I said PHARMACY as a whole, not just retail. It's always a really bad idea to do something specifically for the money -- there should be other things about it that you enjoy. Case in point: I am more than willing to bet that if an adcom asked you "why pharmacy" in an interview that the financial compensation would comprise a very insignificant part of your answer.
No kidding that people do retail for the money. My point is that there are lots of people who will also tell you that sometimes even 100k a year isn't enough compensation for the mess you have to deal with in retail. The two pharmacists that I work with must apply for vacation time six months prior to taking off, to ensure that they will have someone to cover them. There are not enough relief pharmacists in the area. The retail chain in my area has also not been able to open up any new stores because they cannot find full time pharmacists to work them. Surely this would not be so with the numbers of students entering pharmacy school and the high demand for pharmacists, if the job were so easy. I mean, just counting pills and bagging doritos for 100k?? Sign me up!
That brings me to my next point: have you ever worked in a retail pharmacy? Do you know anyone who has? You should talk to someone who works in a drive-thru pharmacy. Because I think anyone who has would agree with me when I say that you do a lot more than "counting pills" and "bagging Doritos". Don't you think that's a silly reason to go to school for six years and fork over tens of thousands in tuition? You can do the same thing and be a tech for significantly less pay and formal education. If you'd ever worked retail, you'd know that the techs are the ones that usually get stuck doing "grunt" work anyway. I guarantee that the techs aren't there for the "fantastic" pay -- I'm certainly not. There are days when I love what I do, and there are days when I'd like nothing better than to walk right out. Both of the pharmacists that I work with have voiced similar sentiments.
Retail pharmacy is often a thankless job; people who are sick or hurt frequently take out their frustrations on the pharmacy staff, no matter how helpful or polite you are. When their insurance won't pay for medication they've been getting for years, who do you think gets hollered at? Pharmacists are responsible for keeping an eagle-eye on everything that goes on in the pharmacy. When a tech messes up, it's the pharmacist's fault for not catching it. The pharmacist has the license and the education to know better -- hopefully. Doctors frequently write for things patients are allergic to or that will signficantly interact with other things that they're taking. Who do you think will ultimately be held responsible if a patient suffers from a fatal drug interaction? And no, it's not just always the computer. There's a bit more to it than that. The list goes on and on.
It's disturbing that this is your attitude towards pharmacy -- but this is also the same line of reasoning that has made the pharmacist's job more stressful. But surely, if all you're doing is counting pills and bagging Doritos, then you should have no problems whatsoever.
And for the record, a Pharm.D. is a professional degree, like an MD, not a "doctorate" (PhD).
