pharmacy school ranking

[utlonghornsandy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I was searching for the top pharmacy schools in the nation, and couldn't find it. USnews.com had all the degrees except Rx schools 😡 .

Does anyone know the webpage that gives the ranking?

 

[Brill]

The latest one I've seen floating around is from 2002.



http://www.uspharmd.com/rxschoolranking2002.html

 

[UT-Frank]

#2 University of Texas at Austin!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Rankings in the health professions are based on the results of surveys sent to deans, faculty and administrators of accredited graduate programs. The individuals rated the academic quality of programs as distinguished (5); strong(4); good (3); adequate (2), or marginal (1), depending on the scholarship, curriculum, and the quality of faculty, and graduates. Individuals who were unfamiliar with particular programs were asked to select "don't know." Score for each school were averaged across all respondents who rated that school.

So they don't use NAPLEX scores, graduation rates, and other emperical measures of graduate competency to determine how good a pharmacy school is, just opinions of faculty?

 

[Roxicet]

So they don't use NAPLEX scores, graduation rates, and other emperical measures of graduate competency to determine how good a pharmacy school is, just opinions of faculty?

That's why this list is useless and not endorsed by AACP.

 

[bananaface]

AACP has a policy of not endorsong any rankings.
http://www.aacp.org/site/tertiary.asp?TRACKID=&VID=2&CID=279&DID=3599#13

I agree that opinions are an odd way of ranking.

 

[Samoa]

So they don't use NAPLEX scores, graduation rates, and other emperical measures of graduate competency to determine how good a pharmacy school is, just opinions of faculty?

Well, not every state uses the NAPLEX (which would eliminate UCSF), and no school that I know of publishes their average score. It's hard enough just to get the percentage of graduates who PASSED on the first try. And the numbers will be close to 100% for all the top schools, anyway (judging by the fact that it was a huge scandal at UT the year that we didn't have 100% passing). Graduation rates are also usually near 100% for all of those schools, the only real attrition being from those students who decide pharmacy is not for them.

The problem with any rankings in pharmacy is that there simply is not an objective standard to use. So reputation is used instead, which is completely self-perpetuating, since a large number of the faculty at various schools are graduates of the top 5-10 on that list.

 

[jdpharmd?]

Well, not every state uses the NAPLEX (which would eliminate UCSF),

They all use NAPLEX now.

 

[Caverject]

Well, not every state uses the NAPLEX (which would eliminate UCSF), and no school that I know of publishes their average score. It's hard enough just to get the percentage of graduates who PASSED on the first try. And the numbers will be close to 100% for all the top schools, anyway (judging by the fact that it was a huge scandal at UT the year that we didn't have 100% passing). Graduation rates are also usually near 100% for all of those schools, the only real attrition being from those students who decide pharmacy is not for them.

The problem with any rankings in pharmacy is that there simply is not an objective standard to use. So reputation is used instead, which is completely self-perpetuating, since a large number of the faculty at various schools are graduates of the top 5-10 on that list.

With the new revision of the NAPLEX, California adopted it

 

[Samoa]

I know, but there's not any historical data for comparison. If you could even get it, that is.

 

[kwakster928]

it seems like it really doesn't matter what school you went. we all get pharm d. and upon passing lisensure exam we all be phamacist. it is more about what you got out of that schoool. every school is accreditied so it must teach same or similar material. i think this whole ranking this is just there to sell publications truthfully, but i could be totatlly wrong.