So why is UCSF #1 again?! 10% failed the CPJE

[BMBiology]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

More than 10% failed the CPJE....the highest failure rate among all the California schools. Its failure rate is about the same as California Northstate which is a new for-profit school!

http://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/publications/0415_0915_stats.pdf

 

[Amicable Angora]

Isn't the ranking based on popularity?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

We figured out back in 2005 that the ratings were a total sham. They still are. Its all just based on name recognition.

 

[Confused321]

this needs to be shared in "pre-pharmacy" or "school specific" so applicant's know about UCSF's CPJE

 

[croquemonsieur]

It's probably because they accept people who are too heavily involved in clubs/extracurriculars (i.e., planning social events masquerading as fundraisers and taking bogus medical mission trips to Nicaragua) to actually study. Then again, that's the kind of crap that gets residency directors hot and bothered, so I don't blame them.

 

[exiangwsu]

Passing rate is objective. For a larger school, USC, UOP have class size around 200, the passing rate will be higher not because their program is better. It is due to typically only one or two ppl fail the naplex. When you divide by greater denominator(class size), you will have a higher passing rate. Second ranking of US news is heavily emphasized on research, funding and faculty publication. Not lots of pharmacy schools are research oriented.

 

[stark3]

Passing rate is objective. For a larger school, USC, UOP have class size around 200, the passing rate will be higher not because their program is better. It is due to typically only one or two ppl fail the naplex. When you divide by greater denominator(class size), you will have a higher passing rate. Second ranking of US news is heavily emphasized on research, funding and faculty publication. Not lots of pharmacy schools are research oriented.

Right, but they are talking about the CPJE here, which is the law portion for California. UCSD has a smaller class size (with 47 people taking the exam) and it has a lower failure rate (~2% vs 10.5% for UCSF) for the CPJE.

 

[confettiflyer]

Man, you are like one of those new graduates who focus on the smallest of details and miss the whole picture.

From other thread, lol.

HEY my alma mater has a 100% pass rate for CPJE again, wahoo

 

[Rukn]

LOL Pharmacy School rankings

 

[Caffeine QAM]

That's pretty interesting. That number is pretty bad for UCSF. Historically though, they don't seem to perform that poorly. It seems like UOP and Cal State Northridge (not that Cal State has much history to go off of) constitently perform poorly relatively to others on CPJE. USC and UCSD have a pretty good record. UCSF seems to do well overall, though not as consistently - their NAPLEX record is pretty stellar though.

If someone was nerdy and interested enough, they could create a chart to visualize the record.

 

[gwarm01]

When you divide by greater denominator(class size), you will have a higher passing rate.

I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that the absolute number of students that will fail Naplex is a constant, therefore percentage of students that pass is not a meaningful number? That's a curious stance to take.

 

[BMBiology]

Right, but they are talking about the CPJE here, which is the law portion for California. UCSD has a smaller class size (with 47 people taking the exam) and it has a lower failure rate (~2% vs 10.5% for UCSF) for the CPJE.

If it is just law then it is not a big deal. The CPJE is the clinical version of the NAPLEX.

I thought UCSF has the best students?!

 

[BMBiology]

From other thread, lol.

HEY my alma mater has a 100% pass rate for CPJE again, wahoo

Yes, 6 out of 6. Congrats

 

[Caffeine QAM]

I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that the absolute number of students that will fail Naplex is a constant, therefore percentage of students that pass is not a meaningful number? That's a curious stance to take.

This. The greater the denominator, the greater you would expect the numerator to be, statistically speaking. I *think* Exsiang might be trying to say that smaller denominators make the statistics less robust and able to tolerate variability in the numerator...maybe? E.g. if you had 2 students in your class and 1 failed, your fail rate would be 50%... however at class sizes of 100+, I would expect those percentages to be pretty significant.

 

[confettiflyer]

I'm curious what the historical pass rate is and what it'll be for 2016.

But it's irrelevant to me from a hiring/screening perspective. Unlicensed pharmacists just don't show up on my radar, I'm more concerned with the clinical performance of the part of the class that is applying for jobs/residencies. I'll judge them according to my rubric and not wonder why 11 people in their class failed CPJE.

 

[confettiflyer]

If it is just law then it is not a big deal. The CPJE is the clinical version of the NAPLEX.

I thought UCSF has the best students?!

If CPJE were a valid screening tool for "best" student, then I'd wonder too. Luckily it isn't (I crammed for the test, it's not that hard, but harder than NAPLEX)

 

[TheBlaah]

I'm curious what the historical pass rate is and what it'll be for 2016.

But it's irrelevant to me from a hiring/screening perspective. Unlicensed pharmacists just don't show up on my radar, I'm more concerned with the clinical performance of the part of the class that is applying for jobs/residencies. I'll judge them according to my rubric and not wonder why 11 people in their class failed CPJE.

I dunno. Might be relevant if you hire a resident and they end up not passing the CPJE, and with the waiting time, ends up not being licensed in time before the start of residency. The probability is remote, but I've seen it happen before.

 

[Caffeine QAM]

I dunno. Might be relevant if you hire a resident and they end up not passing the CPJE, and with the waiting time, ends up not being licensed in time before the start of residency. The probability is remote, but I've seen it happen before.

True - I mean, the pass rate on CPJE and NAPLEX is so high, I would expect that anyone who passed through all the screening to get a residency would be more than capable of passing the board exams on the first try - however, I have heard of multiple cases of residents having to be dropped from the program because they did not pass and took it too late to have a chance to re-take it soon enough. Or ones who took them early, didn't pass, retook, and didn't pass again. It's pretty surprising, but I guess people do fall through cracks, extenuating circumstances come up, they start to lose focus, and/or the residency was just way too intense and they didn't have time to study (though they should have been aiming to take it long before the start date anyways).

 

[steveysmith54]

I've said it before, I can defnintely see a difference in my students that I precept. There are still a lot of bright ones, but the average student is not what he/she was several short years ago. A lot don't work during school for one reason or another and others are just not as bright.

 

[owlegrad]

True - I mean, the pass rate on CPJE and NAPLEX is so high, I would expect that anyone who passed through all the screening to get a residency would be more than capable of passing the board exams on the first try - however, I have heard of multiple cases of residents having to be dropped from the program because they did not pass and took it too late to have a chance to re-take it soon enough. Or ones who took them early, didn't pass, retook, and didn't pass again. It's pretty surprising, but I guess people do fall through cracks, extenuating circumstances come up, they start to lose focus, and/or the residency was just way too intense and they didn't have time to study (though they should have been aiming to take it long before the start date anyways).

I am personally familiar with one such case and anecdotally familiar with a few more. What does it say about the residency selection process that the ones who get selected can't even pass the minimum competency exam in time to do a residency? It's bananas.

 

[297point1]

What does it say about the residency selection process that the ones who get selected can't even pass the minimum competency exam in time to do a residency? It's bananas.

It happens more often that you would think. I wonder if the new secondary match will curtail this- the old scramble process didn't strike me as an effective way to screen residency applicants.

And it is indeed bananas.

 

[EyeTeeFarmer]

And how on Earth would you predict one's success in a residency besides the usual GPA, involvement, LORs, facetime?

It's all that or the highway.

As for passing the boards, show me one study of anything that predicts who will pass and who doesn't besides that individual's study habits and willpower. For all we know, it could've rained more on the UCSD campus that year leading to more failures. Confounders x infinity.

Anecdotally, I've known Rho Chi who've failed and slackers who've passed. And conversely, plenty going the other way too. Stats for one year are just stats, and inferences are cute.

 

[TheBlaah]

And how on Earth would you predict one's success in a residency besides the usual GPA, involvement, LORs, facetime?

It's all that or the highway.

As for passing the boards, show me one study of anything that predicts who will pass and who doesn't besides that individual's study habits and willpower. For all we know, it could've rained more on the UCSD campus that year leading to more failures. Confounders x infinity.

Anecdotally, I've known Rho Chi who've failed and slackers who've passed. And conversely, plenty going the other way too. Stats for one year are just stats, and inferences are cute.

I think the idea is to take the applicant's school into account. In any case, UCSF's pass rate averages around 91% for the last 7 years, so it's not like it's some weird outlier data point, except for 2011 where it was at 84%. This was taken straight from their website.

But you seem awfully defensive.

 

[BenJammin]

Pharmacy school rankings are bull****. The only school that comes close to UCSF in terms of pass rate for NAPLEX is Southwestern Oklahoma State University who had 7 years of 100% passing (one less than UCSF). UCSF is ranked number 1 while SWOSU isn't even in the top 125. How many schools even have 1 year in recent memory of 100% passing?

 

[297point1]

And how on Earth would you predict one's success in a residency besides the usual GPA, involvement, LORs, facetime.

We aren't talking about success in a residency - we are talking about passing licensing exams.

As for passing the boards, show me one study of anything that predicts who will pass and who doesn't besides that individual's study habits and willpower.

So...if a resident fails the licensing exam, you are stating it is a result of poor study habits and/or a lack of willpower.

Isn't willpower (and to a lesser extent, good study habits) an important trait to possess heading into a residency program? Its what residency directors say they highly value in selecting PGY1 residents- ability to learn is the #1 reason for granting onsite interviews, and commitment to work hard is the #2 reason for ranking candidates. (Jellinek-Cohen et al, AJHP 2012;69:1105-1108).

By your argument, some of these residency directors aren't doing a good job at selecting their residents.

Check mate.

 

[EyeTeeFarmer]

We aren't talking about success in a residency - we are talking about passing licensing exams.



So...if a resident fails the licensing exam, you are stating it is a result of poor study habits and/or a lack of willpower.

Isn't willpower (and to a lesser extent, good study habits) an important trait to possess heading into a residency program? Its what residency directors say they highly value in selecting PGY1 residents- ability to learn is the #1 reason for granting onsite interviews, and commitment to work hard is the #2 reason for ranking candidates. (Jellinek-Cohen et al, AJHP 2012;69:1105-1108).

By your argument, some of these residency directors aren't doing a good job at selecting their residents.

Check mate.

Nice try. But only politicians connect dots that aren't even close. Your article says residency directors choose those traits in granting interviews. It does not mention anything about rate of licensure in residents. And neither did I. You are the only one to make that leap in calling out my comment.

Simplifying for you: Success on the boards =/= success in a residency program =/= ability of programs to recruit residents

Please don't throw up another straw-man fallacy if you are going to quote me.

And yes, I am being a little defensive. I find it funny the last few posts have been criticizing residency programs with their ability to choose candidates, and then somehow ridiculously relating that to licensing success.

SO the question once again stands, since you think residency directors are doing a poor job, how else would you pick a candidate you do not know intimately besides those qualifications I named in the previous post?

Take-away: Residency directors and programs are doing the best they can. People can tell when you're retail and you bring in this topic every chance you get. 😉 Stick to talking about UCSF and CPJE fail rates.

 

[Caffeine QAM]

It's tough to reconcile the fact that mediocre/poor performing students can pass the board exam, yet those with excellent grades, overall personality traits (leadership, professionalism, work ethic), performance in clerkships to get good enough letters of recommendations, and interview well enough to match at highly competitive programs will still fail the board exam. I don't think it necessarily reflects poorly on the residency program selection process.

Yes, study habits and willpower are important. If I were on the selection committee for a residency program, I would look for those qualities as well. But the problem is, we don't really know what's causing seemingly competent, highly-motivated, otherwise soon-to-be residents fail board exams. I do not believe that highly ranked candidates are poor performers. There are typically many more applicants to residency programs than there are positions, so they must have appeared better, both on paper and in interview than their peers.

So what exactly is wrong with the selection process? I don't know. Maybe nothing. Sometimes, these things just cannot be predicted.