Too Many Pharm. Schools???

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

konkan

coup de grace
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
19
Points
4,621
  1. Pharmacist
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I just found out that Ohio alone soon will have 6 pharm. schools. Similar situation is going on pretty much throughout the country. Pharm. schools are popping up like mushrooms after rain. Don't you think APhA should do smth about it to protect the market? Can we do smth about it? If things won't change, pretty soon the market will be oversaturated with new armies of pharmacists.
Do you know are they opening new medical, phys. ther., dental etc. schools as well?
P.S. Please, no BS like "be a good pharmacist, and u'll always have a job". This thread is not about being a good pharmacist.
 
WV now has two. I have no idea why. Well, I know why, the U of Charleston wanted to make some easy money...suffice it to say, WV doesn't need two pharmacy schools. Pay will decrease statewide and I'll be looking at moving away come 2009 when the wife graduates.
 
Don't worry, Wags and CVS claim they'll hire every pharmacy graduate for the next 20 years....

Texas only has 6 pharmacy schools..

CA only has 7 pharmacy schools..

Then again, there were 69 or 70 schools when I was graduating in 1995...
 
Illinois which has a similar population to Ohio only has 3 pharmacy schools. There was a period in the 80s and 90s in which very few new pharmacy schools open. Everything will even itself out in the end.
 
konkan said:
I just found out that Ohio alone soon will have 6 pharm. schools. Similar situation is going on pretty much throughout the country. Pharm. schools are popping up like mushrooms after rain. Don't you think APhA should do smth about it to protect the market? Can we do smth about it? If things won't change, pretty soon the market will be oversaturated with new armies of pharmacists.
Do you know are they opening new medical, phys. ther., dental etc. schools as well?
P.S. Please, no BS like "be a good pharmacist, and u'll always have a job". This thread is not about being a good pharmacist.
Click to expand...
what can apha do about new pharmacy schools? They are just a lobbyist group, not an accrediting body
 
Seems vet schools keep a limit on numbers to keep their fees up.... Med schools have a limit..... hmmmm not a bad idea to me either..... if law of supply and demand is working then by keeping supply low we help ourselves in area of income. At least that's the way it seems to me.....😎
 
ACPE just redid the accreditation requirements. There is a lot more involved with them now. We now need 300 hours of IPPE. It cannot be paid work, and it has to be through the school. It is actually not that easy to plan. UIC has its own hospital and they were having trouble figuring out what to do.
 
Epic said:
Don't worry, Wags and CVS claim they'll hire every pharmacy graduate for the next 20 years....

Texas only has 6 pharmacy schools..

CA only has 7 pharmacy schools..

Then again, there were 69 or 70 schools when I was graduating in 1995...
Click to expand...

Now 8 schools with addition CNCP, if get they accredited.

I also heard there are 3 more schools in California that will try to open pharm schools. I hope they fail. :laugh:
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The pharmacist shortage is why there are schools poping up faster than CVS and Walgreens.

I have heard the boast from Walgreens that they could hire every new grad for the next 20 years.
 
MountainPharmD said:
The pharmacist shortage is why there are schools poping up faster than CVS and Walgreens.

I have heard the boast from Walgreens that they could hire every new grad for the next 20 years.
Click to expand...


1. "could" unless things change... which Wags don't have to be accountable to their statement...

2. what happens after 20 years when boomers die off?


:meanie:
 
with the increase in obesity, especially in children and other health problems. I am hopeful that If I become a pharmacist, i'll have a job. And it seems like there is an increase # of woman who are taking birth control.
 
Epic said:
2. what happens after 20 years when boomers die off?

:meanie:
Click to expand...

The youngest baby boomers were born in the 1960s, and they won't be dying off in large numbers until the 2030s. By the 2030s, Gen-Yers (youngest born in the 1980s) will be starting to age, and need more prescriptions. Thus, the cycle continues.
 
genesis09 said:
The youngest baby boomers were born in the 1960s, and they won't be dying off in large numbers until the 2030s. By the 2030s, Gen-Yers (youngest born in the 1980s) will be starting to age, and need more prescriptions. Thus, the cycle continues.
Click to expand...

Exactly....and take into account we are a pill society...one for every ill and real or imagined complaint, I am not worried. Plus there is alot of pain and anxiety in the world. I think we could keep thins going on Vicodin and Xanax scripts alone...
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
genesis09 said:
The youngest baby boomers were born in the 1960s, and they won't be dying off in large numbers until the 2030s. By the 2030s, Gen-Yers (youngest born in the 1980s) will be starting to age, and need more prescriptions. Thus, the cycle continues.
Click to expand...

Boombers are defined by babies born from 1946 to 1964. But the peak # of births occured in 1957. After mid 60's, the rate of birth declined.

Youngest boomers may start dying in 2030, 22 years away... but the older generation of boomers have already started to die.

No one can be sure of what will happen with the pharmacist job security. But there are many different factors that can and will affect it.

Optimism rises from anecdotal statements such as baby boomers need drugs..Wags will hire all pharmacists. Yet, increase in number of pharmacy school at an alarming rate and advances we make in automation just may topple the demand for pharmacist.

I'm not worried for myself. And I'm not worried for qualifed and specialized pharmacists. They're too valuable and too few in numbers to be affected by the worries of job security.

But when technology allows for a single pharmacist to verify thousands of prescriptions per day, imagine the possibilities of salivating Wags and CVS suits who'll streamline their operation to become more cost effective. At a hefty cost of your time, money, and effot in the education you chosen thinking it will provide you with the life time of comfort and security.

I have an unselfish reason to see pharmacy prosper as a profession. I just am not convinced that vision is shared by Wags and CVS. Their goal is to increase profit. With or without you. Preferably without you.
 
Epic said:
Boombers are defined by babies born from 1946 to 1964. But the peak # of births occured in 1957. After mid 60's, the rate of birth declined.

Youngest boomers may start dying in 2030, 22 years away... but the older generation of boomers have already started to die.

No one can be sure of what will happen with the pharmacist job security. But there are many different factors that can and will affect it.

Optimism rises from anecdotal statements such as baby boomers need drugs..Wags will hire all pharmacists. Yet, increase in number of pharmacy school at an alarming rate and advances we make in automation just may topple the demand for pharmacist.

I'm not worried for myself. And I'm not worried for qualifed and specialized pharmacists. They're too valuable and too few in numbers to be affected by the worries of job security.

But when technology allows for a single pharmacist to verify thousands of prescriptions per day, imagine the possibilities of salivating Wags and CVS suits who'll streamline their operation to become more cost effective. At a hefty cost of your time, money, and effot in the education you chosen thinking it will provide you with the life time of comfort and security.

I have an unselfish reason to see pharmacy prosper as a profession. I just am not convinced that vision is shared by Wags and CVS. Their goal is to increase profit. With or without you. Preferably without you.
Click to expand...

Wow. Exquisitely put. 👍
 
Epic said:
Boombers are defined by babies born from 1946 to 1964. But the peak # of births occured in 1957. After mid 60's, the rate of birth declined.

Youngest boomers may start dying in 2030, 22 years away... but the older generation of boomers have already started to die.

No one can be sure of what will happen with the pharmacist job security. But there are many different factors that can and will affect it.

Optimism rises from anecdotal statements such as baby boomers need drugs..Wags will hire all pharmacists. Yet, increase in number of pharmacy school at an alarming rate and advances we make in automation just may topple the demand for pharmacist.

I'm not worried for myself. And I'm not worried for qualifed and specialized pharmacists. They're too valuable and too few in numbers to be affected by the worries of job security.

But when technology allows for a single pharmacist to verify thousands of prescriptions per day, imagine the possibilities of salivating Wags and CVS suits who'll streamline their operation to become more cost effective. At a hefty cost of your time, money, and effot in the education you chosen thinking it will provide you with the life time of comfort and security.

I have an unselfish reason to see pharmacy prosper as a profession. I just am not convinced that vision is shared by Wags and CVS. Their goal is to increase profit. With or without you. Preferably without you.
Click to expand...

Konkan - this is exactly why we can't give any educated guess to your question without discerning the difference between a pharmacist & a "good" pharmacist.

Those pharmacists who are happy checking tech fills & don't want to do anything else - critical care, heme-onc, peds, immunizations, MTM, expanded practice - will be the ones who will be & can be easily replaced by technology expansion. After all - it is not rocket science to find the lisinopril 10mg bottle & get those tablets put in a bottle which says lisinopril 10mg. Our value is in making sure lisinopril is indeed the correct drug given all other factors.

So - sorry, you can't take "good" out of the equation. I'd agree with Epic, you can't take flexibility & the possibility of change which you may not even know about yet out of the future of the practice. So...when you go to school - learn the material well because you really won't know what you might need to do with it. Likewise, don't think you'll stop learning when you graduate. Some of the hardest learning I've had to do has been since 1977.
 
sdn1977 said:
Konkan - this is exactly why we can't give any educated guess to your question without discerning the difference between a pharmacist & a "good" pharmacist.

Those pharmacists who are happy checking tech fills & don't want to do anything else - critical care, heme-onc, peds, immunizations, MTM, expanded practice - will be the ones who will be & can be easily replaced by technology expansion. After all - it is not rocket science to find the lisinopril 10mg bottle & get those tablets put in a bottle which says lisinopril 10mg. Our value is in making sure lisinopril is indeed the correct drug given all other factors.

So - sorry, you can't take "good" out of the equation. I'd agree with Epic, you can't take flexibility & the possibility of change which you may not even know about yet out of the future of the practice. So...when you go to school - learn the material well because you really won't know what you might need to do with it. Likewise, don't think you'll stop learning when you graduate. Some of the hardest learning I've had to do has been since 1977.
Click to expand...

1977, I asked pretty clear not to throw in "be a good pharmacist" stuff here. What I am trying to find out here is why med., dental and other communities are capable of protecting themselves (by limiting the number of schools). And why pharmacists can't do smth about it? Why can't we collect, let's say, 100$/year from every rph and hire lobbyists to do smth about it? IMHO, that would contribute to our job security so much more than trying to expand pharmacists roles/duties.
 
konkan said:
1977, I asked pretty clear not to throw in "be a good pharmacist" stuff here. What I am trying to find out here is why med., dental and other communities are capable of protecting themselves (by limiting the number of schools). And why pharmacists can't do smth about it? Why can't we collect, let's say, 100$/year from every rph and hire lobbyists to do smth about it? IMHO, that would contribute to our job security so much more than trying to expand pharmacists roles/duties.
Click to expand...

It's quite simple.

There is not a huge corporate gains to be made by having oversupply of physicians, dentists, nor veterinarians.

But when there is an oversupply of pharmacists, Wags and CVS have the most to gain.. so they'll keep fueling the fire..."We'll hire every pharmacists...so open more school$$$$$"

Again, we're letting corporate greed ruin our profession.
 
Just throwing this out there, but one thing they pointed out in our Health Care Delivery class was that even though there are more schools and consequently more pharmacists graduating, there are several other factors at play that reduce the benefit of the additional manpower. The male to female ratio and the difference in output from both were given as significant factors. The data we were presented indicated that over the course of a career females worked 0.9 FTE (full-time equivalent hours) compared to males at 1.1 FTE. Things like maternity leave, taking on family responsibilities (still the norm, though may change over time), etc keep females from working equivalent hours compared to their male counterparts. In general Pharmacists are working fewer hours than before. Instead of working 50-60 hours per week it's now closer to 40-50 hours. Expanded roles of pharmacists are also adding to the demand. Pharmacists who give immunizations are becoming more in demand, especially during flu season. So while more students are being graduated every year, the work that is produced by the pharmacist is
lower (historically speaking) and the work demanded is higher.

I'll see if I can find the data we were given and post it.
 
Again, we're letting corporate greed ruin our profession.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so what can we do about it?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The fact is for the foreseeable future most pharmacist jobs are with the chains and community pharmacy. I don't see this changing. Community pharmacy has always been the biggest employer of pharmacists.
They say you should specialize and do a residency. The fact remains there aren't that many jobs/residencies available. If you ever sit down with them, you'll realize to get those jobs you'll have to move away. I don't want to move.
I am very jaded about my view of corporations. In my view, the older you are the more likely they will lay you off regardless of skill.
I like the Long Term Care area; however, what frightens me about it is the impending bankruptcy of Medicare/medicade. If things aren't changed, they will go bankrupt in about a decade. I also do like community pharmacy. I feel a lot of good can be done there. Even Walgreens, is slowly introducing more cognitive services. They are adding a number of new residency positions this year.
I am getting nervous about making decisions about potential employment. In a year from now, I'll have to decide whether I should do a residency or what type of potential employment should I seek.
 
konkan said:
I just found out that Ohio alone soon will have 6 pharm. schools. Similar situation is going on pretty much throughout the country. Pharm. schools are popping up like mushrooms after rain. Don't you think APhA should do smth about it to protect the market? Can we do smth about it? If things won't change, pretty soon the market will be oversaturated with new armies of pharmacists.
Do you know are they opening new medical, phys. ther., dental etc. schools as well?
P.S. Please, no BS like "be a good pharmacist, and u'll always have a job". This thread is not about being a good pharmacist.
Click to expand...

If you're a good pharmacist, you'll always have a job.
 
it all boils down to business. Demand>supply, so more pharm schools are opening each year to 1. Meet the demand, 2. To gain income for themselves. They don't care if in the future there will be excessive amount of supply of pharmacists. In fact, in some areas like Southern CA where i am living now, the job market is extremely saturated (and it has been saturated for 4-5 yrs since). You can get a job, still, but you have to do scurvy work, graveyard shifts (hospital), floating from here to there (retails). Even some of the people i know with 1 or 2 yrs of residency have a hard time to find a clinical jobs....

wow 6 schools in ohio? this is ridiculous....in CA, we have 6 schoosl, too. Imagine each year there would be 100+ students graduating/school, so there would be 600+, close to 700+ new grad per year in CA. Not good....Based on my prediction, whoever graduates in CA after 2010 will have a hard time to find a job, unless that person has to move out of state. I am not sure about other states, though...But i think it will come down to that point...So enjoy while it lasts....:laugh:
 
Like I've said for years, it'll eventually get to the point were robots do all of our work for us, we will live in a Marxist Utopia for 50 or so years, and then it all comes crumbling down when the robots become self-aware and kill us all.

Jesus, just accept it.
 
Farmercyst said:
Just throwing this out there, but one thing they pointed out in our Health Care Delivery class was that even though there are more schools and consequently more pharmacists graduating, there are several other factors at play that reduce the benefit of the additional manpower. The male to female ratio and the difference in output from both were given as significant factors. The data we were presented indicated that over the course of a career females worked 0.9 FTE (full-time equivalent hours) compared to males at 1.1 FTE. Things like maternity leave, taking on family responsibilities (still the norm, though may change over time), etc keep females from working equivalent hours compared to their male counterparts. In general Pharmacists are working fewer hours than before. Instead of working 50-60 hours per week it's now closer to 40-50 hours. Expanded roles of pharmacists are also adding to the demand. Pharmacists who give immunizations are becoming more in demand, especially during flu season. So while more students are being graduated every year, the work that is produced by the pharmacist is
lower (historically speaking) and the work demanded is higher.

I'll see if I can find the data we were given and post it.
Click to expand...

You'll soon learn that the academicians are far removed from the realities of actual pharmacy practice. Don't believe everything you learn from 1985 Zonal Avenue when it comes to pharmacy practice.
 
you can't demand anyone to not talk about a topic just because you don't want to read it.

Accept it. Then again, I can't make you accept it. 😎
 
Epic said:
You'll soon learn that the academicians are far removed from the realities of actual pharmacy practice. Don't believe everything you learn from 1985 Zonal Avenue when it comes to pharmacy practice.
Click to expand...

Wait, you mean academians aren't the know-all and be-all of pharmacy?🙄
Besides any theory about the long-term prospects for pharmacists will be obsolete with any change in policy or economy of any lasting nature that affects the occupation.
 
Most of these new pharmacy schools are charging 30k per year. Opening a pharm school is one of the best new scams of this decade.

I wonder if they give you a free toolbox at the end?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
konkan said:
1977, I asked pretty clear not to throw in "be a good pharmacist" stuff here. What I am trying to find out here is why med., dental and other communities are capable of protecting themselves (by limiting the number of schools). And why pharmacists can't do smth about it? Why can't we collect, let's say, 100$/year from every rph and hire lobbyists to do smth about it? IMHO, that would contribute to our job security so much more than trying to expand pharmacists roles/duties.
Click to expand...

I am not contributing even $1 per year for a lobbyist to advocate pharmacists being paid $100,000+ to stand in front of a computer for 8 hours a day, override interactions, let the technician dictate whether counseling takes place or not ("do you have any questions for the pharmacist, no, sign here please"), operate a drive-thru microphone, brag about cranking out 9,000 prescriptions a day, etc.
 
Priapism321 said:
I am not contributing even $1 per year for a lobbyist to advocate pharmacists being paid $100,000+ to stand in front of a computer for 8 hours a day, override interactions, let the technician dictate whether counseling takes place or not ("do you have any questions for the pharmacist, no, sign here please"), operate a drive-thru microphone, brag about cranking out 9,000 prescriptions a day, etc.
Click to expand...

....actually I'm pretty sure that's what the real labor-centered lobbyists and organizations are trying to get away from...that whole fast-food pharmacy thing. It's dangerous. Some things really shouldn't be exposed to the will of capitalists...and "guy who decides whether or not it's a good thing to fill 400 scripts a day with one pharmacist" is probably one of them. I'm not a fan of retail either....at least how it is structured today. It's a waste of expertise...but I guess somebody's got to do it.
 
ok so basically to sum up this thread - wagss and cvss are @#$%ing up the profession of pharmacy and there is pretty much nothing we can do about it. That's really nice.
 
konkan said:
ok so basically to sum up this thread - wagss and cvss are @#$%ing up the profession of pharmacy and there is pretty much nothing we can do about it. That's really nice.
Click to expand...

STFU...

All you have to do is not work for them...
 
konkan said:
ok so basically to sum up this thread - wagss and cvss are @#$%ing up the profession of pharmacy and there is pretty much nothing we can do about it. That's really nice.
Click to expand...

Not working for one of these companies would be a start.
 
Epic said:
STFU...

All you have to do is not work for them...
Click to expand...

I was late; ended up deleting the majority of my post because I felt it would be regarded as "attacking another member." I usually do not take this into consideration.
 
I will "attack another member" when he/she acts like a little punk.
 
konkan said:
1977, I asked pretty clear not to throw in "be a good pharmacist" stuff here. What I am trying to find out here is why med., dental and other communities are capable of protecting themselves (by limiting the number of schools). And why pharmacists can't do smth about it? Why can't we collect, let's say, 100$/year from every rph and hire lobbyists to do smth about it? IMHO, that would contribute to our job security so much more than trying to expand pharmacists roles/duties.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you're under some misconceptions. Take some time & read some threads in the other professions. Dentistry & medicine are both being impacted, not just by midlevel changes, but mostly economics.

I can speak personally about dentistry since I'm married to a dentist. In that field, the profession is not "protected" at all, either by the number of schools or anything other than the economics of being able to run a business. There are very few "employed" dentists. Most of them are solo practioners or partners in a joint practice.

The numbers of dentists in an area are dictated by how many dentists the area can support economically. In our area, we've undergone about 3 fluxes in the "need" - when the computer industry is doing well, dentists do well. But, when they get laid off, they lose dental benefits & the dental business suffers. When the businesses suffer, some close & few open new practices. Right now - the need is for retail pharmacists, within our profession. Over my 30 years, I've seen pharmacists laid off & seen both hospitals & retail locations needing relief because of shortages.

What I'm getting at is the dental schools don't drive the need nor protect the dental business in any state. The same holds true for pharmacy schools. They are there to educate the pharmacists. If the need changes, we must change with it. Stay flexible because you don't get promises in any profession.

You seem frustrated. No one can promise you a productive or happy career. You don't want to hear you need to be good at what you do, but that is the bald truth in just about all professions.

You protect yourself by being the best you can be professionally. Sorry I keep bringing this up, but this is what keeps you working for decades.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mrjbb
Applying to Pharmacy Schools and Becoming a Licensed Pharmacist with a Criminal Record
Replies
9
Views
4K
CetiAlphaFive
CetiAlphaFive
Mr.Smile12
[AACP] AACP Statement on NIH Facilities and Administrative Costs Impact on Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy
Replies
1
Views
1K
lord999
lord999
soapjala
Pharm Tech Qualifications
Replies
2
Views
2K
nickw2401
N
N
Pharm Intern Grad at state of Pennsylvania
Replies
0
Views
1K
nsudental
N
pharm B
Why are so many pharmacists exploring functional medicine?
Replies
4
Views
1K
PharmDBro2017
PharmDBro2017
Top Bottom