pharm tech or research experience?

[deutsch]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

which looks better on a pharmacy application? pharm tech experience or research experience?

 

[Knickerbocker]

Most likely the pharm tech experience. You can do research with a PharmD, but it is more likely that your tech experience will be more useful for your future work.

 

[RxWildcat]

I would say it they both would look good, but its hard to say if one is definitively better than the other. I would say the amount of time you held each position would be important too.

 

[smartypants723]

Pharmacy technician experience is always great. It shows that you have been exposed to the professional environment of a pharmacist to some extent and that you know what you're getting yourself into.

Research experience is great as well.

These experiences are always great looking on paper, but it depends on how you use these experiences to your advantage. You can use these experiences in your personal statement. An example is recalling an event during these experiences that has impacted you as a person or has helped you towards your professional and personal goals (which I hope that involves pharmacy for you).

There is no doubt that there are lots of students who have pharmacy technician experience or research experience. Hey, they could have both. You just have to stand out from the rest. Use these experiences as a way to define yourself as a unique individual as well as a competitive candidate for pharmacy school.

Hope that makes sense, lol.

 

[medicalCPA]

which looks better on a pharmacy application? pharm tech experience or research experience?

The following is my $0.02.

If you are asking this question because you are planning to apply to pharmacy school in future, then I would say that you should not do something just because it will look good on an application. Usually, what makes you stand out are the things you do without looking for some kind of reward.

Ideally, you should have some pharmacy experience, because you should know what you are getting into before devoting 4 years of your life to it. But experience is not a de facto requirement like in medical school. So you can do either of the two and still get into pharmacy school. I have research experience and no pharmacy experience whatsoever, but I got accepted to a pharmacy school. I believe that ultimately schools look for people they think will make good pharmacists, and it is your job to convince them of that, whether you have pharmacy experience or not.

 

[mrblah]

I just want to add, the majority of the applicants have some kind of pharmacy experience, whether it be 1 week or 10 years, so having pharm. experience isn't going to make you stand out (all least in my case it didnt).

I would pick up the research spot if it was handed to me, and pick up a few hours on the side working in a pharmacy.

What I wonder though is whether or not having pharmacy experience will influence the types of questioning adcom asks you during your interview.

I felt that it did (mere speculation on my part). It seems that buddies of mine who didn't have pharmacy experience, where asked more questions about whether or not pharmacy is the best career choice for them (i.e. to makes sure they didn't make a rash/impulsive choice), and more ethical questions in a pharmacy setting. Whereas for me, i got less of the pharmacy questions, and more questions about "life" and ethical questions that weren't pharmacy related. Anybody else get that feeling?

 

[shunsistoesis]

I felt that it did (mere speculation on my part). It seems that buddies of mine who didn't have pharmacy experience, where asked more questions about whether or not pharmacy is the best career choice for them (i.e. to makes sure they didn't make a rash/impulsive choice), and more ethical questions in a pharmacy setting. Whereas for me, i got less of the pharmacy questions, and more questions about "life" and ethical questions that weren't pharmacy related. Anybody else get that feeling?

that's an interesting observation! is that a good thing for applicants with pharm experience? i would think both types of ethical questions really boil down to the same thing at the end though..

 

[JWells488]

If you do plan on applying to pharmacy school I would definately get technician experience. I have none. And with that it's fairly easy to get interviews, as I've been invited to 6/6. But at every interview I've been to so far, the interviewers have all asked how I knew I wanted to be a pharmacist without having been involved in a pharmacy-setting. Granted, you can do that through volunteering or shadowing, but I'm under the assumption that you need to support yourself financially right now. I was in that situation and I was lucky enough to get a lab assistant job that paid on campus at my undergrad school. It's possible to show that my lab experience has prepared me for pharmacy school, but some adcoms tell me straight up that my application would be a lot stronger if I had some experience.

Get all the exposure you can to the field. It will help you a lot when you're interviewing to be able to say that you've worked in a pharmacy, you like it, and that you're just taking the next logical step in the progression of your career. I'm really wishing that I could say those things right now. It's a lot easier than explaining why lab experience has helped me build certain characteristics and why my volunteer experience has prepared me for patient interaction. You can simply say that you've worked side-by-side with pharmacists and you have what it takes. Additionally, you will probably even be able to get some letters of rec written by the pharms you work with.

And I definately agree with those who are saying that those with no experience are getting hit a lot harder with questions that focus on how they are sure they want to do pharmacy. And I really don't understand why the health professions need to prove themselves before even starting school. Maybe someone can enlighten me. I have a bunch of friends going to law school and business school and PhD programs and if they even require interviews, they are never expected to have any actual experience in the field.

 

[mrblah]

that's an interesting observation! is that a good thing for applicants with pharm experience? i would think both types of ethical questions really boil down to the same thing at the end though..

definitely, regarding ethical questions, the answers are pretty much the same.

In regards to pharm experience, while its harder to sell yourself to adcom without the experience, it can be done (its all about character traits). I would try to pick up 1 day a week or a few hours a week working in a pharmacy, so you can have an idea of what it is like working in a pharmacy or at least, have a general idea of what types of traits you need to succeed in a pharmacy. IMHO, you don't need a lot of experience in pharmacy to answer the questions they give you during a interview.

 

[RxWildcat]

You also might want to consider getting the tech experience because it will give you something to talk about during interviews. I was doing a one on two interview with a professor and a practitioner and all I did was talk about personal experiences I had from tech-ing. I had them laughing most of the time. Plus, I was up to date on a lot of new drugs, law changes, etc. so that gave me a lot to talk about with the practitioner. Just food for thought.

 

[shunsistoesis]

i guess it depends on the school too - see what their mission statement is. normally reading their program homepage will reveal small hints here and there what they value most in an ideal student. for eg some may say they are dedicated to admitting students who have a good sense of community, volunteer, knowledge of profession etc. so that might hint they are favouring students with pharm experience. other schools may not care *as much* that you have directly pharm-related background, but would like to see you are well-rounded -in that case research experience would suffice. in any case, they are both great things to have on your application!

 

[Steroids]

Do you think they put a lot of emphasis on the type of research? I'm asking because while I am currently in cancer research, and have formerly done mol bio research, most of my research experience to date is in the field of animal behavior. Note that none relates directly to pharmaceutical sciences

 

[RxWildcat]

The type of research would matter to some extent I would imagine, the more applicable to health and pharmacy the better.

 

[eric4321]

Whichever you choose, realize that you don't get extra credit for banging away at that job for 2 years or 8 years or whatever number you might think looks impressive.

The VAST majority of people i know with years & years of job experience, be it in medicine, dentistry, or pharmacy - most all of them failed to get into med or dental or pharm school. These students all thought that more experience balances out a lower GPA and it does not. From what i can see, not ever.

Trust me, after 6 months of working at Walgreens & getting certified, you've learned 99% of what that job can teach you. After that it's all just inventory and shift scheduling and maybe an extra dollar an hour.

Once you're not learning anything new, feel free to take a different job.

 

[fenixtnlfan]

Do you think they put a lot of emphasis on the type of research? I'm asking because while I am currently in cancer research, and have formerly done mol bio research, most of my research experience to date is in the field of animal behavior. Note that none relates directly to pharmaceutical sciences

I think you are fine. The research I did was mostly in neurobio and cell cycle stuff, and I got accepted. Do what interests you.

 

[khoadogg]

Why not do a little of both?