Things are rough when it's easier to get into medical school!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Knickerbocker

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
1,551
Reaction score
5
I had a conversation with a friend earlier about her cousin who had been unable to get into pharmacy school for three years in a row. This year, she applied to medical school instead and was accepted!

Things have really changed in the past few years...

Members don't see this ad.
 
Which medical school did she get into?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
the pharmacy schools probably thought she was over-qualified (maybe high GPA, etc) that they were not convinced that she really wanted to get a PharmD instead of MD....

some people might think a person like that is considering the PharmD program b/c she couldn't get into a med school...i know this happens b/c the pharmacist whom i used to work with told me a similar story about one of the applicants who applied with 3.8 GPA and got rejected by every pharm school but got accepted to a med school... that was awhile back when pharm schools were not as competitive to get in as what we are experiencing now though...
 
That is just weird ... even though I don't have an impressive GPA, if I had a 3.8, 3.9 and 4.0 average I'd still apply to Pharmacy School. I don't know how the other applicants feel, but I wanna be a pharmacist and not a physician, therefore I'd never apply to Med School. It is sad however, that they are reject Pharmacy School Applicants with such good credentials.
 
That is just weird ... even though I don't have an impressive GPA, if I had a 3.8, 3.9 and 4.0 average I'd still apply to Pharmacy School. I don't know how the other applicants feel, but I wanna be a pharmacist and not a physician, therefore I'd never apply to Med School. It is sad however, that they are reject Pharmacy School Applicants with such good credentials.


Agreed Me = no physician. After dealing with premeds for years there is no way I'd ever want to deal with med students.
 
Agreed Me = no physician. After dealing with premeds for years there is no way I'd ever want to deal with med students.



:laugh::laugh::laugh: I love ur little statement u have below u.

"Women are just like Cheburashka - soft, cuddly, love with their ears and spend their entire lives with some Crocodile."
 
Agreed Me = no physician. After dealing with premeds for years there is no way I'd ever want to deal with med students.

I know what you're saying. But at the same time the sdn has helped me realize that there are more than a few Pre Pharm students that I don't want to deal with also...
 
Med school isn't easier to get into than pharmacy school (generally). I would say your friend must have done something to make the pharmacy schools think that she wasn't into pharmacy and had other goals (like med school).
 
Med school isn't easier to get into than pharmacy school (generally). I would say your friend must have done something to make the pharmacy schools think that she wasn't into pharmacy and had other goals (like med school).

I really hope that is the case.
 
I believe that the numbers still say that more people apply to med school than pharm school. Could be wrong.
 
Based solely on applicant:acceptance ratio, medical school is MUCH harder than pharmacy school to get into. Another thing that makes medical school admissions more challenging is the quality of the applicant pool - generally the best students apply. A lot of college students have it drilled in their head that it's either med school or bust.

The same can be said about comparing pharmacy school admissions statistics. Some pharmacy schools boast 1000+ applicant numbers, but are these schools really harder to get into than the school with 400 applicants who have near-perfect stats? Admissions is all about the quality of the applicant pool. I've found that getting caught up in the numbers game just makes you more stressed out during admissions season.
 
medical school really IS more difficult to get into than pharmacy school, at least in general. I mean, to get into UCSF pharmacy school is roughly just as difficult as to get into most medical schools, but overall, in general, getting into med school is significantly more difficult.

just like everyone here though, i would never want to be an MD. The pay is excellent, but the lifestyle of most doctors really turns me off. besides, medicine is about to be socialized and doctors' saleries will be hit HARD by this, so within a few years doctors will have all the sleepless nights and responsibilities and none of the pay... oh well, sucks for them, great for us:laugh:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
"medicine is about to be socialized"

Could you please care to elaborate? Do you have sources or recent articles? I'm just curious. Thanks.
 
If medicine is socialized and doctors' salaries are hit hard, it seems likely that pharmacists will experience similar. There's no way that pharmacists will be making more than doctors.
 
"medicine is about to be socialized"

Could you please care to elaborate? Do you have sources or recent articles? I'm just curious. Thanks.

It's the proposed policy of 2 out of the 3 remaining presidential candidates.
 
That reminds me - we've got some serious issues coming up in the not too distant future. For example, social security is going to fail in the next 20 years or so years.
 
doc toothache, that's a nice set of information. Of course, I didn't really think that it was easier to get into medical school, I just can't shake the insanity of how things worked out for the person I mentioned in my first post.
 
I think the sky is falling too. We should go ahead and prepare ourselves for that

I don't know if this is a response to me, but if it is, it is a fact that social security is going to have problems soon unless the system is fixed.
 
Look at the field Knick... nothing's happening in the next 4-8 yrs... well... certainly nothing good anyway.

I'm gonna vote to cut my losses in Nov.

Vote Mac! the least bad option!
 
Look at the field Knick... nothing's happening in the next 4-8 yrs... well... certainly nothing good anyway.

I'm gonna vote to cut my losses in Nov.

Vote Mac! the least bad option!

what a surprise, a texan voting for a republican candidate!

no surprises here either, i voted Clinton!

P.s. McCain sucks :thumbdown:
 
"medicine is about to be socialized"

Could you please care to elaborate? Do you have sources or recent articles? I'm just curious. Thanks.

U.S.A is the only "first world country" that does NOT have socialized medicine, hence there is a movement in that direction. If a democrat is voted into office... which is more likely than not, judging by the f*** ups of our current Republican incumbent, you can predict that the democrats will make a strong push in that direction. I expect the change to occur within 8-12 years.


p.s. im not sure if pharmacists will ever make more money than MD's; however, when medicine becomes socialized the desparity will definitely be a hell of a lot smaller, simply because doctor's saleries are artificially inflated by the high costs of medical treatment; however, when the government starts paying for all of our medical expenses medical treatment will become a LOT cheaper, thus MD saleries will drop. Our saleries ,however, will not:laugh:
 
It's the proposed policy of 2 out of the 3 remaining presidential candidates.

From what I've read, they are definitely not proposing true socialized medicine. Clinton wants "universal" healthcare, but that doesn't mean the government will pay for it. Her plan is to make health insurance mandatory, and penalize people who are not covered. It's not quite as harsh as it sounds since there will be some government action to help people buy coverage, but Obama's campaign has criticized the plan saying that it will still be cheaper for some people to pay the fines rather than buy health insurance. Obama doesn't even go as far as proposing universal healthcare. His plan will only require, not necessarily pay for, healthcare for children, and will only make it a little easier for everyone else to buy or maintain their coverage.

Clearly, these policies aren't comparable to the real socialized medicine in Canada and Europe where the government pays for everything.
 
what a surprise, a texan voting for a republican candidate!

no surprises here either, i voted Clinton!

P.s. McCain sucks :thumbdown:

I'm in Texas, and in the past I've chosen one candidate from each side that I like best and hope that at least one of them comes through.

In 2000, I chose Al Gore for the Democrats and John McCain for the Republicans. Sadly, the Republicans went for Bush.

In 2004, I liked Wesley Clark best. Unfortunately, the Democrats picked Kerry.

This time, I've decided to not care. Anyone truly different with at least some good ideas gets killed off early by the media. Dennis Kucinich has an excellent stance on normalizing foreign trade that no other candidate holds. Sadly, the media could only talk about his UFO experience.
 
This time, I've decided to not care. Anyone truly different with at least some good ideas gets killed off early by the media. Dennis Kucinich has an excellent stance on normalizing foreign trade that no other candidate holds. Sadly, the media could only talk about his UFO experience.

I totally agree. I also like Kucinich, and I think Ron Paul would have been a great republican candidate. Truly different candidates either get killed off by the media, as you say, or run a hopeless independent campaign like Ralph Nader.
 
AbsoluteEthanol said:
;however, when the government starts paying for all of our medical expenses medical treatment will become a LOT cheaper, thus MD saleries will drop. Our saleries ,however, will not:laugh:

Maybe I'm dense, but I can't tell if your laugh emoticon signifies sarcasm or if you really do believe that pharmacy salaries would stay the same in such a scenario.
 
I totally agree. I also like Kucinich, and I think Ron Paul would have been a great republican candidate. Truly different candidates either get killed off by the media, as you say, or run a hopeless independent campaign like Ralph Nader.


Yeah I liked Paul too. Although there's probably no way in hell he'd win I was hoping that if he could at least garner a significant amount of votes at least some of his ideas would be echoed by future candidates that will try to appeal to those voters.
 
Someone at work told me that Walmart is starting to have small doctor clinics on-site now where you can get a Dr.'s exam at a low fee. Sounds like medical doctors are starting to become integrated into the retail arena. Anyone else heard anything about this? What kind of implications do you think this will have on health care in general?
 
Someone at work told me that Walmart is starting to have small doctor clinics on-site now where you can get a Dr.'s exam at a low fee. Sounds like medical doctors are starting to become integrated into the retail arena. Anyone else heard anything about this? What kind of implications do you think this will have on health care in general?

http://www.checkupsusa.com/

Well, the one for Walmart is having problems (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/business/29clinic.html?ref=business), but those types of clinics in general are supposed to be doing well.

They are actually staffed by nurses and maybe another type of professional. I don't think that any of them actually staff doctors.

Edit:
Doctors presence depends on the state (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-08-24-walk-in-clinic-usat_x.htm).

State law governs doctor involvement in retail clinics. Texas has a stringent law requiring doctors on site 20% of the time; 22 states don't require doctor oversight of nurse practitioners at all. California allows one doctor to supervise, via phone, up to four nurse practitioners and two physician assistants at a time. They also can staff clinics and write prescriptions.

Even without doctors on site, good retail clinics may face more oversight and be more thorough than physicians in many small practices, says Lee Sacks, a physician and president of Advocate Health Partners, a network of almost 3,000 doctors.
 
http://www.checkupsusa.com/

Well, the one for Walmart is having problems (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/business/29clinic.html?ref=business), but those types of clinics in general are supposed to be doing well.

They are actually staffed by nurses and maybe another type of professional. I don't think that any of them actually staff doctors.

Edit:
Doctors presence depends on the state (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-08-24-walk-in-clinic-usat_x.htm).

State law governs doctor involvement in retail clinics. Texas has a stringent law requiring doctors on site 20% of the time; 22 states don't require doctor oversight of nurse practitioners at all. California allows one doctor to supervise, via phone, up to four nurse practitioners and two physician assistants at a time. They also can staff clinics and write prescriptions.

Even without doctors on site, good retail clinics may face more oversight and be more thorough than physicians in many small practices, says Lee Sacks, a physician and president of Advocate Health Partners, a network of almost 3,000 doctors.

Thanks.....wasn't trying to hijack your thread. It seemed somewhat pertinent to the discussion.
 
Well I don't know if it will surpass that of a doctor, but there is no doubt that the salary of a pharmacist will increase sometime within the next decade (in my opinion of course).

I look at the rise in the responsibilities of a pharmacist as the main reason for this: As more and more pharmacies are implementing immunizations and physical examinations, we have seen a slow but steady rise in the salary of pharmacists throughout the past few decades. I remember my mentor stating that she used to get paid 70-80 grand about 15 years ago as a pharmacist in a retail pharmacy (back when they had the BS and PharmD degrees). You're also seeing pharmacists, mainly in small parts of Florida and Canada, who are actually perscribing drugs from an approved list. I'm pretty sure we will be seeing an expansion of these roles in the future. In addition, with the rise of technology, you don't know what aspects of the healthcare profession will soon be "replaced" my computer/robots/machines/etc. Who knows if some aspects of pharmacy will be affected by this... I'm mean who would've thought we'd ever have robots performing explorations on Mars or the Moon??? The sky's the limit (well in the space exploration example... its not but you get my drift). So I think we'll be seeing the role of a pharmacist expanding into way more nontraditional areas that we never even thought of or could've ever imagined. This profession still has a lot of room to grow and blossom and I think that the future expansion of this field will result in an even greater need for pharmacists (not to mention the aging of the baby boomers as well). Greater demand and low supply = need for incentives = better benefits and pay. This is just my opinion and the way I see things. I may be totally off but hey.. we all have our own thoughts and ideas
 
It's the proposed policy of 2 out of the 3 remaining presidential candidates.

and what does that have to do with the price of tea in china.

In other words politicians always make promises that are rarely kept when they actually get elected. Remember Bills have to pass Congress first.
 
Absolute Ethanol
Yes McCain sucks... but given a choice between no change and wrong change... I'll go the safe option.
Doctors salaries are "inflated" by demand... its economics... if you don't want to pay... fine... if you have a problem take it up with the insurance intermediary not your family doctor. He's just charging what you will pay which is exactly how you buy anything else in life.

jpharm
"Her plan is to make health insurance mandatory, and penalize people who are not covered. It's not quite as harsh as it sounds since there will be some government action to help people buy coverage"

How do you suppose she pays for this government action... with government money... where does that come from? Taxes... oh... so take from the rich give to the poor... From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs... yeah.. so... socialism.

And Obama has little verifiable policy on anything but you say he will "make it a little easier for everyone else to buy or maintain their coverage." By what... again... using tax dollars I assume? Government control over pricing... or footing the bill for the rest with... once again tax dollars.

Seriously... are you arguing that just because they call it "universal health care" that it isn't socialized medicine... surely you don't like the kool-aid that much. The stuff turns your teeth colors you know.

andrewwhatever
Either Obama or Hillary would have an even stronger Dem Congress than Bush faces now. True theres nothing funner to watch than when they get into power and turn on each other (look at Pelosi v Hillary for Queen Bee right now) but...

I do like your cynicism... I just take it a step farther. Things politicians promise usually end up growing into something worse than they sell.
 
How do you suppose she pays for this government action... with government money... where does that come from? Taxes... oh... so take from the rich give to the poor... From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs... yeah.. so... socialism.

And Obama has little verifiable policy on anything but you say he will "make it a little easier for everyone else to buy or maintain their coverage." By what... again... using tax dollars I assume? Government control over pricing... or footing the bill for the rest with... once again tax dollars.

Seriously... are you arguing that just because they call it "universal health care" that it isn't socialized medicine... surely you don't like the kool-aid that much. The stuff turns your teeth colors you know.

Why so hostile? My point was that neither of them are calling for the comprehensive type of socialized medicine that exists in, for example, Canada and Europe where the government pays for EVERYTHING. I'm not arguing anything here, just stating facts. You need to "kool" off.
 
The pharmacist I shadow has a friend on the admission board at some med school here in Texas, and he told her that the majority of MD schools take kids who are "hard scientists"...meaning, great science GPA, 30+ MCAT, research, writing articles, etc. So basically, all that "compassionate student" talk is complete BS, they just want those exceptionally smart kids. Dental, Optometry, and Pharmacy actually try to find some balance with their accepted students, like if this applicant had a 3.2 GPA, but he/she had a 90+ PCAT/DAT/OAT, plus a ton of work experience in the field, shadowing, volunteer work etc, then we'll give them a shot and see how they interview.

the pharmacy schools probably thought she was over-qualified (maybe high GPA, etc) that they were not convinced that she really wanted to get a PharmD instead of MD....

some people might think a person like that is considering the PharmD program b/c she couldn't get into a med school...i know this happens b/c the pharmacist whom i used to work with told me a similar story about one of the applicants who applied with 3.8 GPA and got rejected by every pharm school but got accepted to a med school... that was awhile back when pharm schools were not as competitive to get in as what we are experiencing now though...
 
I had a conversation with a friend earlier about her cousin who had been unable to get into pharmacy school for three years in a row. This year, she applied to medical school instead and was accepted!

Things have really changed in the past few years...



First, Congrats to your friend's cousin on getting into medical school.

second,

I would have to ask the same...what medical school accepted your friends cousin?

One of my college apartment mate got into medical school in Mexico and he told me he had really low GPA and MCAT scores.
 
She got into the UT Medical School at Houston.
 
She got into the UT Medical School at Houston.

Maybe that's what she wanted to do the whole time?

Just saying, maybe she wanted to be a doctor but thought she wouldn't get accepted, and when she finally decided to apply her passion shined through and made the difference :)
 
Maybe that's what she wanted to do the whole time?

Just saying, maybe she wanted to be a doctor but thought she wouldn't get accepted, and when she finally decided to apply her passion shined through and made the difference :)

Hopefully that's the case.
 
I know of multiple people that applied to WVU Pharmacy to only get rejected and then later get accepted to medical school. I used to play basketball every weekend with one such person. He went through 3 years of school wanting to get into pharmacy. Tried WVU and UNC pharmacy schools....rejected. He said "what they hey", tried WVU Medicine....accepted.

Admissions are a strange thing. But nonetheless, medicine isn't at the top of the echelon all alone anymore. Other majors are just as competitive and require just as much high level academic output. Pharmacy is one such major.
 
If the salaries of doctors are inflated by healthcare costs, which I think are accepted as being inflated by drug companies, which pharmacies get their drugs from...wouldn't it make sense that if medicine were even partly socialized, healthcare costs would be forced down, dragging down both doctor AND pharmacist salaries?
It's more of a triangle that has 3 inseparable corners. Well, a square, if you want to include the insurance companies, since I don't see them as ever being totally cut out of the picture. Either way, I'm going to pharm school in the fall, and my salary will probably be a little higher than what current graduates are getting now, but I imagine it will top out or even go down within 10 years. Well, if healthcare costs stay as they are, and they are only going up.
Anyways, there are separate discussions going on in this thread; no, it's not harder to get into pharmacy school now, it's just that they're looking for a particular type of person. This does not necessarily mean one with stellar academics. I had a 3.2 gpa. A friend of mine applied for medical school with a 3.95 gpa and 31 mcat, and didn't get into any schools. She sucked at interviews, was the problem. No set of statistics guarantees getting into anything, is what I've learned.
Sorry, that was nasty long.
 
I don't know if this is a response to me, but if it is, it is a fact that social security is going to have problems soon unless the system is fixed.

Yet, strangely, the government decided to give about $700 billion in direct spending to reduce Iraq to chaos and turn pretty much the whole world against us. Some (like Joseph Stiglar) estimate that costs will surpass $1.2 trillion by the time we finally leave Iraq.

That money could have funded Social Security for another 100 years. It could have made medicine more "social" and helped provide healthcare for every single American. I realize that most think "socialized medicine" is a bad thing, but most people are ill-informed.
 
the pharmacy schools probably thought she was over-qualified (maybe high GPA, etc) that they were not convinced that she really wanted to get a PharmD instead of MD....

some people might think a person like that is considering the PharmD program b/c she couldn't get into a med school...i know this happens b/c the pharmacist whom i used to work with told me a similar story about one of the applicants who applied with 3.8 GPA and got rejected by every pharm school but got accepted to a med school... that was awhile back when pharm schools were not as competitive to get in as what we are experiencing now though...


I wouldnt think having a high GPA would prevent someone from getting into Pharmacy school..
 
Yet, strangely, the government decided to give about $700 billion in direct spending to reduce Iraq to chaos and turn pretty much the whole world against us. Some (like Joseph Stiglar) estimate that costs will surpass $1.2 trillion by the time we finally leave Iraq.

That money could have funded Social Security for another 100 years. It could have made medicine more "social" and helped provide healthcare for every single American. I realize that most think "socialized medicine" is a bad thing, but most people are ill-informed.

wow..brilliantly put...totally agree
 
Top