R.Ph. vs. PharmD

[pharmacia]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Can anyone tell me the difference in education and job function beteen R.Ph. and PharD?🙂

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

none but would u rather have the RPH title or pharmD title.

 

[i ♥ pharmacy]

In the USA, there is no difference. All RPh must have a PharmD.

 

[cycloketocaine]

In the USA, there is no difference. All RPh must have a PharmD.

There is a difference between them, but pretty much any place you go work will not care. RPh's have to first have a PharmD, but all PharmD's don't have their RPh. 😉

 

[patmcd]

RPh is what people who recieved their pharmacy BS are called. Since they only offer the PharmD now it doesnt really matter. For most pharmacy jobs no one cares what degree you have. The main exception to that is residencies/clinical pharmacy.

 

[imkim01]

RPh is what people who recieved their pharmacy BS are called. Since they only offer the PharmD now it doesnt really matter. For most pharmacy jobs no one cares what degree you have. The main exception to that is residencies/clinical pharmacy.

Hmm.... I thought Rph (Registered Pharmacist, excuse me if I am wrong) is people who have a valid license to practice and are registered to the state board of pharmacy. So it can be either BS pharm or PharmD. A lot of people with BS pharm still do practice and we call them Rph as well. PharmD is people who earned the Doctor of Pharmacy degree. If ones with PharmD pass the board test and register to the state board of pharmacy, they can be called as Rph. By the way, you have to have PharmD to take the board test thesedays.

 

[sdn1977]

Hmm.... I thought Rph (Registered Pharmacist, excuse me if I am wrong) is people who have a valid license to practice and are registered to the state board of pharmacy. So it can be either BS pharm or PharmD. A lot of people with BS pharm still do practice and we call them Rph as well. PharmD is people who earned the Doctor of Pharmacy degree. If ones with PharmD pass the board test and register to the state board of pharmacy, they can be called as Rph. By the way, you have to have PharmD to take the board test thesedays.

Well.....you're right - kind of!

Pharm.D & BS - are both academic degrees. Until 2000, some schools awarded one, some the other. Since 2000, in the United States, the governing body of pharmacy education has determined that all pharmacy schools in the US will award only PharmD's. There are no longer BS degrees in pharmacy being awarded.

The RPh, as you indicated, is the designation you receive when you sucessfully pass the state board exam indicating you licensure in the state you are working. You may be an RPh in one state or many. This is a licensure indication only.

So...as someone pointed out...you can have the academic degree (PharmD, BS) but not the RPh. Some folks are not licensed because they are retired, have gone on to something else, or have jobs which don't involve dispensing (my VP friends in industry.) But.....if you ever want to let your license lapse...its a tough job to get it back - you have to take that huge test all over again....so most just obtain an "inactive" status to their RPh.

Now....you don't have to have a PharmD to be able to take the state board exam. You just have to have an academic degree which is acceptable to that state board. For example....if a pharmacist decides to move to CA for example, but had received his degree in 1979 from the Univ of Michigan (at that time they were awarding BS degrees - I know only because I work with someone who graduated in that year from there). That individual can take the CA state board exam (which is now a combination of the National Exam & its own jurisprudence exam)....but they don't have a PharmD. This also applies to foreign graduates - they may not have PharmD's, but they can still take the exam after documenting the education.

I hope that makes it clear. RPh & PharmD are two different designations.

 

[earlransom]

Hi, it's actually nice to see a response clarifying that a Pharm.D & RPh are essentially the same thing.

Before the early 90's, most Pharm.D's were actaully grad students - 5 years of school for a BS in pharmacy & then 2 years intensive post graduate work.

Now, most, if not all schools require a 6 year program for a Pharm.D - the BS for an RPh degree was 5 years.

What is interesting about the 5 vs 6 year Pharm.D vs BS/RPh is this:
The 5 year BS is the same amount of credits as a current 6 year Pharm.D degree.

I superimposed a 5 year pharmacy BS curriculum over a 6 year Pharm.D program & the 5 year BS degree actually had more credits than the 6 year Pharm.D program. That's right - the "doctorate" program gets 6 years to finish what some used to finish in 5 years. The other strange thing is this:

Outside of mandatory rotations - usually 4, or 6 week rotations, pharmacy students are required to acquire 1200 to 1500 hours of practical experience in a working pharmacy environment. This number did not increase with the addition of the extra year.

Again - more time to to the same amount of work for the Pharm.D.

Some people will arguw that the Pharm.D degrees require more rotations to obtain the degree which is true, however how much more does one learn, or gain by 2 additional 4 week rotations prior to graduation? The true learning is gained through hands on, practical experience mostly after graduation.

I've always been perturbed when a new "Pharm.D" claims to have gone to "graduate school", or would like to be referred to as "Doctor". Fair enough, but I always ask the "Doctor" "Did you complete a dissertation in your pharmcy graduate program?" The answer, of course, is "no".

You see, the new RPh - the "Pharm.D, has been taught their programs are longer & therefore worthy of a "doctorate". Fair enough - it is 6 years. What I rarely hear is that this 6 year course used to be completed in 5 years. There are no additional courses -maybe an elective or two.

I am an RPh & enrolled in a Pharm.D program while employed as a clinical pharmacist. I did not finish the program for two reasons:
1). I had already completed the exact same pharmacotherapeutic blocks I was required to study years earlier while in "undergrad"
2). The salary is the same for a BS & a Pharm.D.

Maybe if I did not have a family I would have continued. The reason I would have liked to obtain a Pharm.D is this:

The new generation of pharmacists have Pharm.D's. Most of them do not understand the fact that both the Pharm.D & RPh/BS require the same amount of schooling. They believe that by having an extra year of school they are light years ahead of an "RPh".

The only difference - besides a few meaningless 4 week rotations - is this:
The universities & colleges offering pharmacy degrees have gained an extra year of tuition.

I have respect for all pharmacists - it is a challengine degree to obtain & requires much focus & dedication. I'm lucky to have a good carrer. I do think it is unfortunate that the pre 90's Pharm.D's truly went to graduate school & earned a doctorate. They are clumped into the same class as the post early 90's mandatory Pharm.D's.

 

[earlransom]

Hmm.... I thought Rph (Registered Pharmacist, excuse me if I am wrong) is people who have a valid license to practice and are registered to the state board of pharmacy. So it can be either BS pharm or PharmD. A lot of people with BS pharm still do practice and we call them Rph as well. PharmD is people who earned the Doctor of Pharmacy degree. If ones with PharmD pass the board test and register to the state board of pharmacy, they can be called as Rph. By the way, you have to have PharmD to take the board test thesedays.

Hi, it's actually nice to see a response clarifying that a Pharm.D & RPh are essentially the same thing.

Before the early 90's, most Pharm.D's were actaully grad students - 5 years of school for a BS in pharmacy & then 2 years intensive post graduate work.

Now, most, if not all schools require a 6 year program for a Pharm.D - the BS for an RPh degree was 5 years.

What is interesting about the 5 vs 6 year Pharm.D vs BS/RPh is this:
The 5 year BS is the same amount of credits as a current 6 year Pharm.D degree.

I superimposed a 5 year pharmacy BS curriculum over a 6 year Pharm.D program & the 5 year BS degree actually had more credits than the 6 year Pharm.D program. That's right - the "doctorate" program gets 6 years to finish what some used to finish in 5 years. The other strange thing is this:

Outside of mandatory rotations - usually 4, or 6 week rotations, pharmacy students are required to acquire 1200 to 1500 hours of practical experience in a working pharmacy environment. This number did not increase with the addition of the extra year.

Again - more time to to the same amount of work for the Pharm.D.

Some people will arguw that the Pharm.D degrees require more rotations to obtain the degree which is true, however how much more does one learn, or gain by 2 additional 4 week rotations prior to graduation? The true learning is gained through hands on, practical experience mostly after graduation.

I've always been perturbed when a new "Pharm.D" claims to have gone to "graduate school", or would like to be referred to as "Doctor". Fair enough, but I always ask the "Doctor" "Did you complete a dissertation in your pharmcy graduate program?" The answer, of course, is "no".

You see, the new RPh - the "Pharm.D, has been taught their programs are longer & therefore worthy of a "doctorate". Fair enough - it is 6 years. What I rarely hear is that this 6 year course used to be completed in 5 years. There are no additional courses -maybe an elective or two.

I am an RPh & enrolled in a Pharm.D program while employed as a clinical pharmacist. I did not finish the program for two reasons:
1). I had already completed the exact same pharmacotherapeutic blocks I was required to study years earlier while in "undergrad"
2). The salary is the same for a BS & a Pharm.D.

Maybe if I did not have a family I would have continued. The reason I would have liked to obtain a Pharm.D is this:

The new generation of pharmacists have Pharm.D's. Most of them do not understand the fact that both the Pharm.D & RPh/BS require the same amount of schooling. They believe that by having an extra year of school they are light years ahead of an "RPh".

The only difference - besides a few meaningless 4 week rotations - is this:
The universities & colleges offering pharmacy degrees have gained an extra year of tuition.

I have respect for all pharmacists - it is a challengine degree to obtain & requires much focus & dedication. I'm lucky to have a good carrer. I do think it is unfortunate that the pre 90's Pharm.D's truly went to graduate school & earned a doctorate. They are clumped into the same class as the post early 90's mandatory Pharm.D's.

 

[UNMorBUST]

Wow you brought this back from the dead.

 

[delano2000]

A 4 year old thread? Honestly?🙄

 

[UNMorBUST]

A 4 year old thread? Honestly?🙄

I don't know about you D, but i've been itching for this to be clarified for the past 4 years.😀

 

[delano2000]

I don't know about you D, but i've been itching for this to be clarified for the past 4 years.😀

Someone answered this question 4 yrs ago. Please see below:

Well.....you're right - kind of!

Pharm.D & BS - are both academic degrees. Until 2000, some schools awarded one, some the other. Since 2000, in the United States, the governing body of pharmacy education has determined that all pharmacy schools in the US will award only PharmD's. There are no longer BS degrees in pharmacy being awarded.

The RPh, as you indicated, is the designation you receive when you sucessfully pass the state board exam indicating you licensure in the state you are working. You may be an RPh in one state or many. This is a licensure indication only.

So...as someone pointed out...you can have the academic degree (PharmD, BS) but not the RPh. Some folks are not licensed because they are retired, have gone on to something else, or have jobs which don't involve dispensing (my VP friends in industry.) But.....if you ever want to let your license lapse...its a tough job to get it back - you have to take that huge test all over again....so most just obtain an "inactive" status to their RPh.

Now....you don't have to have a PharmD to be able to take the state board exam. You just have to have an academic degree which is acceptable to that state board. For example....if a pharmacist decides to move to CA for example, but had received his degree in 1979 from the Univ of Michigan (at that time they were awarding BS degrees - I know only because I work with someone who graduated in that year from there). That individual can take the CA state board exam (which is now a combination of the National Exam & its own jurisprudence exam)....but they don't have a PharmD. This also applies to foreign graduates - they may not have PharmD's, but they can still take the exam after documenting the education.

I hope that makes it clear. RPh & PharmD are two different designations.

 

[UNMorBUST]

Someone answered this question 4 yrs ago. Please see below:

But it's not earlransom's personal answer. Geez D you take all the fun out of sarcasm.😛

 

[WVUPharm2007]

PharmDs are people that were taken advantage of by the unchecked academic system. They were gouged for an extra year of tuition that was pretty much not necessary. I am one of these people, unfortunately. If I could trade my PharmD for a BSPharm and receive a check for the tuition I wasted taking an extra year of school, I would.

 

[delano2000]

But it's not earlransom's personal answer. Geez D you take all the fun out of sarcasm.😛

You know me too well.