Official Diploma Mill List
Started by EquateThis
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
+1
Strange fella.. he posts night and day for a week but when asked when he works, he disappeared. Maybe he forgot that he was suppose to work..
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
LOL. Very true. He logged out right after that post and hasn't been back. It's been almost two days.
Check his IP... I don't think he's who he says he is.
Stalker
You mean PharmD rph or me?
PharmDRph.. and he pretended to not know what "pot calling kettle black" with "coffee reference" of how I work...
Fairly transprent way of hiding something..
ROFL. The avatar leads me to believe it's MountainCoccaDood's troll account!
Nah.. Mountain knows better.
In a similar manner, how would you feel about a student taking their prerequisites at a liberal arts school like Wesleyan University versus a state school like University of Connecticut? Wesleyan is a well established school with a strong reputation and is generally considered a great "sub-Ivy." UConn is a state school that gets a lot of research funding for all of its programs.
I don't care one way or the other. To be an accredited school and to obtain funding from the state (public schools) you have to have a set standard of education provided for students. If the state can recognize it as being acceptable then other schools should as well. Heck most states have articulation agreements so that CCs can transfer and have equivalent credit at a university.
As for private schools they are still regulated and they do a different standard for their grades because they try to look more impressive in some way than public schools since they charge more. (Well they don't necessarily charge a LOT more but the state isn't subsidizing the cost of attendance per student at a private like they do at a public)
That is my point. Reputation doesn't matter. Do you know who CPCC is? It's a school in NC. More than likely if you aren't in NC or one of the neighboring states you have no idea who they are so there isn't much of a reputation anyway. NC has multiple UNC schools which all have reputations. Most people probably don't know those either outside of the bubble I mentioned. Those are both universities and community colleges.
Case in point, I had no information about either one of those schools and a good chunk of people reading your post probably don't either.
But they both sound like nice schools 😛
ROFL. The avatar leads me to believe it's MountainCoccaDood's troll account!
I tried that before and you put the smack down on me! I think you suspended me for 5 days. 😱
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Their faculty make big money. That's why professors their brainwash the students to keep their jobs.
Fixed.
Lol just saw some of the other posts. Made for a good laugh.
I haven't read through much of this, but I saw Southern Illinois listed. I could have gone to several schools with a much longer history, but chose SIUE and am very happy with my decision. I know several that chose SIUE over UIC. I came in with a 3.8 prereq GPA (plus an unrelated bachelors) and an 85 PCAT (first try) and had to work my butt off to get a 3.17 GPA the first semester.
With only 80 students per class (hard to call that a diploma mill), I have access to my professors on a constant basis and their credentials are solid. With a few exceptions, they are as down to earth as professors get and their primary concern is turning us into professionals. The research side is still developing, but many of my professors work in conjunction with both Washington University researchers and SLU researchers in areas like pain management (One of my professors was on the Celebrex team, from what I've been told). Others work in some of the best hospitals in the nation (e.g. Barnes). I have access to some brilliant people that have worked in industry for the majority of their careers as well as others that have been in academia.
So, though I understand the skepticism about newer schools (I know some of them worry me) I have to defend the one I currently attend. I'm receiving a great education from a caring group of educators. I couldn't be happier.
With only 80 students per class (hard to call that a diploma mill), I have access to my professors on a constant basis and their credentials are solid. With a few exceptions, they are as down to earth as professors get and their primary concern is turning us into professionals. The research side is still developing, but many of my professors work in conjunction with both Washington University researchers and SLU researchers in areas like pain management (One of my professors was on the Celebrex team, from what I've been told). Others work in some of the best hospitals in the nation (e.g. Barnes). I have access to some brilliant people that have worked in industry for the majority of their careers as well as others that have been in academia.
So, though I understand the skepticism about newer schools (I know some of them worry me) I have to defend the one I currently attend. I'm receiving a great education from a caring group of educators. I couldn't be happier.
ASHP, APhA agree that your Diploma Mill school decreases the quality of pharmacists:
http://www.ashp.org/import/news/HealthSystemPharmacyNews/newsarticle.aspx?id=3455
http://www.ashp.org/import/news/HealthSystemPharmacyNews/newsarticle.aspx?id=3455
I find it interesting that nearly every stakeholding organization in pharmacy was mentioned, yet they all passed the buck on what to do about it. It's frustrating to see that everyone acknowledges the problem - both with new and existing schools - but has no power to actually do anything.
I also thought the "practice track" question brings up an interesting point. Is this the first time that a difference between clinical and non-clinical practitioners, aside from their practice environment, has been mentioned in an officially sanctioned publication?
Last edited:
...What does it say about your school if you admit to not receiving an excellent education with top notch faculty?
I'm not trashing my school (certainly not in a public forum) but it has a lot of room for improvement.
And as mentioned, the ASHP article points out that most of the problem lies with expanding already-established programs--almost all not for profit ones--and nobody's willing to do anything about it. Are there any schools that don't need more money? Because really, any school that's willing to lower their standards to accept more students for more revenue is getting close to the definition of a diploma mill.
I agree that opening new satellite programs is part of the problem, along with increasing the class size of established schools. This all needs to be stopped.
There are plenty of students that will admit they go to a school with bad faculty.
I agree...I honestly think there are MORE SEATS in pharmacy school then there are qualified applicants.
I can think of a few people in my class right now that shouldn't be there but were most likely accepted b/c the school wanted to make some $$$. 🙄
Everyone I know in pharmacy school has those 3-4 people in their class that they're sure will kill/severely harm a patient within their first 5 years. These schools run the gambit from well established programs (USC, UCSF) to those schools where "stick up the ass" people would turn their noses up at and proclaim nazi-like superiority.
But anyway, the article faults existing schools, not new schools for the rapid expansion (80% of the 63% increase came from expansion of existing programs/satellite programs). And I like how basically no one knows the capacity of quality rotation sites, but it appears we're hitting the wall.
Oh well...I go to a new school. I'll be all up in your labor market, driving down your collective wages, and I won't even stop to blink.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
How common do you think pharmacy errors are? Far more than 3-4 people per class will make a serious mistake within their first 5 years.
ISMP had some figures out there...we're pretty damn accurate, but yes statistically speaking every pharmacist will contribute to someone's death during their career.
No I'm talking about blatant stupid remarks and ideations that come up...I've heard stories, and hopefully they're corrected come rotations. But it's weird how people can read some sort of guideline/paper and derive a completely different and opposite meaning from what was actually said. It's like...are there some wires crossed or something?
Thing is, the really dangerous people are generally the ones that aren't obvious. This is also true in other aspects of life.
I had one classmate who was arrested for meth manufacture a few years after we graduated, and that didn't surprise me at all. 👎 Unfortunately, he eventually got his license back.
Wait...
...you can manufacture methamphetamine and not permanently lose your license?
Cool.
Not if you get treatment and stay clean for a period determined by the board.
I found out recently that one of my classmates died a few years ago after OD'ing on stolen drugs. 🙁 One of my Facebook friends who knew him better than I did was completely shocked by this news.
P
Pharmacceptance
To start, I'm just a measly little pre-pharmer who will be attending pharmacy school next year, so my opinion is probably worth nothing, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway...
Personally, I feel like this obsession over the new schools is some serious paranoia. The idea of all these new pharmacists coming in seems to be threatening the folks who come from the older schools, and I can understand why. I mean, it was easy-pickins before when dealing with job security. All the sudden, there's some competition and you all feel the need to fight back. I don't think that's the way to go about dealing with the problem.
If your school can stand out, then you shouldn't be worried. Why even bother complaining about these lower-tier schools if you're confident you're so much better? Is it hurting the profession you care so much about? Probably, but I'm sure the real-world will sort these things out quickly. If an unqualified pharmacist from a low-tier school gets a job and fudges it up, I can guarantee you that he won't be working there or anywhere else for long.
Now, I tend to see this new wave of pharmacy schools as a good thing for the education we all obtain. A lot of these new schools, but not all, are stepping up their games because they have something to prove to the other, more established, schools. This competition should push the industry in a forward position. As time goes on, I'm sure reputations will start to be built, but if you're from a new school I don't see why you need to worry. Hiring pharmacists and managers aren't looking at the year your school opened.. They're looking at statistics and possibly previous students coming from that school.
So quit the hatin', quit the drama, and love your fellow pharmacist. When it comes down to it, we all SHOULD care about the same thing, and that's our fellow man's well being.
4 a.m. posts ftl 🙁
Personally, I feel like this obsession over the new schools is some serious paranoia. The idea of all these new pharmacists coming in seems to be threatening the folks who come from the older schools, and I can understand why. I mean, it was easy-pickins before when dealing with job security. All the sudden, there's some competition and you all feel the need to fight back. I don't think that's the way to go about dealing with the problem.
If your school can stand out, then you shouldn't be worried. Why even bother complaining about these lower-tier schools if you're confident you're so much better? Is it hurting the profession you care so much about? Probably, but I'm sure the real-world will sort these things out quickly. If an unqualified pharmacist from a low-tier school gets a job and fudges it up, I can guarantee you that he won't be working there or anywhere else for long.
Now, I tend to see this new wave of pharmacy schools as a good thing for the education we all obtain. A lot of these new schools, but not all, are stepping up their games because they have something to prove to the other, more established, schools. This competition should push the industry in a forward position. As time goes on, I'm sure reputations will start to be built, but if you're from a new school I don't see why you need to worry. Hiring pharmacists and managers aren't looking at the year your school opened.. They're looking at statistics and possibly previous students coming from that school.
So quit the hatin', quit the drama, and love your fellow pharmacist. When it comes down to it, we all SHOULD care about the same thing, and that's our fellow man's well being.
4 a.m. posts ftl 🙁
D
deleted205891
Well, it would be nice if the new school in town didn't take many of our rotation spots.
It also would be nice if there weren't so many people applying for residency because of the number of new pharmacy students while same number of residencies.
Finally, it would be nice if my roommate, who has a 3.8, retail work experience and research experience could find a job.
As time goes on...so who will pay my loans during this time, or my SSRIs if I'm depressed from not matching with a residency, not because I'm not a competitive applicant, but because there will be so many other competitive applicants competing with me?
P
Pharmacceptance
I hate to say it, but these are problems EVERYONE is facing in our economy. Competition is fierce, and you can't just cruise through pharmacy school and expect to be given the world it seems. Like I mentioned, if the other schools provide the field with pharmacists that are just as good as pharmacists educated in the older schools, then yes, you should be worried. But to sit here and say they aren't legit schools or they're all about money is just lucrative at this point in time.
I'm a Temple Grad and their pharmacy school is considered one of these "old schools." Quite frankly, the school is full of elitist administrators who think they are God's gift to Earth. In reality, the labs are outdated as **** and you truly end up being "just a number" from what I've heard from other students.
In the end, I think we all need to realize that almost ANY college or university in today's age is driven by profits. Plain and simple. It's doesn't matter if it's state granted money or just tuition, schools make bank. Some say they care about your education, which may have been true when they first started, but when it boils down, you better bet that higher learning right now is one of the best investments out there, for the school anyway.
EXCEPT EVERYONE do not have 100K+ in student loans...while pharmacy students do.
Therefore schools should be highly regulated and not just open up anytime they please and accept anyone with a pulse into their program.
It's so difficult to stay motivated with the uncertain future and thinking about all the debt that will be hanging over my head when I graduate.
P
Pharmacceptance
Lawyers aren't? Doctors aren't just scraping by in some instances? Am I against the schools being highly regulated? No, but if these new schools are being regulated AND putting out professional and knowledgeable pharmacists, then it looks like you just need to brave the storm. It doesn't matter if the people going in barely have a pulse. If they come out the same way, then you shouldn't have to worry. Otherwise, this whole thread just looks like a bunch of "haters" looking for something to pick on because suddenly their job security is in question...
Look on the bright side, at least the jobs are staying in the country instead of being outsourced to some kid in India or China... for now
Lawyers aren't? Doctors aren't just scraping by in some instances? Am I against the schools being highly regulated? No, but if these new schools are being regulated AND putting out professional and knowledgeable pharmacists, then it looks like you just need to brave the storm. It doesn't matter if the people going in barely have a pulse. If they come out the same way, then you shouldn't have to worry. Otherwise, this whole thread just looks like a bunch of "haters" looking for something to pick on because suddenly their job security is in question...
Look on the bright side, at least the jobs are staying in the country instead of being outsourced to some kid in India or China... for now
Every heard of telepharmacy? I wonder how india is this time of year? I love the outlook the prepharms have. Oh...Im sure it will be fine. We are close to graduating 14k a year. Do you think that is sustainable for job security? Are you kidding me? One class size of today equals approx. 3 of the past. I guarantee you that no matter how many people are retiring or jobs are opening up it is not going to keep up with the supply of pharmacists. Pharmacy has screwed itself by not being regulated like MDs or basically any other professional program- aside from lawyers- they are even more screwed than we are...for the time being. And as for your point about schools putting out highly qualified/professional people--> with more schools opening up means more people being accepted. The quality of accepted students is not what it once was. And if you don't buy my word on it... http://www.ashp.org/import/news/pressreleases/pressrelease.aspx?id=614
thanks
P
Pharmacceptance
So what's the problem? I'm not understanding it seems. If they end up being of lower quality, then why are you worried? If there's a shortage of jobs, you're guaranteed. Now, if you're worried about them putting out good quality pharmacists, then yes, be worried. Don't take it out on the school saying they're diploma mills though because suddenly you may not get a job and they're going around ruining the market. Competition is what the US is built on.. adapt or fall behind!
Wow- first- competition is fine. But you are being ridiculous here. These schools that are opening up are screwing you and me over. I have years on you and I'm not exactly worried about me and you fighting over a job. But, as I'm sure you know, competition does a few things. For example- it lowers the price of commodities. I have name brand, generic, etc...I can choose any of these. Guess what- we are a commodity. When there gets to be too many of us we lose value- just like the dollar. I don't understand how you don't understand that with all of these pharmacists floating around our wages are going to drop like a rock. Look at Physical Therapy- their schools did the exact same thing our have done to us. They use to graduate at 70k+, now they make in the 40s out of school. It doesn't make sense to go into a field that is going to produce what you at least put into it. Luckily my school is not as expensive as most, I'm in state, and it's been around since 1930 something...not a diploma mill....but guess what- it doesn't matter. The moment a pharmacist walks into walgreens and says ill work for 80k a year- thats when we hit a slippery slope and we will start to see a trend downward in wages. Now go ahead and say you aren't doing it for the money- yeah- well me neither. But guess what- its not logical to go into as much debt as most of us are for the lowly returns we will be getting. But I'm sure you're going to "work hard" and be at the "top of class", etc, insert cliche after cliche here please.
While I love my school, I can agree that there are a few people in my class that I don't think should be here.
My school was not opened for profit. Southern Illinois was and is deficient in the number and quality of healthcare professionals due to reasons ranging from the lack of educated professionals from the area to malpractice concerns. If you know much about tort reform, then I imagine you've heard of Madison County, where the school is located. When litigious lawyers want to bring a big case, this is arguably the best county in the U.S. to do it in. This has helped to make Southern Illinois one of the lowest rated regions in terms of healthcare because practitioners don't stay. When you combine this with the shortfall in pharmacists when planning began in 2003, there was good reason to start a school here. No one anticipated the expansion of UIC, Roosevelt University and the mass of other schools that have popped up since.
There's no way to convince people that don't attend this school without continuing to graduate groups of quality pharmacists. So far, there have been 2 or 3 students out of 160 that did not pass the naplex on the first try. Hopefully this success continues. Until then, I look forward to proving that this is not a diploma mill 🙂
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don't think so, unless they required that of all schools to maintain accreditation. Plus, you'd have to have exemptions for people who went into graduate programs like PhD or who didn't want to work full time, or who decided to be stay at home moms, etc.
But I think they can't hold new schools to standards that established schools aren't required to meet.
Maybe it is just me but I sensed sarcasm in that poster's comment...
I was all serious. I think all schools should have to do this. This would also help older established schools from opening up satellite campus just for the heck of it. This may get the acedmia into the role of being proactive to make sure the job market is stable for the pharmacist that are put out.
I think there needs to be some survey to all new grads three months after licensing to fill out. This survey would ask if they got a full time job, residency, went on to do more graduate work, or just wanted a part-time job. If the survey was not completed after six months of being licensed, then the pharmacist would have to pay a fine. I think that would be a small price to pay to help keep the pharmacist supply from becoming over saturated.
If the school did not get 95%, then they would have to decrease the number of seats to be accepted in the next year. Therefore, if school X graduates 100 students, but after 3 months only 90 of them have jobs. Then the next year the school can only accept the number of students that got jobs the year before. So school X could only accept 90 students for the following year.
I know this might sound elementary or short-sighted, but I think it is time we actually come up with ideas. I have heard of the possibility of adding on a mandatory residency. What other ideas do you have? As much as you hate the diploma mill schools, the older established schools have been just as bad at increasing their enrollment and adding satellite campuses. I think we need to do something to all schools, just not discriminate against the newer for profit schools.
I think there needs to be some survey to all new grads three months after licensing to fill out. This survey would ask if they got a full time job, residency, went on to do more graduate work, or just wanted a part-time job. If the survey was not completed after six months of being licensed, then the pharmacist would have to pay a fine. I think that would be a small price to pay to help keep the pharmacist supply from becoming over saturated.
If the school did not get 95%, then they would have to decrease the number of seats to be accepted in the next year. Therefore, if school X graduates 100 students, but after 3 months only 90 of them have jobs. Then the next year the school can only accept the number of students that got jobs the year before. So school X could only accept 90 students for the following year.
I know this might sound elementary or short-sighted, but I think it is time we actually come up with ideas. I have heard of the possibility of adding on a mandatory residency. What other ideas do you have? As much as you hate the diploma mill schools, the older established schools have been just as bad at increasing their enrollment and adding satellite campuses. I think we need to do something to all schools, just not discriminate against the newer for profit schools.
The job market will correct itself over time. It kind of sucks for those of us who will be graduating before that happens, but it's not the end of the world.
I don't think we've reached the point (and I doubt we ever will) where we need to artificially limit enrollment. The market was great for a while, and everybody wanted in. As the job market declines, so will interest from students and schools. New schools will stop opening, and existing schools will stop expanding enrollment. Demand will eventually surpass supply and we'll start the process again.
I don't think we've reached the point (and I doubt we ever will) where we need to artificially limit enrollment. The market was great for a while, and everybody wanted in. As the job market declines, so will interest from students and schools. New schools will stop opening, and existing schools will stop expanding enrollment. Demand will eventually surpass supply and we'll start the process again.
