The Pharmacy School Bubble Is About to Burst

[Gombrich12]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119634/pharmacy-school-crisis-why-good-jobs-are-drying

This was a decent article, but really light on details from students and new pharmacists. I found the illustration of 4 out of 5 people people getting jobs and 12 people from Purdue still looking for jobs to be sort of foolish since those numbers would look great to the average American.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Vatic]

"Almost 6,000 pharmacist jobs stood empty, and the shortage was only predicted to grow worse. The following year, a group now known as the Pharmacy Workforce Center predicted a shortfall of 157,000 pharmacists nationally within two decades ...Quickly, the free market kicked in."

There was no stinking free market as far as the credit extended to fuel this mess. Underwriting standards? We don't need no stinkin underwriting standards!

 

[BMBiology]

Can anybody guess who is behind the Pharmacy Workforce Center? Anybody?

But, but I heard there is a job opening in Florida lol

 

[BenJammin]

Wouldn't surprise me if it's the AACP.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Wouldn't surprise me if it's the AACP.

Yup.

 

[rxwaiting]

Can anybody guess who is behind the Pharmacy Workforce Center? Anybody?

But, but I heard there is a job opening in Florida lol

glad to see you are back, what is the status of you starting a new blog? I would surely be a devoted reader. =]

 

[BMBiology]

glad to see you are back, what is the status of you starting a new blog? I would surely be a devoted reader. =]

SDN is my blog =)

 

[BeLikeBueller]

Folks, you can thank the ACPE for not balancing supply and demand. Although, I will say - subjectively, the job market has eased up a bit in my area. That being said, new graduates still far outpace any growth in the field. Things will only get better when the baby boomers start to retire or die. (As one pharmacist once told me, "pharmacists don't retire, they die.")

 

[confettiflyer]

Folks, you can thank the ACPE for not balancing supply and demand. Although, I will say - subjectively, the job market has eased up a bit in my area. That being said, new graduates still far outpace any growth in the field. Things will only get better when the baby boomers start to retire or die. (As one pharmacist once told me, "pharmacists don't retire, they die.")

Wrong. You can thank the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Is it time for my annual lecture, again?

 

[BeLikeBueller]

Wrong. You can thank the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Is it time for my annual lecture, again?

No, I'm pretty sure you can safely blame the group responsible for accrediting all the fly-by-night schools that have popped up in the past ten or so years. That being said, I'd be interested in hearing this annual lecture anyways.

 

[OmiPharmD]

Folks, you can thank the ACPE for not balancing supply and demand. Although, I will say - subjectively, the job market has eased up a bit in my area. That being said, new graduates still far outpace any growth in the field. Things will only get better when the baby boomers start to retire or die. (As one pharmacist once told me, "pharmacists don't retire, they die.")

When I graduated in the mid 90s there were about 7,500 new pharmacists/year. That number was fairly stable thru the 90s. I don't know how many new pharmacists/year were graduating in the 70s - surely not more than the 90s.

My point is that 1970s pharmacy graduates can't retire or die fast enough to accommodate 14-15,000 new pharmacists/year entering the profession.

 

[BidingMyTime]

When I graduated in the mid 90s there were about 7,500 new pharmacists/year. That number was fairly stable thru the 90s. I don't know how many new pharmacists/year were graduating in the 70s - surely not more than the 90s.
My point is that 1970s pharmacy graduates can't retire or die fast enough to accommodate 14-15,000 new pharmacists/year entering the profession.

Why would 1970's pharmacists be retiring????? 1970 would be the only year really thinking about retiring (assuming they graduated at age 22 or 23 which would have been common--they would now be 67 or 68 years old.) Retirement is now age 67 (although I must admit that I'm not sure what year they started that, so possibly it would be 65 for 1970.) But add into the fact that 1970's graduates are the tail-end of the baby boomers, and given that most baby boomers didn't bother to save anything for retirement, selfishly expecting everyone to pay for their retirement, and since most companies have done away with pensions.....long story short, most of the graduates from the 1970's are not old enough to be thinking about retirement, and those that are, can't afford to retire.

Maybe you meant the graduates from the 1960's aren't retiring fast enough for the new grads....because of even though they are old enough to retire, many of them can't afford to retire, because they are baby boomers and never thought about saving for their retirement.

 

[OmiPharmD]

Maybe you meant the graduates from the 1960's aren't retiring fast enough for the new grads....because of even though they are old enough to retire, many of them can't afford to retire, because they are baby boomers and never thought about saving for their retirement.

Our 1960s grads have all retired around here. Gone. The people retiring now are early 70s grads. Maybe this area is weird???!!!

 

[Vatic]

I think the grads of the 70's, 80's and 90's have already been shown door for the most part. Look around you at the workplace. Where are the old codgers? I noticed this towards the end of my run. Nobody but kids on the roster. Pharmacy is now Logan's Run. At the age of 30 you enter The Carrousel.



Oh look! I forgot, there's a young Duncan Idaho in this movie. He really looks the part.

 

[owlegrad]

Wrong. You can thank the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Is it time for my annual lecture, again?

You should just put a link in your sig to your lecture

 

[confettiflyer]

No, I'm pretty sure you can safely blame the group responsible for accrediting all the fly-by-night schools that have popped up in the past ten or so years. That being said, I'd be interested in hearing this annual lecture anyways.

Here you go, from January 2011. I'm pretty sure I posted it before. But to answer your question, no, you can't "safely blame" that particular group...because if the group bows to your every demand of your wettest dream, the DOE will basically come in and remove their ability to accredit schools. Here's the post:


The Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 1 specifically) prevents a Department of Education recognized accrediting body--such as ACPE--from arbitrarily controlling the number of schools in areas and requirements under its purview.

English: If ACPE makes it too hard for a new school to open, and does not apply those more stringent standards to new schools, it will be sued. If ACPE makes more stringent standards, applies them to ALL schools, and this successfully keeps new schools from opening up....every single school in the country would close because no one would be able to comply. Further, if those standards are arbitrary, ACPE will get sued (see below).

This is the reality, there's no way around it, people who say we should keep new schools from opening are wasting their breath. Any attempt at manipulating the accreditation process to restrict schools is DOA. The ABA piled on some unrelated accreditation requirements in 1995, promised not to do it, but then got caught by the DOJ for doing it, and had to pay ~$200k fine in 2006. (source) Interestingly, relevant to this discussion is this from that press release:

"the ABA would be prohibited from...Refusing to accredit schools simply because they are for-profit."

Anyway, as I've said before, the train has left the station...and there's 120+ years of federal law backing it up. The only way to fix it is to give that train some track to run on and open up the profession on the back end w/ increased niches and things to do.

 

[owlegrad]

Blah blah blah stuff stuff stuff

But "It's ACPE's fault for not stopping the new schools from opening!" is a much catcher line.

 

[BMBiology]

If ACPE makes it too hard for a new school to open, and does not apply those more stringent standards to new schools, it will be sued. If ACPE makes more stringent standards, applies them to ALL schools, and this successfully keeps new schools from opening up....every single school in the country would close because no one would be able to comply. Further, if those standards are arbitrary, ACPE will get sued (see below)

I disagree with this. The established pharmacy schools could have made the standards more strict. But that would also mean they would have to meet those standards and that would cost them money so they looked the other way. They are charging ridiculous tuition and are getting away with it. They could have spent some of that money on their students and the profession but it is all about the money at the end of the day and selling false hope to the young and the naive. It doesnt matter if their graduates find a job or not. They already got paid.

Hell, it wasn't too long ago when you can just open a pharmacy school without any form accreditition. You just need a room and some chairs and tables. Remember Hawaii College of Pharmacy? Pharmacy school rotations are also a joke. Do you think med schools send their students to diabetes camp for rotation?

 

[confettiflyer]

I disagree with this. The established pharmacy schools could have made the standards more strict. But that would also mean they would have to meet those standards and that would cost them money so they looked the other way. They are charging ridiculous tuition and are getting away with it. They could have spent some of that money on their students and the profession but it is all about the money at the end of the day and selling false hope to the young and the naive. It doesnt matter if their graduates find a job or not. They already got paid.

It's all about reputation. I precept students from what many consider the #1 school in the U.S....they have a firm understanding that they are #1 only because people think they are (U.S. News rankings are based on reputation). There's zero incentive for a top school to actively lobby for stricter standards. First, it dilutes your own school's reputation/brand if you try to export your training methods to everyone else; second, and most importantly, it removes local control from your training process and puts it in the hands of some far off group in Illinois.

Yeah...that makes complete sense, let's spend money and give up control! So you're correct in that existing schools could have pushed for stricter standards, but why would you do that when you can just implement them yourself and produce better graduates compared to everyone else?

Also, to dispute your disputing my point about ACPE establishing stricter standards and every school closing -- with enough seed money, *any* new school should be able to achieve realistic standards promulgated by ACPE. Writing a standard so strict and targeted such that it is intended to exclude new programs would be illegal, as it could be construed as market manipulation under 15 U.S.C. § 1. Writing a legal but strict standard would put hardship on both old and new schools, but in the end, money is money (whether it's cash flow in the form of tuition by the existing program, an existing program's endowment, or VC money for the new program). If the standard is strict such that ROI for a school of pharmacy turns negative...then it would be negative for the existing program, so it would be forced to close, which was my original point.

tl;dr - at some point, it becomes not worth it to run or open a school of pharmacy if the standards are onerous.

[/quote]

Hell, it wasn't too long ago when you can just open a pharmacy school without any form accreditition.

Dude, that was 10 years ago. iPhone wasn't even invented yet, President Bush was still in his first term.

Pharmacy school rotations are also a joke.

I think rotations are the most important part...unless your school does like 3-4 community rotations (I've heard of that), then that's pretty stupid. Or...

Do you think med schools send their students to diabetes camp for rotation?

There's a school that does this? hahahhahahah....which school! i want to know...i want to know really bad.

 

[confettiflyer]

I agree, just the pharmacists retiring isn't enough but I am always happy when I hear of a pharmacist retiring--- one more job open.

I have like three jobs (FT + per-diem at another hospital + agency that keeps calling me). I'm like the fat dude on the airplane taking up an entire aisle.

 

[MatCauthon]

Unfortunately the bubble hurts those of us that are already employed as well. Employers in both retail and hospital are doing whatever they can to reduce costs, water down benefits, and make us work more for less. We don't have leverage anymore.

 

[BeLikeBueller]

Stuff and things.

Point taken, but I'm not suggesting that the ACPE should be limiting accreditation on the basis of for-profit vs. not. My opinion is that the ACPE accreditation standards aren't good enough at preventing accreditation for institutions that are producing very poor pharmacists which, I would argue, pose a threat to public safety in some cases. I had some experience with the "top" P-4 students from a recently opened, ACPE accredited school at a state-level competition and I was genuinely frightened by their lack of basic knowledge. I don't know what the accreditation answer is for that problem, but I do know that the ACPE has a responsibility in ensuring that institutions are producing graduates capable of effectively practicing pharmacy (and no, I don't think the NAPLEX exam is a good measure of this).


Thanks for the information though. It seems like the only instance of an accreditation body being sued though is that ABA case, but I don't see in reading the summary how it would prohibit the ACPE from instituting more restrictive quality standards.

 

[Dred Pirate]

It's all about reputation. I precept students from what many consider the #1 school in the U.S....they have a firm understanding that they are #1 only because people think they are (U.S. News rankings are based on reputation). There's zero incentive for a top school to actively lobby for stricter standards. First, it dilutes your own school's reputation/brand if you try to export your training methods to everyone else; second, and most importantly, it removes local control from your training process and puts it in the hands of some far off group in Illinois.

and I precept for the #2 school in the country, unfortunately most of my students think that since they are only behind UCSF in the rankings that it somehow makes them smarter. HA! far from the truth, I went to a school ranked in the 40's - and can run circles around most of them (not sure how much of that is experience vs how much is that I am just a better person (joke!).

But ya, rankings are completely subjective

 

[Dred Pirate]

I have like three jobs (FT + per-diem at another hospital + agency that keeps calling me). I'm like the fat dude on the airplane taking up an entire aisle.

that used to be me, I made an additiona 50% of my income in OT work, but then I discovered I enjoyed having a life and working 8 hour days and taking 5 week long trips a year to someplace nicer

 

[confettiflyer]

and I precept for the #2 school in the country, unfortunately most of my students think that since they are only behind UCSF in the rankings that it somehow makes them smarter. HA! far from the truth, I went to a school ranked in the 40's - and can run circles around most of them (not sure how much of that is experience vs how much is that I am just a better person (joke!).

But ya, rankings are completely subjective

Oh I get superstars at the new schools as well...but so many students are breezing through throughout the year, you start to see patterns and averages.

 

[confettiflyer]

that used to be me, I made an additiona 50% of my income in OT work, but then I discovered I enjoyed having a life and working 8 hour days and taking 5 week long trips a year to someplace nicer

I'll discover that later, though I do manage to take my 3-4 week vacations each year (my per diem/agency jobs aren't demanding for days/shifts).

 

[rxglasshalffull]

i just hope people can wake up to the reality of pharmacy...but unfortunately lots of ppl still dont know the the truth. i know so many techs that are applying to pharm school.

 

[lisinopril]

This should be sticky at "PRE-PHARMACY" FORUM....where pre-pharm can read it. I don't know why SDN blocks/ban people who telling the truth and promotes opening new pharm schools.

 

[owlegrad]

There's a school that does this? hahahhahahah....which school! i want to know...i want to know really bad.

It is an elective rotation at UF.

 

[Sparda29]

I just interviewed for a clinical pharmacist position today that was a union position. I was surprised when they told me it was union.

 

[confettiflyer]

It is an elective rotation at UF.

Ah, probably legit then.

 

[kendrick lamar]

I read this too and I thought it was a really great read in digestible/shareable format for friends/family who think I am simply being a pessimist when I say the pharmacy job market is bad. Although I agree some of the stats may not look alarming to the average person, but I think the article does do a good job in explaining the trend of unemployment, the shortfalls of pharmacy degree in that it's way less versatile than other degrees.

I enjoyed pharmacy rotations, they were the best part of pharmacy school for me and would rather wish there were 2 years of rotations and 2 years of study instead of 3 years of study. However, realistically for most recent graduates, rotations are sometimes the only opportunity you get to do certain things within your pharmacy career. Since there are so many graduates and residencies are becoming competitive and pretty much a pre-req for the people wanting to go to hospital or clinical, quite a lot of people are stuck with retail being their only practical option.

 

[knight on horse]

^ ******s at thinking it's not bad