Pharmacists with no PharmD

[RLK]

For pharmacists who became a pharmacist before the PharmD degree was required, is there any reason for them to get a PharmD degree? I was just curious because I saw one school's site that had a link for current pharmacists who wanted to go back to school for the PharmD. Is the pay any different and are there any advantages for people in that situation?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tupac_don]

For pharmacists who became a pharmacist before the PharmD degree was required, is there any reason for them to get a PharmD degree? I was just curious because I saw one school's site that had a link for current pharmacists who wanted to go back to school for the PharmD. Is the pay any different and are there any advantages for people in that situation?

Financially there is no benefit. But if you want to work in an academic environment and want to advance in more clinical or managerial circles you need a pharm D. Now if an RPh already has a clinical job or managerial job at the end of career and not a young RPh, no need to get one. Work in retail no need to get one. However that is assuming that things won't change in the next forty years. For some younger RPh's who have 30 plus years of working ahead of em. I would defiently say they need a Pharm D. The playing field in 10,20 years will be much different than it is now. And now with all the new grads having a Pharm D, Rph's will be at a disadvantage. They will become obsolete more or less and will proably be relegated to jobs in retail if not already working in hospital. Plus the RPh's who haven't taken a pharm D are the ones resistant to change or at the end of their career so see no need to get a pharm D. But it will become more and more difficult for RPh's to compete with pharm D's for clinical type jobs.

 

[gablet]

Is the only difference between the two that the PharmDs get the extra year of clinical? Or are there other differences in the curriculum?

 

[baggywrinkle]

Financially there is no benefit.

. Plus the RPh's who haven't taken a pharm D are the ones resistant to change or at the end of their career so see no need to get a pharm D. But it will become more and more difficult for RPh's to compete with pharm D's for clinical type jobs.

That is already happening. I never did it because of the cost/time involved.
Financially it is actually a negative and the degree is too broad and shallow. I think it would make more sense to do a masters degree in an area of special interest. Who would you rather have running your hyperalimetation program;
a generic PharmD or a BS with a Masters in nutrition. In competition for the position the PharmD would still need the specialty to get the edge. Don't forget, the B.S. by definition has about ten years more experience.