schools just keep opening at a steady rate? I mean, hell, this **** needs to stop eventually...

 

[Passion4Sci]

Anecdotal evidence is a bitch...but any study you see out there is going to be a few years behind using older data from when the economy was doing better. I can't rely on those for an accurate picture of right now, either. But without question, there is a hiring squeeze in the profession right not. You obviously don't know many people if you don't think this is the case. New grads are having a tough time getting quality jobs right now. Now the REAL question is whether not it is transient. Hopefully it isn't. But with all of these exogenous forces (Walgreen's POWER, the economy sucking balls, older people not retiring because if it...etc) AND add that to the fact that we have gone from around 80 pharmacy schools to, what, 120 schools? It has me worried - very worried.

I think there is a hiring squeeze for ANY profession right now, Mikey. I know you're toting a .357 instead of a .22, so you should have noticed that we are in the middle of the worst depression since the crash in '29. This has far reaching consequences unlike we saw in the mild depression in the 1980s. I think it's unfair to say, "OMG, Pharmacists are having trouble getting jobs" when everyone is having trouble getting jobs. But they're out there. You might need to go outside your comfort zone, think outside Big Box Retail or relocate, but they're there. I hear Texas needs Pharmacists. I'm sure there are rural positions in Wyoming, the Dakotas, etc. But everyone would prefer their cake without calories. In brighter times, that'd be fine, but the entire country-nay-the entire world writ large is experiencing belt-tightening. It's par for the course. I am worried too, though, about the increase in opening of Pharmacy schools. That said, perhaps it'll serve to make hiring more stringent and maybe the level of care can improve. And, just maybe, we'll expand our role in the health care profession beyond what, 70% of our ranks doing the retail pharmacy gig?

Sure, it was impressing people on a rotation that ultimately got me THAT job...but if person didn't retire, I'd be scrapping by on temp jobs. It's a dash of luck for me, too.

Nested assumption: Had you not gotten the job you are in (that you got, through your own admission, by impressing people on the rotation), you may be working at an even better place. Point being: You can't tell the future, but you can tell what you're currently doing. You were out of school a whopping ~8 weeks and landed a VERY nice clinpharm job. Why can't other people? Anecdote be damned, they can.

We already developed one. It's the "decent, kinda shady but acceptable, and just flat out shady" system. We've found it works well.

And by what methods do you base judgment? On how much the tuition is, on NAPLEX pass rate, (95% of schools with >90% 1st time pass, there's no comparison there), faculty:student ratio? Enlighten me.

Who recognizes them as fair? They are based upon very little empirical evidence...just grants and the opinions of academics. Why don't they send me a little card to vote? I have seen dozens of kids from a dozen different schools rotate through my hospital, and I think my opinion of who has the best education in my region would easily trump that of an academic. Plus, and the last time I looked the didn't take them into account, but average NAPLEX scores and NAPLEX passing rates weren't even part of the equaiton. Hell, that should be THE most important thing if we are really being emperical about it because its the only standard we have to compare the actual products of these schools.

I think you're considering USNR to be oversimplified rankings. I'll direct you to this link and you can brush up on the subject matter. Several criteria are considered, including "little cards" given to professionals who do the HIRING, not entry-level clinical pharmacists who aren't qualified to make such judgments. It's no surprise you haven't been asked to help with their studies, you're prejudicial and awkwardly biased toward it for whatever reason. It's as empirical as rankings can be, and since you've accepted that rankings are a necessary evil, and going by how in-depth USNR goes into each school, I believe it's a fair system.

See...it's not that I disagree with the idea of tiers...not at all...in fact, I soon think we will pretty much need them...it's the methodology of the most referenced source that I find questionable. It's all smoke an mirrors to me.

"To me" is important there. I submit to you that no ranking system will ever be perfect. As there is corruption in humanity, as there will be corruption in everything with money involved. But to avoid too much dogma, I think we need to look at why USNR is the most referenced source, and why, given their exhausting criteria with which they use to rank schools, you think it's "smoke and mirrors." Granted, the pharmacy school rankings are in their infancy as this profession in its current iteration is too. To be sure, part of what makes Harvard distinct from, say, Humphreys School of Law (Tier 3), is the level of professor you get (Alan Dershowitz, for just one example) and thus what kind of legal education you're expected to get in kind. Pharmacy, as it is so young and without notoriety (Big bottle o' pills - Little bottle o' pills), can't have this distinction. Fair. But I think branding USNR as wholly fictional and completely unrealistic is also a severe exaggeration.

For now. In the very near future. But I have very real concerns, as do many people in the industry. I went to the PA hospital pharmacists' convention last October and the concern over the alarming rate of schools opening was a hot topic of discussion. This isn't just the ramblings of a few dorks on SDN...this is a real concern...from people with decades of experience in the industry. They are concerned about a decrease in quality - both in applicants and jobs available. Now, granted, PA has about a blue billion pharmacy schools and is surrounded by state with new schools opening...so they are naturally going to be saturated...but what if schools just keep opening at a steady rate? I mean, hell, this **** needs to stop eventually...

I don't mean to discount your concerns whatsoever. I work in the industry too, as a tech in an independent pharmacy and as a volunteer lead at a massive metropolitan county hospital. I get to see both sides of the coin and I agree with you. Some of the 4th year pharmacy students we have speak at our PPT presentations can barely talk about, for instance, what Nicotine is and how it affects our neurotransmitters. There is a distinction between one of our P4s, who is attending Touro (ugly crest, btw) and the other resident who is out of UCSF. And, lo and behold, the quality of individual reflects USNR perfectly. By chance, Mikey, have you had any residents from UCSF perform poorly?

You won't find any argument from me about pharmacy school proliferation and it possibly reflecting negatively on the profession. I think, however, with some work and some advocacy, we can harness the tier system and work it to our advantage. That is to say, with no hubris, if you graduate from a <T1, maybe T2 school, you are restricted in practice to Retail, whereas if you graduate from a T1 school, you have more options such as research and working in clinical pharmacy, compounding, nuclear, etc. These natural stratifications occur in medicine, law, psychology, and other fields which award doctoral-level degrees.

I do think a cogent problem is the expense of pharmacy schools vs. the possibility of declining salary in the next 5-10 years. Using Psychology, my prior field of study into the doctoral level, as a rubric, we can expect to see salaries decrease by $10,000 to $15,000 in widespread geographic areas while "diploma mills" continue to open (Belmont, CNCP) and sucker people desperate to add "Dr" to their name or an easy six-figure salary (Thanks, Yahoo!) into forking over 200 grand for a Pharm.D. Ultimately, NAPLEX (Much like the APA license board in psychology) will be the culling tool. But what of the students being done a disservice by these "schools"?

Look at what's happening to the poor prospectives at California Northstate. Because it isn't accredited yet they can't get subsidized federal loans, and they're forced into applying for Sallie Mae loans which aren't even, by and large, deferred until post-graduation.

We agree that there IS a problem. What we don't agree on is who it'll affect, when, why and how. Fine by me, as a discussion among people interested and informed is always a good time. One thing is certain... I am thrilled to be a part of this profession at such a fulcrum in time.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I think there is a hiring squeeze for ANY profession right now, Mikey. I know you're toting a .357 instead of a .22, so you should have noticed that we are in the middle of the worst depression since the crash in '29. This has far reaching consequences unlike we saw in the mild depression in the 1980s. I think it's unfair to say, "OMG, Pharmacists are having trouble getting jobs" when everyone is having trouble getting jobs.

I do agree that the economy has a role - however, pharmacy jobs are among the most steady, even in the face of a recession. It's not like hospitals are reducing the amount of positions - yet there aren't as many hospital jobs out there as a few years ago. I know, this is all anecdotal...but it's something I just can't shake...plus retail pharmacy keeps taking hits in the workforce outside of things that can't simply be blamed on the economy. Such as central fill pharmacy.

I am worried too, though, about the increase in opening of Pharmacy schools. That said, perhaps it'll serve to make hiring more stringent and maybe the level of care can improve. And, just maybe, we'll expand our role in the health care profession beyond what, 70% of our ranks doing the retail pharmacy gig?

Personally, I hope 70% keep doing retail, especially when the recession goes away. **** jobs are what drives salaries up...

Nested assumption: Had you not gotten the job you are in (that you got, through your own admission, by impressing people on the rotation), you may be working at an even better place. Point being: You can't tell the future, but you can tell what you're currently doing. You were out of school a whopping ~8 weeks and landed a VERY nice clinpharm job. Why can't other people? Anecdote be damned, they can.

Well, technically, I started looking around January. I was done with school then. Nobody was hiring for that long that I could even apply to. That it was only 8 weeks post the arbitrary graduation date was luck in timing and in being in the right place at the right time.

And by what methods do you base judgment? On how much the tuition is, on NAPLEX pass rate, (95% of schools with >90% 1st time pass, there's no comparison there), faculty:student ratio? Enlighten me.

If it were me, NAPLEX score would be the biggest thing. Of all of the things to use, that has to be #1...it's literally the only empirical piece of data they have to work with.

I think you're considering USNR to be oversimplified rankings. I'll direct you to this link and you can brush up on the subject matter. Several criteria are considered, including "little cards" given to professionals who do the HIRING, not entry-level clinical pharmacists who aren't qualified to make such judgments. It's no surprise you haven't been asked to help with their studies, you're prejudicial and awkwardly biased toward it for whatever reason. It's as empirical as rankings can be, and since you've accepted that rankings are a necessary evil, and going by how in-depth USNR goes into each school, I believe it's a fair system.

Nah, it's not really that accurate based on what I've seen from 4th year students. Unless by incredible miracle I've been getting the bottom of the barrel from top 10 schools and the Stephen Hawkings out of the lower ranked schools. I just don't see the distinction between the kids that usnwr's study would lead me to believe there should be.

"To me" is important there. I submit to you that no ranking system will ever be perfect. As there is corruption in humanity, as there will be corruption in everything with money involved. But to avoid too much dogma, I think we need to look at why USNR is the most referenced source, and why, given their exhausting criteria with which they use to rank schools, you think it's "smoke and mirrors."

If its based on the bull**** criteria you linked to up there, then yes, it's exceedingly weak.

Granted, the pharmacy school rankings are in their infancy as this profession in its current iteration is too. To be sure, part of what makes Harvard distinct from, say, Humphreys School of Law (Tier 3), is the level of professor you get (Alan Dershowitz, for just one example) and thus what kind of legal education you're expected to get in kind. Pharmacy, as it is so young and without notoriety (Big bottle o' pills - Little bottle o' pills), can't have this distinction. Fair. But I think branding USNR as wholly fictional and completely unrealistic is also a severe exaggeration.

But that's the thing, I really don't think its possible. Another issue is that pharmacy is an incredibly regional thing. The best kids typically go to their state school because they are going to get a top notch education at a very cheap price. So there isn't that much funneling of candidates into the "top" schools as in other disciplines like law. If you are from WV and you want to be a pharmacist, you go to WV, not UCSF. Even if you are the best potential candidate in the world. And with this in mind, the interregional mingling isn't that great, either. It's idiotic to think that a legitimate national ranking can be formulated. I can tell you which schools are the best in my region with a degree of confidence...but nationally...no clue. I would be much more apt to buy the idea of a regional ranking. And anyone who claims they can compare the grads from the East Coast to the ones from the West Coast is selling you snake oil. But isn't that exactly what USN is doing?

I don't mean to discount your concerns whatsoever. I work in the industry too, as a tech in an independent pharmacy and as a volunteer lead at a massive metropolitan county hospital. I get to see both sides of the coin and I agree with you. Some of the 4th year pharmacy students we have speak at our PPT presentations can barely talk about, for instance, what Nicotine is and how it affects our neurotransmitters. There is a distinction between one of our P4s, who is attending Touro (ugly crest, btw) and the other resident who is out of UCSF. And, lo and behold, the quality of individual reflects USNR perfectly. By chance, Mikey, have you had any residents from UCSF perform poorly?

Never worked with a UCSF kid. But I can give you an idea of my own region. Hell, I'll name names.

I honestly think that kids from Maryland and Ohio State aren't any better in practice than kids from Pitt and WVU - yet the rankings show wide difference. And I'm not a fan of the WVU pharmacy school, so don't think I'm biased towards them, either. I REALLY would like to bash them, but when I compare their students to students from other schools...they are pretty decent usually. Duquesne and LECOM kids are usually a tad "lost", but they have the knowledge. They just need some real world experience and they become fantastic. The kids from the new schools are typically completely clueless. Like embarrassingly clueless.

Honestly, I think that's my problem, too. I'd bet dimes to dollars that there isn't any discernible difference between anyone in the "top 40" schools. Because I've never seen any. Probably an even wider net. I guess USN has a rough idea...but that's about it. I agree though...they are better off to tier than to actually rank order. Honestly, I've never seen any difference in any of the better big state schools. Their students are always sharp. And I see 2-4 students a month every month. My hospital is located in this weird geographic locale where kids from 4 states will come in and rotate.

You won't find any argument from me about pharmacy school proliferation and it possibly reflecting negatively on the profession. I think, however, with some work and some advocacy, we can harness the tier system and work it to our advantage. That is to say, with no hubris, if you graduate from a <T1, maybe T2 school, you are restricted in practice to Retail, whereas if you graduate from a T1 school, you have more options such as research and working in clinical pharmacy, compounding, nuclear, etc. These natural stratifications occur in medicine, law, psychology, and other fields which award doctoral-level degrees.

I think it would be easier just to not hire anybody from a school that was founded after the turn of the century. Like I said, we should use my three tiered system. It's incredibly simple...

I do think a cogent problem is the expense of pharmacy schools vs. the possibility of declining salary in the next 5-10 years. Using Psychology, my prior field of study into the doctoral level, as a rubric, we can expect to see salaries decrease by $10,000 to $15,000 in widespread geographic areas while "diploma mills" continue to open (Belmont, CNCP) and sucker people desperate to add "Dr" to their name or an easy six-figure salary (Thanks, Yahoo!) into forking over 200 grand for a Pharm.D. Ultimately, NAPLEX (Much like the APA license board in psychology) will be the culling tool. But what of the students being done a disservice by these "schools"?

Basically my concern...and the NAPLEX is too easy, too. I studied for 5 hours and killed it. That's the first thing that needs a repairin'.

Look at what's happening to the poor prospectives at California Northstate. Because it isn't accredited yet they can't get subsidized federal loans, and they're forced into applying for Sallie Mae loans which aren't even, by and large, deferred until post-graduation.

Hopefully they don't get HICP'd.

 

[Passion4Sci]

I do agree that the economy has a role - however, pharmacy jobs are among the most steady, even in the face of a recession. It's not like hospitals are reducing the amount of positions - yet there aren't as many hospital jobs out there as a few years ago. I know, this is all anecdotal...but it's something I just can't shake...plus retail pharmacy keeps taking hits in the workforce outside of things that can't simply be blamed on the economy. Such as central fill pharmacy.

What things, praytell, is retail pharmacy being hit with other than the terrible economy?

Personally, I hope 70% keep doing retail, especially when the recession goes away. **** jobs are what drives salaries up...

I don't agree. I think the existence of **** jobs are what colors society at large (read: also the people that make decisions about who gets what salary) about a profession. Common train of thought from layperson X:
"Physician - Ohhh, medical school, hard, lots of years, super knowledge, hard to see... Must be expensive!"
"Pharmacist - LOL s/he works in Rite-Aid and Long's, and what the hell does s/he do differently than the tech making $11/hr?"

Due to the existence of us in retail facilities, I believe we will actually see less salary turnaround when the depression lifts. However, a lot of this is conjecture so... We'll just have to 'wait and see'.

Well, technically, I started looking around January. I was done with school then. Nobody was hiring for that long that I could even apply to. That it was only 8 weeks post the arbitrary graduation date was luck in timing and in being in the right place at the right time.

Semantics - There is no such thing as luck and being in the right place at the right time was ONLY a small portion of what really matters... your skill. I don't buy this argument at all.

If it were me, NAPLEX score would be the biggest thing. Of all of the things to use, that has to be #1...it's literally the only empirical piece of data they have to work with.

NAPLEX score would be the biggest thing, is that so? You said, "Basically my concern...and the NAPLEX is too easy, too" but then wish to maintain that it's a reliable metric at all? I agree, it's probably too easy compared to other "licensing" exams like the BAR, but we're basically mano-e-mano on sand right now aren't we? I mean hell, we can't even agree on anything EXCEPT that there "should" be a ranking system. You detest the only tried and true ranking system that exists in America, and wish to propagate you anecdotally-driven experience.

Nah, it's not really that accurate based on what I've seen from 4th year students. Unless by incredible miracle I've been getting the bottom of the barrel from top 10 schools and the Stephen Hawkings out of the lower ranked schools. I just don't see the distinction between the kids that usnwr's study would lead me to believe there should be.

Again, what you've seen. Praytell, how many P4s have you PERSONALLY seen and worked with? Maybe 1% of the total population in the country? 1/10th of 1%? Come on, this is anecdote at its finest. How can I possibly argue with your experience being such that top 10 schools are producing poor P4s while the bottom rung schools are all churning out mad scientist brilliance? Such is the impasse. At my hospital in California, which by everyone's admission IS a much more competitive place than West Virginia or Pennsylvania for all fields, not just pharmacy (but law, medicine, etc), the lower-tiered students show it. There is absolutely ZERO comparison between my UCSF resident and their Touro, Western and Creighton contemporaries.

If its based on the bull**** criteria you linked to up there, then yes, it's exceedingly weak.

No offense, but your ranking system is bull**** too, then. Fair? Alright.

But that's the thing, I really don't think its possible. Another issue is that pharmacy is an incredibly regional thing. The best kids typically go to their state school because they are going to get a top notch education at a very cheap price. So there isn't that much funneling of candidates into the "top" schools as in other disciplines like law. If you are from WV and you want to be a pharmacist, you go to WV, not UCSF. Even if you are the best potential candidate in the world. And with this in mind, the interregional mingling isn't that great, either. It's idiotic to think that a legitimate national ranking can be formulated. I can tell you which schools are the best in my region with a degree of confidence...but nationally...no clue. I would be much more apt to buy the idea of a regional ranking. And anyone who claims they can compare the grads from the East Coast to the ones from the West Coast is selling you snake oil. But isn't that exactly what USN is doing?

There are several "top" law schools which are state-run institutions as well. In fact, UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall has the number one intellectual property program in the country and yep, it's a state school. I agree that the "seeding" of students into law schools is different than pharmacy schools for a myriad of reasons, mostly owing though to the relative infancy of pharmacy in its current iteration. I stand by USNR's ranking system but we can go back and forth until kingdom come with anecdote. Clearly we're again at an impasse.


Never worked with a UCSF kid. But I can give you an idea of my own region. Hell, I'll name names.

I honestly think that kids from Maryland and Ohio State aren't any better in practice than kids from Pitt and WVU - yet the rankings show wide difference. And I'm not a fan of the WVU pharmacy school, so don't think I'm biased towards them, either. I REALLY would like to bash them, but when I compare their students to students from other schools...they are pretty decent usually. Duquesne and LECOM kids are usually a tad "lost", but they have the knowledge. They just need some real world experience and they become fantastic. The kids from the new schools are typically completely clueless. Like embarrassingly clueless.

Honestly, I think that's my problem, too. I'd bet dimes to dollars that there isn't any discernible difference between anyone in the "top 40" schools. Because I've never seen any. Probably an even wider net. I guess USN has a rough idea...but that's about it. I agree though...they are better off to tier than to actually rank order. Honestly, I've never seen any difference in any of the better big state schools. Their students are always sharp. And I see 2-4 students a month every month. My hospital is located in this weird geographic locale where kids from 4 states will come in and rotate.

Tiering will happen when there are more schools with enough established history to do so. It seems like the older a school is, the higher its rank is likely to be. There are obvious exceptions to this rule, and of course, you have to realize that the majority of the top spots in Law and med school rankings simply don't have pharmacy schools to compare. This leaves a dearth of private schools beyond the diploma mill crap we see coming out of places like Belmont and Cal Northstate and Touro-CA, and this is very nicely reflected in USNR. Maybe it does only give a ROUGH idea, as you said, which I can concede. However its rough idea nationally is far more useful than your not-so rough idea regionally.

As a corrollary, though, I do find it interesting how people are less inclined to move for CoP than for other schools. Perhaps, as admissions requirements at higher ranked schools tighten further and as admissions requirements at lower ranked schools loosen further, we'll see more interstate travel. I am guessing out-of-state tuition drives many people to stay close to home, unlike in Law or Medicine, where private schools do not suffer from the same plight. (If you were to remove Stanford, Harvard, Yale and Columbia from the list you'll have a LOT of state schools, including UCLA, UC Berkeley, UT Austin and others across the country)

I think it would be easier just to not hire anybody from a school that was founded after the turn of the century. Like I said, we should use my three tiered system. It's incredibly simple...

And no more empirical or unbiased than USNR's. In fact, more biased because you're a single, sole individual operating with a very limited scope.

Basically my concern...and the NAPLEX is too easy, too. I studied for 5 hours and killed it. That's the first thing that needs a repairin'.

I agree. Even though I haven't taken the NAPLEX yet obviously, just comparing the overall pass rates from every CoP and then looking at other board licensing in other professions, there is a huge discrepancy. I mean, there are a couple of schools in the 80% range, then the remainder are 90+. And that doesn't even account for the 2nd-time passes!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

What things, praytell, is retail pharmacy being hit with other than the terrible economy?

I don't agree. I think the existence of **** jobs are what colors society at large (read: also the people that make decisions about who gets what salary) about a profession. Common train of thought from layperson X:
"Physician - Ohhh, medical school, hard, lots of years, super knowledge, hard to see... Must be expensive!"
"Pharmacist - LOL s/he works in Rite-Aid and Long's, and what the hell does s/he do differently than the tech making $11/hr?"

Man, this is capitalism, not foofy-poofy "I get paid what I deserve to get paid....ism". What has driven and what always will drive pharmacist salaries is supply and demand. If there continues to be 20 applicaitons for each job, the HR departments everywhere are going to stagnate the hell out of salaries. The reason they are what they are now is the expansion of corporate retail pharmacy.

Semantics - There is no such thing as luck and being in the right place at the right time was ONLY a small portion of what really matters... your skill. I don't buy this argument at all.

Yeah, I disagree...

NAPLEX score would be the biggest thing, is that so? You said, "Basically my concern...and the NAPLEX is too easy, too" but then wish to maintain that it's a reliable metric at all? I agree, it's probably too easy compared to other "licensing" exams like the BAR, but we're basically mano-e-mano on sand right now aren't we? I mean hell, we can't even agree on anything EXCEPT that there "should" be a ranking system. You detest the only tried and true ranking system that exists in America, and wish to propagate you anecdotally-driven experience.

Naplex score, not pass rates. Well, use pass rates, too, but the top 3/4 of schools all pass >95% or so. That alone can differentiate the schools that are decent and terrible. However, scores vary greatly. Passing can be anything between 75-150. And to get > 130, you have to be a pretty decent graduate. Honestly...that's the ONLY... *O* *N* *L* *Y*.....emperical measure there is out there. If you don't use that as the primary measure, then I really can't accept it. Then it's all conjecture.

Again, what you've seen. Praytell, how many P4s have you PERSONALLY seen and worked with? Maybe 1% of the total population in the country? 1/10th of 1%? Come on, this is anecdote at its finest.

Yeah, putzo, and I've claimed about a blue billion times that it's impossible to compile some sort of national ranking because nobody in the country is qualified to do as such. However, regionally, I work and have worked with countless people. And I can tell a difference between the older schools and the newer ones...I've been unable to detect a difference between the grads of your average big state school with another...and that's about all I've claimed...

And the USN **** is even more pathetic. They ask people to rate schools nationally? How the hell is a person from California supposed to rate an Eastern school? It's patently absurd. Unless they only ask them to rate regional schools. And then you'd have different judges rating different region...and perhaps one cohort is more selective than other cohorts. Do we actually know who gets asked what?

How can I possibly argue with your experience being such that top 10 schools are producing poor P4s while the bottom rung schools are all churning out mad scientist brilliance?

Reading comprehension isn't your forte. Reread what I wrote. I said that the students and grads I've worked with from the established schools are all very competent. And there is no major difference between them. I'd wager the differences lies within the individual students rather than which random professor read powerpoints to them during lectures.

No offense, but your ranking system is bull**** too, then. Fair? Alright.

Obviously I was being serious about the three tired system...

Tiering will happen when there are more schools with enough established history to do so. It seems like the older a school is, the higher its rank is likely to be. There are obvious exceptions to this rule, and of course, you have to realize that the majority of the top spots in Law and med school rankings simply don't have pharmacy schools to compare. This leaves a dearth of private schools beyond the diploma mill crap we see coming out of places like Belmont and Cal Northstate and Touro-CA, and this is very nicely reflected in USNR. Maybe it does only give a ROUGH idea, as you said, which I can concede.

"Very nicely"? They only give a score to, what, 66 schools? You mean to tell me that a decent school that been around forever like Ohio Northern should be viewed upon the same level as Cal Northstate? Meh...like I said, my problem is that many good schools are being rated too close to some terrible schools. Just look at all of those schools in the plains. It makes me wonder if the geographical isolation of the Idaho and Dakota schools hurt their "ranking." The entire thing is questionable to me. I like the fact that the dean at South Carolina is DiPiro...they could only muster a 24...haha.

However its rough idea nationally is far more useful than your not-so rough idea regionally.

No it isn't. The entire idea of trying to compare schools from different regions is idiotic. They should just do regional rankings, if anything.

As a corrollary, though, I do find it interesting how people are less inclined to move for CoP than for other schools. Perhaps, as admissions requirements at higher ranked schools tighten further and as admissions requirements at lower ranked schools loosen further, we'll see more interstate travel. I am guessing out-of-state tuition drives many people to stay close to home, unlike in Law or Medicine, where private schools do not suffer from the same plight. (If you were to remove Stanford, Harvard, Yale and Columbia from the list you'll have a LOT of state schools, including UCLA, UC Berkeley, UT Austin and others across the country)

That goes back to the fact that since forever, it didn't matter which school you went to. Why the hell would I want to go to a fake "top 10" school when I'd have equal opportunity at any other school? Especially if I wanted to work locally. Do you honestly think a UCSF grad would get a job over a Pitt grad in Pittsburgh? Or a UCSF grad getting a job over a WVU grad in WV? No. In fact, hell no. It's a very, VERY regional profession. And the admissions requirements for all of the older schools are pretty much similar. In fact, you will find that it's tougher GPA/PCAT-wise to get into a few lower ranked schools than many of the "top 10". 3.5s-3.7s are the norm up and down the list. Just go to AACP's little list of the GPAs of incoming students (2007 was the latest version I could find). If you can show me that the top 10 gets better students that the rest of the top 30, I'll buy you a candy bar. Obviously the newer schools like Appalachia, Shenendoah, and Charleston has subpar GPAs...but focus on the top 30 or 40 schools...they are all pretty much the same. Hell, the highest on the list was South Dakota State...with a 3.8 average GPA (god damn).

And no more empirical or unbiased than USNR's. In fact, more biased because you're a single, sole individual operating with a very limited scope.

I honestly think my opinion about the local schools is more spot on that the opinion of some dude in California. If you disagree, that's fine, whatever. But the bottom line is that they are all pretty much useless if you want a national ranking.

I like the AACP's stance myself:

AACP does not rank the institutions that provide pharmacy education in the United States, nor endorse any publication that ranks pharmacy degree programs. Each college and school of pharmacy in the U.S. undergoes an extensive accreditation process as required by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education to ensure that the program meets very high minimum standards of excellence. The educational needs of prospective students vary considerably from person to person. The subjective factors that should go into any ranking system are not adequately addressed by any of the known publications that currently rank schools. You should carefully choose a pharmacy degree program based upon factors that are important to your own learning needs. You may wish to consider program content, geographic location, faculty, facilities, experiential training opportunities, class size, student demographics, extra-curricular opportunities and cost in your decision to apply to any program at any institution.

Heh. Bullsye, IMO.

 

[Passion4Sci]

This rhetoric is tiresome and overwhelmingly useless. Now that you've stepped into using ad hominem in your argument, I conclude you're fresh out of content and just frustrated.

I mean really, one would expect someone who is lauded as carrying around a .357 in a .22 world, or whatever it was, should have a lot more firepower than to resort so swiftly to name-calling.

I will say in conclusion that neither have us convinced the other of our stance, which is rather a shame. I do think we agreed on a few number of points, but the problem I see is that in doing so, we created more to disagree about. I suppose this speaks largely to the issue at hand - The problem runs much deeper than we think it does, and that geography plays a large role in it.

And, personally, I don't look at USNR as gospel, and I don't think anyone should. If I made that point, I apologize, or if you inferred it as such. I don't even think your equally-biased and equally-unempirical "three tier" silly system (That you claim you're not serious about, who the hell knows around here?) would offer much in the way of "Go to this school, get X job" because we're STILL in the realm of "A pharm.D is a pharm.D" no matter where you go.

Until you can say to someone, "I went to UCSF" while you're in Florida and they're like, "HELL YEAH MAN! Right onnn" like you can with Harvard, I think it might be a moot issue altogether, and thus we've wasted quite a bit of board space with our ramblings.

Ah well.

Edit: I just can't resist, despite the ad hominem.

Yeah, putzo, and I've claimed about a blue billion times that it's impossible to compile some sort of national ranking because nobody in the country is qualified to do as such. However, regionally, I work and have worked with countless people. And I can tell a difference between the older schools and the newer ones...I've been unable to detect a difference between the grads of your average big state school with another...and that's about all I've claimed...

I don't agree that it's impossible. I believe that, if the task is accomplished like USNR says it is, through careful and diligent study of institutions across the country, assessing student to teacher ratio, cost, relative publishing equivalencies, keynote professors, and the list can go on ad nauseum, that a useful system can be derived. I already conceded that the USNR is a rough guide, which you also tacitly agreed with.

I honestly think my opinion about the local schools is more spot on that the opinion of some dude in California. If you disagree, that's fine, whatever. But the bottom line is that they are all pretty much useless if you want a national ranking.

Except "some dude in California" is not just pulling stuff from thin air. On the contrary, he is conversing in a formal manner with school administrators, instructors and business leaders in every community to assess the school's caliber. Even if Cal Northstate is newer than Ohio Northern, maybe Northern's facilities are dilapidated and antiquated, compared to CNCP's brand new, snazzy stuff? Perhaps CNCP has a freshly retired, very accomplished professor on staff and Northern doesn't. Perhaps CNCP has a much better student to teacher ratio than Ohio Northern does. Much of these variables can be completely independent on age of institution.

Or a UCSF grad getting a job over a WVU grad in WV? No. In fact, hell no.

Your opinion, of course, is your opinion. I mean, by your own claims, you just lucked into the job you've got. I'm sure, since luck is random chance, a UCSF grad had an equally great a chance at scoring your position as you did. I don't think luck cares where you went to school, eh? Hey, it's just luck.

Reading comprehension isn't your forte. Reread what I wrote. I said that the students and grads I've worked with from the established schools are all very competent. And there is no major difference between them. I'd wager the differences lies within the individual students rather than which random professor read powerpoints to them during lectures.

You said:

Nah, it's not really that accurate based on what I've seen from 4th year students.

I called into question how unbiased and accurate your judgments are, not your claim itself, since obviously it's again, anecdote, and impossible to verify. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that you've gotten the best of the bunch from the higher ranked schools and the worst of the bunch from the lower ranked schools. And besides, ranking is NOT a guarantee of individual student success, and I never said it was. I challenge you to show THAT to me, speaking of reading comprehension.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Ok then. I'll let you have the last bit of our "ramblings."

 

[atticus27]

Atticus

3.9GPA Umass Amherst

91st percentile PCAT

LORs

1) Biology Professor with an Ivy League education.

2) Orgo professor with Phd from UNC.

3) Pharmacy Manager

Personal Statement

Received positive comments during 2 seperate interviews regarding PS strength and creative writing style.

ECs

lots

Attending OOS private school with candidate status.

 

[onu2010]

Except "some dude in California" is not just pulling stuff from thin air. On the contrary, he is conversing in a formal manner with school administrators, instructors and business leaders in every community to assess the school's caliber. Even if Cal Northstate is newer than Ohio Northern, maybe Northern's facilities are dilapidated and antiquated, compared to CNCP's brand new, snazzy stuff? Perhaps CNCP has a freshly retired, very accomplished professor on staff and Northern doesn't. Perhaps CNCP has a much better student to teacher ratio than Ohio Northern does. Much of these variables can be completely independent on age of institution.

Ohio Northern's pharmacy building was completely renovated and added to in order to double the size over the course of the last 4 years. While ONU's pharmacy school is 125 years old, the building definitely is not. The US News rankings stop at some odd number in the 60s because many schools, Ohio Northern included, do not cooperate with the rankings.

There are many problems with ranking pharmacy schools that make it much more challenging than ranking medical, law, or business schools.
1) There is no standardization of admissions. Only about half of schools use the PCAT. Compare to medical, MBA, and law schools, which nearly universally use the MCAT, GMAT, and LSAT respectively.
2) Some pharmacy schools admit from high school, others after 2 years, other after a 4-year bachelor's degree. Comparing GPAs from high school with those after 2 years of college to those after 4 years is really apples to oranges to bananas. Compare to med or law school which require a bachelor's.
3)Adjusted for cost of living in different parts of the country, salaries are essentially the same for pharmacists who graduate from everywhere. Law and MBA schools are commonly ranked based on graduate starting salary, but it wouldn't really create any discernment between pharmacy schools. Like medicine, pharmacy residencies also create a major problem for this methodology, as a lower average salary would likely indicate more people do residencies, which most pharmacy schools would be happy about.
4) Board pass rates really wouldn't work, as most schools have board pass rates between 94 and 100%.
5) Some methodologies use NIH funding as a major basis of rankings. While ONU has some NIH funding (and has gained more every year I have been there, especially with the building addition which included substantial laboratory research space), the professors at ONU are there because they want to teach rather than do research. I can assure you that I have much closer relationships with many of the faculty at ONU than you would find at a school that places a larger emphasis on faculty research over educating students. Research is important, don't get me wrong, but how much research an institution does makes little impact on the ability of students and graduates to practice pharmacy proficiently.

Some could recommend ranking based on % doing residencies upon graduation. But that reflects more the type of student that is admitted than the quality of education the school provides, although it may be an indicator or reputation of the school (but may not be - some parts of the country have many more residencies than others).
Reputation could be (and is) used. However, it is my experience that most students and pharmacists know little about pharmacy schools that are more than a few hundred miles from their school. Those who precept students from multiple schools and states get some means of evaluating the schools, but I doubt there are many people who have precepted students from more than a handful of schools. It is my experience that ONU students are generally seen quite favorably by preceptors compared to their peers at other schools.

As you can see, I don't put much stock in ranking pharmacy schools. If you want really know the story about a given school, I'd recommend seeking the opinions from pharmacists in the region. But even that is far from being either scientific or objective.