What exactly is the point in apply to a school that isn't accredited? If they aren't doesn't that mean you cannot sit for the boards and therefore not become a pharmacist? Could someone please explain. Maybe I am missing something...
Nonaccredited?
- Thread starter xscpx
- Start date
Do you mean not fully accredited? I know for other types of schools they can start teaching after they are deemed acceptible. They however not fully accredited until they graduate their first class. In my opinion if they got the go head to teach im sure they will be great. It is hard to get the partial accredidation, which means the boards believe they will succed. Just take what i say with a grain of sand though.
I have applied to two schools which are not fully accredited and this is what I was told:
New schools have to go through 3 stages before they are fully accredited:
-Precandidate: The school has developed a program that meets basic eligibility requirements but has not started enrolling students.
-Candidate: The program has enrolled students, meets eligibility requirements, but has not graduated a class yet.
-Full Accreditation: The school has successfully graduated a class with enough students passing the boards to meet requirements.
Any student who goes to a school with Candidate status(All schools who aren't fully accredited would have attained this status) has all the same rights as someone who attends a fully accredited school and will be eligible to take the boards.
New schools have to go through 3 stages before they are fully accredited:
-Precandidate: The school has developed a program that meets basic eligibility requirements but has not started enrolling students.
-Candidate: The program has enrolled students, meets eligibility requirements, but has not graduated a class yet.
-Full Accreditation: The school has successfully graduated a class with enough students passing the boards to meet requirements.
Any student who goes to a school with Candidate status(All schools who aren't fully accredited would have attained this status) has all the same rights as someone who attends a fully accredited school and will be eligible to take the boards.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I read somewhere that financial aid is harder to get if you attend a school that isn't fully accredited. It makes sense but as long as I can get financial aid through FAFSA, I'll be happy.
I know you do but from what I read, a student applying to a school that isn't fully accredited doesn't have all the resources to financial aid that a student applying to a school that is fully accredited.
Again, I'm not 100% about the validity and I hope it's not true since I've applied to several schools that weren't fully accredited.
Again, I'm not 100% about the validity and I hope it's not true since I've applied to several schools that weren't fully accredited.
My roommate, the girl that lives beside of me, and about 5 of my classmates (that I know of, could be a lot more) at Columbia Dental school have parents that are able and willing to pay for their full tuition/living cost which is around 300K for 4 years. You will be surprised...
I agree with all the previous posts. Non-accredited schools don't have all the financial resources that are available at fully accredited schools. However, there are some fully accredited schools that don't get aid from the government as well. During my interview at University of Appalachia (a fully accredited school), they said they don't receive any grants & such from the government. All of their students apply for loans from private places such as Sally Mae etc. I'm not really sure why but thats what we were informed. Someone can double check me on that, but I'm pretty sure that UACP is not qualified for government aid.
So I really think it depends on the school and you, whether you want to apply to accredited or non-accredited schools. For me, I applied to both types because I wanted to increase my chances of getting into A pharmacy school. I applied to Notre Dame which is not fully credited (yet). However, based on their recent developments, their growing faculty, & continuous successful on-site visits they've been getting from the board, they are bound to get accreditation.
Overall, wherever you apply, it's essentially like investing in the stock market. You'll be making a big investment on something that's not a 100% guarantee. So do as much research and ask tons of questions to the school faculty. Sometimes fully-accredited schools, can even lose the credit status and go on probation (i.e. George Washington University's Med school).
So I really think it depends on the school and you, whether you want to apply to accredited or non-accredited schools. For me, I applied to both types because I wanted to increase my chances of getting into A pharmacy school. I applied to Notre Dame which is not fully credited (yet). However, based on their recent developments, their growing faculty, & continuous successful on-site visits they've been getting from the board, they are bound to get accreditation.
Overall, wherever you apply, it's essentially like investing in the stock market. You'll be making a big investment on something that's not a 100% guarantee. So do as much research and ask tons of questions to the school faculty. Sometimes fully-accredited schools, can even lose the credit status and go on probation (i.e. George Washington University's Med school).
Is it because University of Appalachia just graduated their first class in the spring of 2008? Maybe the benefits don't kick in until the following year, who knows.
Must be nice. :cry: I just keep telling myself im a better person for not having it on a silver platter
.
Oh boy...okay time for a lesson here, looks like no one really knows what they're talking about (except asm27914, you pretty much got it on the head, except you're a little off on pre-accreditation).
1) As of 2008, there's no such thing as a non-accredited pharmacy school. If it's not accredited, it doesn't exist, it's not a school. The one exception was HICP (not to be confused with UH Hilo) back in 2004. Search "HICP" for the very very very long story.
2) There are 3 levels of accreditation. The hardest one to get is pre-accreditation, which allows a school to open and enroll students. Schools who are opening in Fall 2009 that do not have pre-accreditation will conditionally accept students until that status is conferred by ACPE.
Then the school progresses to candidate then full accreditation as time passes. No school in the history of the ACPE has failed to progress from pre-candidate to candidate to full accreditation. There is an inherent risk involved, however, in attending a school that is not fully accredited. So, if you have the luxury of choosing, the accredited school is usually the way to go.
Schools that have pre-accreditation should be evaluated on several aspects. 10 extra credit points to whoever finds my previous post on this topic (I wrote about it earlier this year in pre-pharm).
Once a school hits candidate status, you're good to go...students that graduate from a candidate program retain the right to sit for NAPLEX.
3) Accreditation by ACPE has no bearing on financial aid. Instead, accreditation by one of the major regional accrediting bodies (ie WASC) determines federal aid availability.
This way, if John Doe opens a stand alone pharmacy school in California (let's called Doe Pharmacy School) and receives ACPE pre-accreditation but not WASC accreditation, students will be able to enroll but won't be eligible for federal aid. Instead, a student must go through a private lender with rates hovering the 10-15% range depending on your credit score.
However, if Stanford University opened a pharmacy school and receives ACPE pre-accreditation, it already has existing WASC accreditation, so students would be eligible for federal aid (with rates currently at ~6% for stafford, 8.6% for graduate plus).
That's pretty much it, if anything has changed, someone let me know so I can edit.
1) As of 2008, there's no such thing as a non-accredited pharmacy school. If it's not accredited, it doesn't exist, it's not a school. The one exception was HICP (not to be confused with UH Hilo) back in 2004. Search "HICP" for the very very very long story.
2) There are 3 levels of accreditation. The hardest one to get is pre-accreditation, which allows a school to open and enroll students. Schools who are opening in Fall 2009 that do not have pre-accreditation will conditionally accept students until that status is conferred by ACPE.
Then the school progresses to candidate then full accreditation as time passes. No school in the history of the ACPE has failed to progress from pre-candidate to candidate to full accreditation. There is an inherent risk involved, however, in attending a school that is not fully accredited. So, if you have the luxury of choosing, the accredited school is usually the way to go.
Schools that have pre-accreditation should be evaluated on several aspects. 10 extra credit points to whoever finds my previous post on this topic (I wrote about it earlier this year in pre-pharm).
Once a school hits candidate status, you're good to go...students that graduate from a candidate program retain the right to sit for NAPLEX.
3) Accreditation by ACPE has no bearing on financial aid. Instead, accreditation by one of the major regional accrediting bodies (ie WASC) determines federal aid availability.
This way, if John Doe opens a stand alone pharmacy school in California (let's called Doe Pharmacy School) and receives ACPE pre-accreditation but not WASC accreditation, students will be able to enroll but won't be eligible for federal aid. Instead, a student must go through a private lender with rates hovering the 10-15% range depending on your credit score.
However, if Stanford University opened a pharmacy school and receives ACPE pre-accreditation, it already has existing WASC accreditation, so students would be eligible for federal aid (with rates currently at ~6% for stafford, 8.6% for graduate plus).
That's pretty much it, if anything has changed, someone let me know so I can edit.
Here's a question I have...
I understand that if a school has candidate status, someone who has graduated may sit for the NAPLEX. What if you are in the 2nd or 3rd class the school has admitted and the 1st class bombs the NAPLEX? I understand that no school has never not reached full accreditation, but say hypothetically the above situation were to occur - what would happen to the students who are still in that school?
I understand that if a school has candidate status, someone who has graduated may sit for the NAPLEX. What if you are in the 2nd or 3rd class the school has admitted and the 1st class bombs the NAPLEX? I understand that no school has never not reached full accreditation, but say hypothetically the above situation were to occur - what would happen to the students who are still in that school?
I'll go ahead and add something nobody has said yet (unless I read over it). As long as you are enrolled in a year when the school has pre-accred status, you can sit for NAPLEX. Even if they lose the pre-accred status (which will never happen) after you have been enrolled, you can still sit for NAPLEX because you matriculated in a year that they had the status. This point was brought to my attention during my Touro interview by the chair of admissions. A few kids asked about it and he emphasized it into the ground.
To my knowledge, NAPLEX pass rates don't necessarily affect the accreditation process. However, suppose 0% of the class passed...ACPE will probably scratch their heads and head down for a visit. Slightly unlikely since ACPE has ridden that pharm school's ass multiple times per year from inception to 1st graduating class.
calisoca said:
To my knowledge, this is actually not correct. This is taken directly from ACPE (I put the important stuff in bold if you don't want to read):
...Precandidate accreditation status denotes a developmental program, which is expected to mature in accord with stated plans and within a defined time period. Precandidate status is awarded to a new program of a College or School of Pharmacy that has not yet enrolled students in the professional program, and authorizes the college or school to admit its first class. Candidate accreditation status is awarded to a Doctor of Pharmacy program that has students enrolled, but has not yet had a graduating class. Full accreditation is awarded to a program that has met all ACPE standards for accreditation and has graduated its first class. Graduates of a class designated as having Candidate status have the same rights and privileges of those graduates from a fully accredited program.
From my University's site, language from ACPE:
...Following the enrollment of the inaugural class of students in Fall 2008, an on-site evaluation will be scheduled during the academic year 2008-2009 for purposes of gathering additional information to be considered in the Board's consideration of advancement to Candidate accreditation status. Based upon this evaluation, should the Board feel that Candidate status cannot be conferred, the School could respond to the Board's concerns and reapply prior to the graduation of the first class. If Candidate status is not granted, even after reapplication, graduates may not be eligible for licensure as pharmacists. If Candidate status is granted and the program continues to develop as planned, full accreditation of the Doctor of Pharmacy program would be considered by the Board following the graduation of students from the program...
The ambiguity I found is....if you are in a pre-candidate program, are not moved candidate by the time you graduate, BUT the school achieves candidate status 3 months after you graduate, are you eligible to take NAPLEX then? Are you in a theoretical black hole for 3 months? Is the decision retroactive, say, if you graduated and the school doesn't achieve candidate until 10 years after you graduate? Again, usually not an issue...I'm dealing with theories now.
I really have no other resources for this specific scenario except the chair of admissions at Touro; however, he was adamant about this issue. Perhaps they are in 'candidate' status (clearly I am not up to speed on the difference between the two) though instead of pre-accred status because their first class graduates this May. The issue arose when a kid asked what if he gets accepted for Fall '09, and the school fails to get full accred status. The chairman responded by saying as long as the institution has pre-accred (or perhaps it was candidate status) in the year you matriculate, you can sit for NAPLEX. Nevertheless, like you said no school has ever failed to ultimatley achieve full accred.
Should NAPLEX pass rates be a consideration for which school to apply to? Like go to the ones that have higher pass rates ? I really don't think an impression on one or two professors during interview is a good measure of the school's teaching abilities as a whole.
Last edited:
Sounds like he meant candidate status, because that statement makes absolute sense if you say candidate.
How's this...if you have low stats (like I did when I applied), pre-accreditation schools tend to be more forgiving. This window usually lasts a year or two as a school tends to gain candidate status just before the start of its 2nd year (so two matriculation cycles).
Just do your research, and someone still hasn't found my old post, I'm sad. calisoca, go find it.
yiyaoyue said:
Not necessarily, I think there are other, more important factors to consider. For example, if you gave me the choice of a school with a 98% pass rate in Memphis vs. a 92% pass rate in Chicago...I'd pick the latter as I'd rather not be bored for 4 years (sorry Memphis folks, that city is just not for me).
I think Howard is the only school that has a <90% pass rate as of 2007. So long as you know you have decent study habits, it shouldn't matter. NAPLEX tests for "minimal competency" anyway.
I don't need those 10 extra points man. I'm cool.
Btw, how you likin' the lakers start this season? Pretty badass if you ask me. It's time to take the throne back.
Ah found it, gotta love advanced search. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=573301
And seriously, GO LAKERS. As much as I'd like to ride this wave of euphoria, I'm cautiously waiting for the all star game to roll around to let this joy out....yeahhh. I think they just gotta shore up defense but so far so good. Gonna see if I can score some tickets when they come play the sixers next week...just gotta, ya know, temper my excitement lest i get beat up on the subway ride home.
As long as you wear a Kobe jersey you shouldn't get beat up in Philly since that is where Kobe is from. You might get beat up for wearing a Vujacic jersey and headband, but that's probably just because of the headband
I was pretty hesitant at first to see how Bynum was going to mesh with Gasol, but seeing things early on has calmed my worries.
Watched the Kings tonight...it was literally worse than watching a 7th grade girls team (no offense ladies, I love you) trying to run an offense for the first time. Vomit. And now that Detroit ruined themselves by acquiring AI, I see no real threat other than Boston and maybe Atlanta if they magically keep up the fire. Lakeshow all the way.
Watched the Kings tonight...it was literally worse than watching a 7th grade girls team (no offense ladies, I love you) trying to run an offense for the first time. Vomit. And now that Detroit ruined themselves by acquiring AI, I see no real threat other than Boston and maybe Atlanta if they magically keep up the fire. Lakeshow all the way.
Heck, I'll fly to Philly to beat him up myself.As long as you wear a Kobe jersey you shouldn't get beat up in Philly since that is where Kobe is from. You might get beat up for wearing a Vujacic jersey and headband, but that's probably just because of the headband
Go Lakers!!
Must be nice. :cry: I just keep telling myself im a better person for not having it on a silver platter
I know what you mean!!! As I am one that have to take out loans for BOTH tuition and living expenses...most people could proberly get away with a loan for tuition only...
To the OP just apply to schools that have been around for a while...I personally won't apply to any new schools...LOL...
Yea.. Go LAKERS!!! I was never a fan of basketball until I date my current bf. He's a big kobe fan and he got me into it too! He took me to Lakers game against the Rockets a couple weeks ago!! It was exciting! 