Pharmacy School Ranking

[smislam]

Hey there,

Does anyone know the current Pharmacy school ranking for all the schools in US and Canada?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bdo]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=456648&highlight=ranking

 

[xiphoid2010]

the link used is a little out of date (2006).

here is the most recent ranking for 2008.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/pha/search

 

[Kruton]

the link used is a little out of date (2006).

here is the most recent ranking for 2008.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/pha/search

How are they rating these schools?

 

[xiphoid2010]

How are they rating these schools?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/educ...alth-methodology.html?s_cid=related-links:TOP

 

[Praziquantel86]

This thread again? Don't put any stock into the rankings, they're based on nonsensical formulas and skewed data.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

How are they rating these schools?

May as well say leprechauns and fairy dust. Not far from the truth, honestly. Hell, freakin' DiPiro is the dean at South Carolina and they aren't even in the top 40.

 

[ffpickle]

May as well say leprechauns and fairy dust. Not far from the truth, honestly. Hell, freakin' DiPiro is the dean at South Carolina and they aren't even in the top 40.

I agreee that the ranking methodology is rather nebulous and haphazard.

But wouldn't you agree that there is *some* merit to a ranking system? It doesn't mean the students are ranked higher, just the school.

Do you dismiss USNWR rakning for *all* the programs they rank (medical schools, law schools, business schools, social work programs, health care law programs, various other graduate schools, etc.) or *just* for PharmD?

Though rankings are unreliable, I know they do influence prospects in other fields (med school, law school, social work, public health, business schools- these are the only ones I know of, and know for a fact that the rankings, however irresponsible they may be, do have an effect), so perhaps Pharmacy is just the anomaly to this trend?

 

[xiphoid2010]

^ agreed. When it comes to school rankings, one might argue whether Harvard or Princeton should be ranked higher, but nobody is going to say #20 should be ranked higher than Harvard. When anything like people/schools gets ranked, somebody's pride is bound to be boosted or hurt a little, so there will always been supporters and detractors.

I'll say to pre-pharm students: look at the rough ballpark # where a school stands instead of the exact #, and if just going into retail then forget about ranking all together.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

^ agreed. When it comes to school rankings, one might argue whether Harvard or Princeton should be ranked higher, but nobody is going to say #20 should be ranked higher than Harvard. When anything like people/schools gets ranked, somebody's pride is bound to be boosted or hurt a little, so there will always been supporters and detractors.

No. It's seriously just stupid. The only way to rank schools at how well they educate are NAPLEX passing rates, matriculation, etc. However, the BIGGEST thing in the quality of a school is the quality of the 4th year rotations. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to quantify these as there is not enough regional intermingling to know who is actually doing the best job. I can tell you straight up who has the best program in my little region between like WVU, Charleston, Pitt, Duquesne, and LECOM...but outside of that, it's just what I hear from others and the quality of grads that I've worked with...and its the same for everyone. Nobody has a larger, national basis of comparison to actually rate schools reliably. It's snake oiled madness.

It's also crazy talk to base any of these lists on who would graduate the best pharmacists. The biggest reason I say this is because pharmacy school admission is regional, not national. Every academic high school kid from San Diego to Bangor wants to go to Harvard or MIT and strives for such. In pharmacy, TYPICALLY, kids go to one of their regional schools. I went to WVU because I'm from West Virginia it had cheap tuition. In fact, MOST of the best schools are big state schools that skew admissions to in-state students. As such, its impossible to consolidate all of the best academic talent into a handful of schools and, as such, no handful of schools have actually accumulated the collection of top students.

So, yes, what I'm saying is that UCSF, Minnesota, and North Carolina are not any better than schools ranked around the 20s like Pitt or Kansas.

I have no idea if the rankings US News pulls out of their collective asses in other areas are legit or not...they probably aren't...but for pharmacy, I can tell you straight up and unequivocal that they are pure bunk. Any of the schools they ranked are top tier schools...well...most of them, anyway...I won't defame any specific school.

 

[applejuju]

No. It's seriously just stupid. The only way to rank schools at how well they educate are NAPLEX passing rates, matriculation, etc. However, the BIGGEST thing in the quality of a school is the quality of the 4th year rotations. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to quantify these as there is not enough regional intermingling to know who is actually doing the best job. I can tell you straight up who has the best program in my little region between like WVU, Charleston, Pitt, Duquesne, and LECOM...but outside of that, it's just what I hear from others and the quality of grads that I've worked with...and its the same for everyone. Nobody has a larger, national basis of comparison to actually rate schools reliably. It's snake oiled madness.

It's also crazy talk to base any of these lists on who would graduate the best pharmacists. The biggest reason I say this is because pharmacy school admission is regional, not national. Every academic high school kid from San Diego to Bangor wants to go to Harvard or MIT and strives for such. In pharmacy, TYPICALLY, kids go to one of their regional schools. I went to WVU because I'm from West Virginia it had cheap tuition. In fact, MOST of the best schools are big state schools that skew admissions to in-state students. As such, its impossible to consolidate all of the best academic talent into a handful of schools and, as such, no handful of schools have actually accumulated the collection of top students.

So, yes, what I'm saying is that UCSF, Minnesota, and North Carolina are not any better than schools ranked around the 20s like Pitt or Kansas.

I have no idea if the rankings US News pulls out of their collective asses in other areas are legit or not...they probably aren't...but for pharmacy, I can tell you straight up and unequivocal that they are pure bunk. Any of the schools they ranked are top tier schools...well...most of them, anyway...I won't defame any specific school.

For pharmacy, am not too sure how US News ranks the schools, but i'll have to say for other graduate programs such as Law, Med, Business, ranking really do represent how well the schools are and what kind of education you are getting.

It's like a cycle that makes the best schools even better.

High ranking schools >> lots of competition to get in >> school can pick the best applicants >> school has accredation to hire the best professors/researchers >> excellent students and professionals are produced >> gives credentials to school >> high rank

Personally, i believe the most highly competitive schools are the best schools, because these schools are able to choose from the best of the best applicants. Their applicant pool is bigger and many people are willing to turn down other schools for them.

 

[Antimony]

No. It's seriously just stupid. The only way to rank schools at how well they educate are NAPLEX passing rates, matriculation, etc. However, the BIGGEST thing in the quality of a school is the quality of the 4th year rotations. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to quantify these as there is not enough regional intermingling to know who is actually doing the best job. I can tell you straight up who has the best program in my little region between like WVU, Charleston, Pitt, Duquesne, and LECOM...but outside of that, it's just what I hear from others and the quality of grads that I've worked with...and its the same for everyone. Nobody has a larger, national basis of comparison to actually rate schools reliably. It's snake oiled madness.

It's also crazy talk to base any of these lists on who would graduate the best pharmacists. The biggest reason I say this is because pharmacy school admission is regional, not national. Every academic high school kid from San Diego to Bangor wants to go to Harvard or MIT and strives for such. In pharmacy, TYPICALLY, kids go to one of their regional schools. I went to WVU because I'm from West Virginia it had cheap tuition. In fact, MOST of the best schools are big state schools that skew admissions to in-state students. As such, its impossible to consolidate all of the best academic talent into a handful of schools and, as such, no handful of schools have actually accumulated the collection of top students.

So, yes, what I'm saying is that UCSF, Minnesota, and North Carolina are not any better than schools ranked around the 20s like Pitt or Kansas.

I have no idea if the rankings US News pulls out of their collective asses in other areas are legit or not...they probably aren't...but for pharmacy, I can tell you straight up and unequivocal that they are pure bunk. Any of the schools they ranked are top tier schools...well...most of them, anyway...I won't defame any specific school.

Just because you went to a regional school, does not mean all do. A lot of kids from my UNC interview were also interviewing at Michigan, Ohio State, and UCSF ( which are all ranked in the top ten). Meaning, some of the top applicants were looking for quality of school, not just close proximity. I would say the same percentage of kids stay regional for undergrad as they do for pharmacy. There will always be very smart kids that could get into Stanford but choose to stay instate for scholarships and in-state tuition. There is the same financial risk for undergrad students who attend MIT, Harvard, Columbia out of state. But you don't see people dis-crediting undergrad rankings.

Some kids do luck out, in that their state school may be UNC, UF, UCSF, Michigan, Ohio State, etc.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Just because you went to a regional school, does not mean all do. A lot of kids from my UNC interview were also interviewing at Michigan, Ohio State, and UCSF ( which are all ranked in the top ten). Meaning, some of the top applicants were looking for quality of school, not just close proximity. I would say the same percentage of kids stay regional for undergrad as they do for pharmacy. There will always be very smart kids that could get into Stanford but choose to stay instate for scholarships and in-state tuition. There is the same financial risk for undergrad students who attend MIT, Harvard, Columbia out of state. But you don't see people dis-crediting undergrad rankings.

Some kids do luck out, in that their state school may be UNC, UF, UCSF, Michigan, Ohio State, etc.

Have any statistics to back up your claim? Because I look at the schools around here and all of them take a large percentage of in-state students because they are big state schools.