Originally posted by GravyRPH
In your calculation, you failed to add in the lost year of wages as did the above UCSD calculation. Rarely, would a 4 year school be more economical in the long run
If you had read my post more closely, you would have realized that I did take the 1-year pharmacist wage into consideration:
"In addition, I would not expect to make an extra $100,000 if I attend a 3-year school instead of a 4-year school. The starting salary of a pharmacist in California is approximately $95,000 a year. After 35% income tax, it is $62,000 a year. The 3-summer salary of a pharmacist intern in California is approximately $30,000 (increases in salary over the 3 summer period and tax return are taken into consideration). The difference in a 1-year salary of a pharmacist and 3-summer salary of a pharmacist intern is about $32,000".
If you take into account of the 3-summer salary of a pharmacist intern and 1-year pharmacist salary after income tax, you only would have earned an additional $32,000 if u attend a 3-year school than a 4-year school.
For example: 2 students, at age 22, start pharmacy school.
Student #1 goes to a public school such as UCSD:
$10,000 (tuition) X 4 years = $40,000
$40,000- $30,000 (3-summer salary as pharmacist intern) = $10,000 (owe)
Student #2 goes to a private school such as UOP:
$37,250 (tuition) x 2 years + $25,500 (3rd year) = $100,000
$100,000 - $65,000 (a year pharmacist salary after income tax) = $35,000 (owe).
At age 26, student #1 (UCSD) owes $10,000, while student #2 (UOP) owes $35,000. I am not even taking loan interest into account here. As you can see, it is economically more effective to attend UCSD than UOP in the long run.
I am using UOP as an example because it's the only 3-year program in California and its California board passage rate is similar to USC and UCSF, not like the 3-year pharmacy schools outside of California.
