Pharmacists divided over BS or PharmD

[kwizard]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Interesting article in Drug topics:

"Pharmacists are still divided over whether the mandate to drop the B.S. degree was a bad call."

There are certainly a lot of ways to view the argument, but I just find it interesting how this continues to resurface year after year.

http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=366110

Any thoughts.

 

[sdn1977]

My thoughts??? No I don't think it was a bad decision.

This was discussed for more than a decade......a very long time with lots and lots of input.

This article (which, IMO, was very poorly written - but...its Drug Topics - speaks for itself) has an N = 488. A very small population.

Pharmacists change employment situations many times throughout their careers. We need to give them the best start we have availble at the time & that currently is the education which is equivalent to awarding a PharmD degree!

Those are my thoughts - for better or worse!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Or my viewpoint - there is one year of rotations, 2 years worth of useful information, and 1 year of crap I'll never use. They could knock it out in 3.

 

[sdn1977]

Or my viewpoint - there is one year of rotations, 2 years worth of useful information, and 1 year of crap I'll never use. They could knock it out in 3.

Or....you could have done what you had to do when you had to do it & graduated when you were initially supposed to. Either way....it works. You'll still be a pharmacist (& from your blogs a funny one at that!😀 ).

But...you could always learn....go along to get along......that could work too! Or not...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Jumping through hoops. Pointless, yet required hoops. All in the facade of being given a better education.

 

[sdn1977]

But...then...do you really know all the facets of the discussion which occurred to make the decision in 1996 or 1986????? Or are you just speaking from personal experience, which my no means is not important..it is just an n =1.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

n= just about every pharmacist I've ever talked with about it. I've never been able to notice any difference between folks with PharmDs and folks with a BS. The best pharmacists I've met have had a BS.

 

[sdn1977]

n= just about every pharmacist I've ever talked with about it. I've never been able to notice any difference between folks with PharmDs and folks with a BS. The best pharmacists I've met have had a BS.

Good! Thats the point! You've been in pharmacy since...what ....2000, 2001, 2002???? There isn't any difference. The education became very similar far before the degree changes occurred officially. You should not judge any pharmacist based on his/her degrees, since that is what was awarded at the time he/she received it & determined by the school & the accreditation at the time.

The degree change occurred to reflect educational differences during the 1980's which were significant. These differences occurred long before you ever got into pharmacy or even got into college.

I have worked side by side with pharmacists who obtained their BS degrees the same year I received my PharmD...we are equally capable & competent to take care of anything which is presented to us. However, that was not always the case....the whole point of the ACPE was to unify & make a mininum standard of education. They could have decided the degree should have been a BS - which would have made my PharmD inconsequential. Who cares - the point is - you are being given a great education. There is a standard - currently it is a PharmD.

I believe Kwizard's question was direccted to the actual case of the possibility of retail pharmacists who may not need the complete clinical exposure which students are exposed to. I apologize to Kwizard if my interpretation is misguided.

I do not believe that retail pharmacists should have less clinical exposure than any other pharmacist. They (we) are all clinically oriented, just in a different setting & are ever more required to be called upon to take on that role when we participate in the new MTM opportunitites. It is also important for those folks who may indeed feel thay may find it possible to change their career choices during their lives.

Having been thru the whole length of time of the decades of awarding of PharmDs, the discussion of what degree should be the entry level, having worked with both outstanding & just "ok" folks with both degrees...I'd still say the decision was not a bad one. And....I'm guessing my n far exceeds yours?????????? The fact remains...this "study" as quoted in Drug Topics is a poor one.

We'll see what the actual numbers show after a signifcant amout of time has passed...5 years is not very long!

 

[sdn1977]

n= just about every pharmacist I've ever talked with about it. I've never been able to notice any difference between folks with PharmDs and folks with a BS. The best pharmacists I've met have had a BS.

Good! Thats the point! You've been in pharmacy since...what ....2000, 2001, 2002???? There isn't any difference. The education became very similar far before the degree changes occurred officially. You should not judge any pharmacist based on his/her degrees, since that is what was awarded at the time he/she received it & determined by the school & the accreditation at the time.

The degree change occurred to reflect educational differences during the 1980's which were significant. These differences occurred long before you ever got into pharmacy or even got into college.

I have worked side by side with pharmacists who obtained their BS degrees the same year I received my PharmD...we are equally capable & competent to take care of anything which is presented to us. However, that was not always the case....the whole point of the ACPE was to unify & make a mininum standard of education. They could have decided the degree should have been a BS - which would have made my PharmD inconsequential. Who cares - the point is - you are being given a great education. There is a standard - currently it is a PharmD.

I believe Kwizard's question was direccted to the actual case of the possibility of retail pharmacists who may not need the complete clinical exposure which students are exposed to. I apologize to Kwizard if my interpretation is misguided.

I do not believe that retail pharmacists should have less clinical exposure than any other pharmacist. They (we) are all clinically oriented, just in a different setting & are ever more required to be called upon to take on that role when we participate in the new MTM opportunitites. It is also important for those folks who may indeed feel thay may find it possible to change their career choices during their lives.

Having been thru the whole length of time of the decades of awarding of PharmDs, the discussion of what degree should be the entry level, having worked with both outstanding & just "ok" folks with both degrees...I'd still say the decision was not a bad one. And....I'm guessing my n far exceeds yours?????????? The fact remains...this "study" as quoted in Drug Topics is a poor one.

We'll see what the actual numbers show after a signifcant amout of time has passed...5 years is not very long!

 

[sdn1977]

n= just about every pharmacist I've ever talked with about it. I've never been able to notice any difference between folks with PharmDs and folks with a BS. The best pharmacists I've met have had a BS.

Good! Thats the point! You've been in pharmacy since...what ....2000, 2001, 2002???? There isn't any difference. The education became very similar far before the degree changes occurred officially. You should not judge any pharmacist based on his/her degrees, since that is what was awarded at the time he/she received it & determined by the school & the accreditation at the time.

The degree change occurred to reflect educational differences during the 1980's which were significant. These differences occurred long before you ever got into pharmacy or even got into college.

I have worked side by side with pharmacists who obtained their BS degrees the same year I received my PharmD...we are equally capable & competent to take care of anything which is presented to us. However, that was not always the case....the whole point of the ACPE was to unify & make a mininum standard of education. They could have decided the degree should have been a BS - which would have made my PharmD inconsequential. Who cares - the point is - you are being given a great education. There is a standard - currently it is a PharmD.

I believe Kwizard's question was direccted to the actual case of the possibility of retail pharmacists who may not need the complete clinical exposure which students are exposed to. I apologize to Kwizard if my interpretation is misguided.

I do not believe that retail pharmacists should have less clinical exposure than any other pharmacist. They (we) are all clinically oriented, just in a different setting & are ever more required to be called upon to take on that role when we participate in the new MTM opportunitites. It is also important for those folks who may indeed feel thay may find it possible to change their career choices during their lives.

Having been thru the whole length of time of the decades of awarding of PharmDs, the discussion of what degree should be the entry level, having worked with both outstanding & just "ok" folks with both degrees...I'd still say the decision was not a bad one. And....I'm guessing my n far exceeds yours?????????? The fact remains...this "study" as quoted in Drug Topics is a poor one.

We'll see what the actual numbers show after a signifcant amout of time has passed...5 years is not very long!

 

[gsinccom]

hmm🙂