Drug Topics - Residency Requirement?

[rxgales]

some pharmacy relevant informations for u....

Should residency be required in pharmacy school by 2020? (1 - 2 year free money, free labor for hospital...)

Should students have a B.S. in order to apply?

Read these articles and add your comments:


http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=382513


http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=445535&searchString=residency

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

some pharmacy relevant informations for u....

Should residency be required in pharmacy school by 2020? (1 - 2 year free money, free labor for hospital...)

No. Most residencies only help you advance in a small, tiny spectrum of pharmacy practice. If you want to do the few things residency trains you to do, go for it...I guess All it boils down to is training for future specialization. It's really no different than training for any other job. Sure, it has that pretentious, academic feel to it that makes people feel all warm and tingly inside, but it's just a training program. No different than learning the intricacies of retail pharmacy.

The hospitals are brilliant though...give 'em credit. They've convinced a large group of people to do their training...which pretty much locks them psychologically into their specific brand of pharmacy practice...for a very, very cheap price. CVS pays 3X the amount to train their new grads how to practice correctly.

Should students have a B.S. in order to apply?

Hell no. There is no reason at all. The added time will force an increase in the time away from the relevant prerequisite courses you would have specifically focused on in a two-year prepharmacy track. It's a waste of the student's time. The only entity that benefits is the college. Two extra years of tuition...hmmm...

 

[spacecowgirl]

No. Most residencies only help you advance in a small, tiny spectrum of pharmacy practice. If you want to do the few things residency trains you to do, go for it...I guess All it boils down to is training for future specialization. It's really no different than training for any other job. Sure, it has that pretentious, academic feel to it that makes people feel all warm and tingly inside, but it's just a training program. No different than learning the intricacies of retail pharmacy.

The hospitals are brilliant though...give 'em credit. They've convinced a large group of people to do their training...which pretty much locks them psychologically into their specific brand of pharmacy practice...for a very, very cheap price. CVS pays 3X the amount to train their new grads how to practice correctly.

Hell no. There is no reason at all. The added time will force an increase in the time away from the relevant prerequisite courses you would have specifically focused on in a two-year prepharmacy track. It's a waste of the student's time. The only entity that benefits is the college. Two extra years of tuition...hmmm...

I agree with you on your answers but I disagree that residencies lock you into a certain practice setting any more than CVS does. Until I seriously looked into residencies I thought there were only a few types and they didn't interest me in the least. Then I saw how much variety was out there and how many sites were flexible and allow you to tailor your experience to fit your interests. I don't feel pigeon-holed at all, in fact after just a month, I already see how much exposure I am getting to different areas of pharmacy.

I think it would ideal to have a bachelors before pharm school (I'm biased ) but definitely should not be required. I think I had an easier time in pharm school compared to some of my younger counterparts because I had been in school longer and was older and very focused. But that's just a generalization as I think so many of my classmates are extremely smart and competent and did not have prior degrees. I personally am glad I had a previous degree because it afforded me the time to do so much during those years. Pharm school was very time-consuming and I wouldn't have had the chance to do a lot of the extra activities I did during my BA years.

That said, now I'm old with tons of student loans! (all from pharm though, none from undergrad).

 

[Knickerbocker]

I think that a BS should be required. In fact, it looks like we are headed in that direction. Requiring a BS gives the degree a little more respect. More importantly, it makes for a better rounded student. People trying to get in are two year drones who only focus on prereqs and the PCAT. Too many people take the test before they are even really ready. When a BS is required, people can major in anything and take classes that aren't math and science related if they choose.

As for residency, I'm not sure.

Edit:

One article mentioned that guaranteed entry programs might be eliminated. That's a good thing, in my opinion. People in those programs take up a lot of spots and the requirements for them to get after two years are way too low. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I doubt that so many high schoolers truly have such a clear goal of what they want to do in life.

 

[mike36]

I don't think a Bachelor's should be required for pharm school. Though I do believe that B.S. students are generally more mature and maybe more prepared for a professional curriculum, I think it unnecessarily adds years and debt for the student.

Why not offer a PharmD degree (or even BSc Pharm) for those wanting to go into retail/community pharmacy? It seems there are complaints from retail pharmacists that they don't use what they learn in the Pharm.D. curriculum. Maybe there could be a different concentration of classes that focused on community pharmacy. Anyone with more experience want to comment on this idea?

These are just my opinions, which may not count for much since I'm a ways from entering the profession yet. I start P1 next week!

 

[rxlynn]

I am totally opposed to the idea of mandatory residency. I think residency is a really awesome thing for those persons who want to pursue teaching or any other aspect of pharmacy where it would benefit them. However, until (if ever?) corporate retail pharmacy is practiced in a different manner, residency is a waste of time for those students who take a retail job after getting their PharmD. Please note - I'm not in any way trying to diss retail here because it's very likely to be my ultimate career choice.

I'm also opposed just because of the time factor. I'm a non-traditional student with family, and I'm really not sure that I would have chosen to pursue pharmacy if I had a residency requirement on top of 4 years.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I agree with you on your answers but I disagree that residencies lock you into a certain practice setting any more than CVS does. Until I seriously looked into residencies I thought there were only a few types and they didn't interest me in the least. Then I saw how much variety was out there and how many sites were flexible and allow you to tailor your experience to fit your interests. I don't feel pigeon-holed at all, in fact after just a month, I already see how much exposure I am getting to different areas of pharmacy.

I agree, residencies do open up a lot of doors, as does working at CVS. You can't become a regional manager of CVS with a residency in Oncology, either. (Well, you can, but you'd have to start all over). The doors that are opened are just DIFFERENT. TO be fair, I noted that residencies open up a small spectrum of pharmacy practice - the truth is just about all post graduate opportunities open up a small spectrum of practice relative to the big picture. It's just that I honestly think it's unfair to those that do residencies to be paid such a paltry amount to be trained in a new career just as colleagues in other realms of pharmacy practice are being paid 6 figs out of the gate. That's why I dislike the entire concept of residencies.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

More importantly, it makes for a better rounded student. People trying to get in are two year drones who only focus on prereqs and the PCAT.

This is an interesting assertion. What makes a two year student less rounded? Does taking an extra survey course here and there make a well rounded person? I like to think I got into pharmacy because I'm so well intellectually rounded. I have interests in philosophy, literature, economics, political theory, the sciences, and the arts. In fact, the sciences really aren't even my top interest. That would either be film or philosophy. Because those don't pay the bills, I felt the desire to pursue another interest of mine - pharmacology. I feel I am much more than my peers who earned a BS, IMO. I really do not feel that because I grabbed college by the horns and did everything I was required to do in two years should reflect in a negative light at all.

 

[Knickerbocker]

This is an interesting assertion. What makes a two year student less rounded? Does taking an extra survey course here and there make a well rounded person? I like to think I got into pharmacy because I'm so well intellectually rounded. I have interests in philosophy, literature, economics, political theory, the sciences, and the arts. In fact, the sciences really aren't even my top interest. That would either be film or philosophy. Because those don't pay the bills, I felt the desire to pursue another interest of mine - pharmacology. I feel I am much more than my peers who earned a BS, IMO. I really do not feel that because I grabbed college by the horns and did everything I was required to do in two years should reflect in a negative light at all.

Let's say you really liked history a lot, enough to major in it, but you wanted to go to be a pharmacist. In two years, you aren't going to be able to take much history. If you did a BS, you'd take a number of history courses on top of the prereqs. Undergrad is really the last chance for most people to do something different. After that you get very specialized in one subject and you won't have time to pursue other interests.

You can try out different classes as you see fit. Maybe I'll fit in an art class or an astronomy class for fun. A BS doesn't guarantee roundedness, but it can provide the opportunity for some.

 

[redrose0786]

I don't think BS should be required but I think that most people should complete it anyway. I mean think about it, if you get into pharmacy school without completing your BS and for some reason e.g. family problems you had to drop out of pharmacy school you don't even have a bachelor degree. How are you going to find work? Most jobs do reqire at least a bachelor degree. Granted that its a very small percent but still not everyone who is starting pharmacy school will be able to graduate.

Also I was talking to some of the upper classmen in my school and they told me that they have lost some students from their class. Some had to leave for family reasons and other failed a class. You fail 2 classes you are kicked out. We have to finish Pharmacy school within 6 years, its a board reqirement.

 

[bananaface]

Moving to the residency subforum for best discussion.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

It should be moved to the pharmacy forum if anything. Exactly 1/2 of the discussion is centered around BS being a requirement for admissions. The other half deals with residencies. So if you have a prepharm subject mixed with a post-grad subject, I say you divide by two and throw it in the one in the middle.

 

[Priapism321]

This is an interesting assertion. What makes a two year student less rounded? Does taking an extra survey course here and there make a well rounded person? I like to think I got into pharmacy because I'm so well intellectually rounded. I have interests in philosophy, literature, economics, political theory, the sciences, and the arts. In fact, the sciences really aren't even my top interest. That would either be film or philosophy. Because those don't pay the bills, I felt the desire to pursue another interest of mine - pharmacology. I feel I am much more than my peers who earned a BS, IMO. I really do not feel that because I grabbed college by the horns and did everything I was required to do in two years should reflect in a negative light at all.

This opinion is also coming from someone who didn't finish pharmacy school in four years. Maybe that is because you are so "well intellectually rounded." Personally, I have always had issue with people who can't graduate on time, but still have some compulsion to let people know how "intellectual" they are. And, if I remember reading correctly, you are behind in school because you failed several exams (I really don't give a **** if you forgot to retake them, I have never failed an exam in my life). Perhaps if you would have grabbed a Bachelors degree, you would have been more prepared, and passed all of your tests in pharmacy school.

 

[Epic]

This is an interesting assertion. What makes a two year student less rounded? Does taking an extra survey course here and there make a well rounded person? I like to think I got into pharmacy because I'm so well intellectually rounded. I have interests in philosophy, literature, economics, political theory, the sciences, and the arts. In fact, the sciences really aren't even my top interest. That would either be film or philosophy. Because those don't pay the bills, I felt the desire to pursue another interest of mine - pharmacology. I feel I am much more than my peers who earned a BS, IMO. I really do not feel that because I grabbed college by the horns and did everything I was required to do in two years should reflect in a negative light at all.

You think very highly of yourself. I wonder what your peers think of you.

 

[IndustryPharmD]

I do not think that a bachelor's degree should be mandatory for pharmacy school applicants. I personally would give preference to a candidate with a degree, all other things such as grades, essay and interview being equal, but I would take a determined, enthusiastic person who has just completed their requirements over someone with bachelor's degree who only went into pharmacy because they couldn't find a real job with their current degree. Basically, it's same as pharmacy experience in my opinion - it is an advantage, but it should not be a requirement. If someone can be competitive earlier, and wants to get into pharmacy as soon as possible - all the power to them.

Why would I prefer a student with a bachelor's? While there are exceptions to the rule, they are generally more mature, have seen more of the world, often have work experience. They can make a meaningful contribution to the discussion, when someone who has only been doing the bare minimum required by pharmacy school generally has their mind geared towards a very specific - and unfortunately very "in the box" way of thinking. If students only complete the same universal set of requirements and do not branch out into electives (though thankfully many do) - they are all the same, as mass-produced as if they just came off an assembly line. If someone fits all the variety of experiences and equivalent academic rigor into two years - then I would rather take them, but I haven't seen a lot of people like that. ALso, students who have a bachelor's degree seem to understand work environment and how it is different from school a little better on average. Maybe it's advantage of being a couple years older, or writing that thesis, or having seen more different points of view as they took a lot more electives than a six-year pharmacy program fits.

As far as residencies being requirement, it's an emphatic NO on my part. A clinical residency would not be of any relevance to my current position. I would have spent a year of my life being completely miserable and would not have gained anything in return. All that said, I am no less a pharmacist than any other - just my interests and my line of work are far removed from anything a clinical pharmacist has ever seen. And I would rather keep it that way. The only reason I even got and keep my pharmacy license is to justify all those years of school. And for extra pocket money.

 

[Moxxie]

I do not think that a bachelor's degree should be mandatory for pharmacy school applicants. I personally would give preference to a candidate with a degree, all other things such as grades, essay and interview being equal, but I would take a determined, enthusiastic person who has just completed their requirements over someone with bachelor's degree who only went into pharmacy because they couldn't find a real job with their current degree. Basically, it's same as pharmacy experience in my opinion - it is an advantage, but it should not be a requirement. If someone can be competitive earlier, and wants to get into pharmacy as soon as possible - all the power to them.

Why would I prefer a student with a bachelor's? While there are exceptions to the rule, they are generally more mature, have seen more of the world, often have work experience. They can make a meaningful contribution to the discussion, when someone who has only been doing the bare minimum required by pharmacy school generally has their mind geared towards a very specific - and unfortunately very "in the box" way of thinking. If students only complete the same universal set of requirements and do not branch out into electives (though thankfully many do) - they are all the same, as mass-produced as if they just came off an assembly line. If someone fits all the variety of experiences and equivalent academic rigor into two years - then I would rather take them, but I haven't seen a lot of people like that. ALso, students who have a bachelor's degree seem to understand work environment and how it is different from school a little better on average. Maybe it's advantage of being a couple years older, or writing that thesis, or having seen more different points of view as they took a lot more electives than a six-year pharmacy program fits.

As far as residencies being requirement, it's an emphatic NO on my part. A clinical residency would not be of any relevance to my current position. I would have spent a year of my life being completely miserable and would not have gained anything in return. All that said, I am no less a pharmacist than any other - just my interests and my line of work are far removed from anything a clinical pharmacist has ever seen. And I would rather keep it that way. The only reason I even got and keep my pharmacy license is to justify all those years of school. And for extra pocket money.

Very well said. There are all kinds in my pharmacy class - some of them will have their PharmD at the ripe old age of 23, and there is one guy in the class ahead of me in his late 40's with a PhD in Biochemistry. Just about everyone in my class is very smart and I think that most of them will be good (maybe not great) pharmacists. But if I had been on the admissions committee, I would not have accepted as many 19-year olds as they did for my class. Why? Because although they may have completed the pre-reqs with flying colors (ISU's main admission criteria is still GPA), they just really have not had a lot of life experience at this point.

Also, maybe I'm biased (b/c I'm older, hehe - 28 next month! ), but I find the idea of a 23 year old pharmacist managing a busy pharmacy kind of scary. I know that I'm a heck of a lot more mature and level-headed now than I was at 23. The 2 extra years that a B.S. requires may not seem like a lot, but being able to take extra courses and really think about your career choice will, I think, produce better pharmacists.

However, I don't think that residencies should be required for everyone. To have a hospital clinical staff position? Yes. To work at CVS? No.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

This opinion is also coming from someone who didn't finish pharmacy school in four years. Maybe that is because you are so "well intellectually rounded." Personally, I have always had issue with people who can't graduate on time, but still have some compulsion to let people know how "intellectual" they are. And, if I remember reading correctly, you are behind in school because you failed several exams (I really don't give a **** if you forgot to retake them, I have never failed an exam in my life). Perhaps if you would have grabbed a Bachelors degree, you would have been more prepared, and passed all of your tests in pharmacy school.

Ha. I loves how you hate me so.

Actually I failed *one* exam as I didn't study for it because I was moving to a new house that week. A 57 on material I've never looked at before ain't too bad.....and I hate school in the first place. The marks I've been getting in rotations have actually been well above the average, interestingly. The **** I did memorize, it appears I absorbed pretty well, at least. I've found that I'm actually pretty interested in pharmacology...and always have been. It's that therapeutics that gets me. But being able to ramble on about mechanisms off of the top of my head is impressive to preceptors for some reason....even though it's useless in the real world.

Not that this matters because none of it makes my opinion any less valid. An ad hominem attack and nothing more. I expect more from someone that is so superior to me.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You think very highly of yourself. I wonder what your peers think of you.

Actually...rereading the paragraph, I don't even get where you think *I* think I'm so full of myself. I just said I have tons of interests in various fields. I didn't indicate I was actually good at any of them. Hell, Forest Gump was well rounded and his IQ was 73.

I'm pretty humble and outwardly think little of myself. In fact, I typically present myself as an idiot on these forums because being a pretentious dingus TYPICALLY isn't my style...and it wasn't my intention....though sometimes it's fun to do so because it spices up the forum and pisses people off that take me seriously. Like priapism. He/she hates me so much it borders hilarity. However, it should be noted that pissing off priapism wasn't my goal, though it does make for a good side effect.

Really though, I just don't like being attacked as a "drone" that isn't well rounded as a previous poster describes those that complete their prepharmacy work in two years as being. I will defend myself as well as my peers. I suck at pharmacy school because it's boring....but if anything I *am* well rounded.....I guess you'd have to know me personally, though.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Why would I prefer a student with a bachelor's? While there are exceptions to the rule, they are generally more mature, have seen more of the world, often have work experience.

While *I* am one of the most immature people on the PLANET, bar none...I've noticed very, very little difference in the maturity level of those with a BS and those with no degree.

They can make a meaningful contribution to the discussion, when someone who has only been doing the bare minimum required by pharmacy school generally has their mind geared towards a very specific - and unfortunately very "in the box" way of thinking. If students only complete the same universal set of requirements and do not branch out into electives (though thankfully many do) - they are all the same, as mass-produced as if they just came off an assembly line. If someone fits all the variety of experiences and equivalent academic rigor into two years - then I would rather take them, but I haven't seen a lot of people like that. ALso, students who have a bachelor's degree seem to understand work environment and how it is different from school a little better on average. Maybe it's advantage of being a couple years older, or writing that thesis, or having seen more different points of view as they took a lot more electives than a six-year pharmacy program fits.

That's the thing though..why is it that only college credit is the only thing that gives people "experience?" I've learned far more things on my own out of sheer interest than in a class room. I guess getting credits is the only way to quantify what you have learned, but college has contributed to such a small degree in the grand scheme of my personal knowledge base. I would think..or at least hope...that it would be the case for most people. Though I would like to have a BS in philosophy...just cause the classes would be fun.

 

[PharmDstudent]

This opinion is also coming from someone who didn't finish pharmacy school in four years. Maybe that is because you are so "well intellectually rounded." Personally, I have always had issue with people who can't graduate on time, but still have some compulsion to let people know how "intellectual" they are. And, if I remember reading correctly, you are behind in school because you failed several exams (I really don't give a **** if you forgot to retake them, I have never failed an exam in my life). Perhaps if you would have grabbed a Bachelors degree, you would have been more prepared, and passed all of your tests in pharmacy school.

That's a weird statement. Since you "personally" have "issues", you should know that individualism is real. Personal circumstances, choices, and preferences can play a significant role in someone's path to a degree. In WVU's case, he'll take 6 years plus one semester to earn a degree.
I have so many personal examples as to why it took me 4 years plus one summer semester to graduate with a bachelor's degree.
By the way, I usually test "near genius" on IQ tests. I've even tested "genius" before, but I don't believe it .
My last point, which ties this entire post together, is this: it's possible for someone to be very intelligent and still graduate late.

 

[Priapism321]

My last point, which ties this entire post together, is this: it's possible for someone to be very intelligent and still graduate late.

Could be true, I haven't met any though. However, interestingly, it is always with near 100% certainty that people who are a semester, or even a year behind, perceive themselves to be very intelligent. I don't get it.

Typical conversation:

YearBehindGuy: Last year in this course, the answer was this, I remember this case. My friends who are a year ahead gave me the case/answer key from last year.

Me: And why are you taking this course again? Did you perform so well that they asked you to come back for an encore? Well then, please shut up and contribute as little as possible to this discussion, because we all know where your intelligence and well roundedness got you last year when it came to this material.

This usually puts them in the place where I want them.

 

[Priapism321]

I've found that I'm actually pretty interested in pharmacology...and always have been.

Then why didn't you study Pharmacology? Rather than bitch and complain about how apathetic you are towards pharmacy, go do something that you are interested in. You are not going to use much pharmacology operating the drive-thru microphone at Walgreens, I can promise you that.

 

[spacecowgirl]

Also, maybe I'm biased (b/c I'm older, hehe - 28 next month! ), but I find the idea of a 23 year old pharmacist managing a busy pharmacy kind of scary. I know that I'm a heck of a lot more mature and level-headed now than I was at 23. The 2 extra years that a B.S. requires may not seem like a lot, but being able to take extra courses and really think about your career choice will, I think, produce better pharmacists.

Word.

 

[IndustryPharmD]

While *I* am one of the most immature people on the PLANET, bar none...I've noticed very, very little difference in the maturity level of those with a BS and those with no degree.

First of all, remember, I said "average". There are exceptions among either side. Secondly, I am sorry, but looking from below it is more difficult to notice the difference than looking from above. Besides, maturity is not just submitting your assignments on time, showing up to class, and choosing not to get wasted the night before the exam with your less responsible buddies. It is very difficult to evaluate in the controlled academic environment, where professors often act like babysitters, constantly reminding of upcoming exams and deadlines. Maturity is the ability to deal with unpleasant coworkers, handle real-world environment, look at an assignment not as a student (take it at face-value, only do what's required, instead of thinking WHY the assignment is given and what answer is the person really looking to get) but as an employee. It has to do not with having a degree but simply with being older and more experienced. Of course, if the person with the bachelor's have had a coddled life in college, did not work, etc. - they hold no such advantage, but those who had these extra two years of work, and many upperclassmen worked in corporate environment or research labs, etc. rather than freshmen who worked at MacDonald's and Sears. It's merely the experience that counts, not the piece of paper diplomas really are.

That's the thing though..why is it that only college credit is the only thing that gives people "experience?" I've learned far more things on my own out of sheer interest than in a class room.

Have I ever said that college credit is the only way to gain experience? I have never believed that, and my own travels have provided me with more insight than any class ever has. However, for the purposes of preparation for pharmacy school, someone who had to write the senior thesis or handle four 400-level classes is generally better prepared for pharmacy school. I remember electives while I was in pharmacy school, and all those 200-level classes seemed ridiculously easy, compared to what we had in pharmacy school (now, when I was in undergrad myself, I did not find them that laughable). By the way, many of the best students in my pharmacy school class, including myself, did not hold a bachelor's degree, which is why I oppose making a four-year degree a prerequisite. I knew very well that pharmacy is what I want to pursue, so I did not see a point in spending another two years studying something else. However, by then I have travelled halway around the world, spoke three languages and was a 4.0 student while taking 20 credit hours a semester on average, not just prerequisites but also classes in business, history, international relations, etc. There were a few other people like myself in my class, but majority did have a bachelor's degree - and we all were at an approximately the same level. It is the reason interviews are required - so the admissions committee can evaluate the student firsthand. A piece of paper is afterall just a piece of paper.

 

[bigpharmD]

I heard priapism321 got his degree from the Phoenix Online School of pharmacy...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Could be true, I haven't met any though. However, interestingly, it is always with near 100% certainty that people who are a semester, or even a year behind, perceive themselves to be very intelligent. I don't get it.

Being intelligent and well rounded are two different things. Pizza is nutritionally well rounded (veggies, dairy, meat, starch), but that doesn't make it a good food. Being intelligent and getting As in a course are also two different things. I mean, you really are barking up the wrong tree to begin with.

Being intelligent gets you jack **** if you don't have other qualities that help you succeed in school and life. I know because I actually have a stupid little piece of paper back home where I grew up that proclaims I am intelligent. I apparently scored 148 on the Woodcock-Johnson III....99.87%-tile. Yet I have always, currently do, and always theoretically will suck at school. Intelligence doesn't help you with motivation, being able to pay attention, having a family support system, "maturity", or any other part of what makes a "great" student. Cmon...IQ...? So I can solve stupid little logic puzzles fast and I'm given a number quantifying this fact.....that and $1 with get me a 20 oz. bottle of Diet Pepsi.

If you're going to continue to attack me, and please do, it gives me something of an interesting hobby - attack my nihilism if anything. At least then it would make some sense.

Of course, you really don't know me, anyway. It's kind of bold for you to make such broad judgments about somebody you don't really know anything about. Sure you could read my posts...or my blog...but you still really don't know much about me. You'd probably have a completely different view of me in real life than you do with the very limited view you see in an online persona.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

First of all, remember, I said "average". There are exceptions among either side. Secondly, I am sorry, but looking from below it is more difficult to notice the difference than looking from above. Besides, maturity is not just submitting your assignments on time, showing up to class, and choosing not to get wasted the night before the exam with your less responsible buddies. It is very difficult to evaluate in the controlled academic environment, where professors often act like babysitters, constantly reminding of upcoming exams and deadlines. Maturity is the ability to deal with unpleasant coworkers, handle real-world environment, look at an assignment not as a student (take it at face-value, only do what's required, instead of thinking WHY the assignment is given and what answer is the person really looking to get) but as an employee. It has to do not with having a degree but simply with being older and more experienced. Of course, if the person with the bachelor's have had a coddled life in college, did not work, etc. - they hold no such advantage, but those who had these extra two years of work, and many upperclassmen worked in corporate environment or research labs, etc. rather than freshmen who worked at MacDonald's and Sears. It's merely the experience that counts, not the piece of paper diplomas really are.



Have I ever said that college credit is the only way to gain experience? I have never believed that, and my own travels have provided me with more insight than any class ever has. However, for the purposes of preparation for pharmacy school, someone who had to write the senior thesis or handle four 400-level classes is generally better prepared for pharmacy school. I remember electives while I was in pharmacy school, and all those 200-level classes seemed ridiculously easy, compared to what we had in pharmacy school (now, when I was in undergrad myself, I did not find them that laughable). By the way, many of the best students in my pharmacy school class, including myself, did not hold a bachelor's degree, which is why I oppose making a four-year degree a prerequisite. I knew very well that pharmacy is what I want to pursue, so I did not see a point in spending another two years studying something else. However, by then I have travelled halway around the world, spoke three languages and was a 4.0 student while taking 20 credit hours a semester on average, not just prerequisites but also classes in business, history, international relations, etc. There were a few other people like myself in my class, but majority did have a bachelor's degree - and we all were at an approximately the same level. It is the reason interviews are required - so the admissions committee can evaluate the student firsthand. A piece of paper is afterall just a piece of paper.

Well said. I agree with most of it, actually.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Then why didn't you study Pharmacology? Rather than bitch and complain about how apathetic you are towards pharmacy, go do something that you are interested in. You are not going to use much pharmacology operating the drive-thru microphone at Walgreens, I can promise you that.

Who says I'm gonna work in retail? There are plenty of pharmacology based PharmD opportunities, just as you are pursuing a therapeutics based PharmD opportunity. I'm just whining about the fact that the work from year 3 on is based so much on something that's boring to me. Hell, second year of pharmacy school I was making great grades. Those pharmacology and medicinal chemistry courses were freakin' awesome. It's those therapeutics courses that get me down. It's just something about how dry the material is.

To my point, a few months ago I worked at a joint called UnitedBioSource. Their pharmacist does nothing with therapeutics and essentially help with the pharmacology writeups for clinical trials submitted to IRBs, FDA, and other such bodies. That job would be sweet. Two of my interests - writing and pharmacology. Nuclear pharmacy sounds cool, too. There are jobs out there that match my interests....I'm not worried about that at all. It's just that the work I'm forced to do on rotations do not....and I can't leave town to find said jobs until the wife graduates. Oh well, it's life, **** happens.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Could be true, I haven't met any though. However, interestingly, it is always with near 100% certainty that people who are a semester, or even a year behind, perceive themselves to be very intelligent. I don't get it.

I have never perceived myself as intelligent, even though I have objective evidence to the contrary (see below). But I am one of those people who has at time, sucked at school.

Being intelligent gets you jack **** if you don't have other qualities that help you succeed in school and life. I know because I actually have a stupid little piece of paper back home where I grew up that proclaims I am intelligent. I apparently scored 148 on the Woodcock-Johnson III....99.87%-tile. Yet I have always, currently do, and always theoretically will suck at school. Intelligence doesn't help you with motivation, being able to pay attention, having a family support system, "maturity", or any other part of what makes a "great" student. Cmon...IQ...? So I can solve stupid little logic puzzles fast and I'm given a number quantifying this fact.....that and $1 with get me a 20 oz. bottle of Diet Pepsi.

I'm also a person of alleged intelligence. I score at the 99.9th percentile on IQ tests (WAIS-R was the last one they gave me) and am a member of the Triple Nine Society. But so what? What does that mean? I've never felt like I was smarter than everyone else and I've certainly had my share of school problems. I graduated from college a semester late, took an extra year to get my masters degree and nearly bombed three classes in the 2nd semester of my PY1 year (ended up with 2C's and one B in those classes).

There is no rule that says very smart people can't slack off, fool around, have major illnesses, get depressed or have family issues that complicate their academic careers. Personally, I think we could all stand to be a little less judgmental of others on stuff like this.

 

[Epic]

some pharmacy relevant informations for u....

Should residency be required in pharmacy school by 2020? (1 - 2 year free money, free labor for hospital...)

Should students have a B.S. in order to apply?

Read these articles and add your comments:


http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=382513


http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=445535&searchString=residency

Should residency be required? No. Should you do one? Yes if you don't want to waste your education in retail hell.

Should B.S be required? Not a bad idea but it shouldn't be a requirement at this time. Everything being equal, an applicant with a degree should be more attractive to pharmacy schools.

The rest of the thread about IQ and being well rounded is overrated. And an intelligent person never has to say "my IQ is high and/or I'm intelligent."

 

[psurocks]

Then why didn't you study Pharmacology? Rather than bitch and complain about how apathetic you are towards pharmacy, go do something that you are interested in. You are not going to use much pharmacology operating the drive-thru microphone at Walgreens, I can promise you that.

thats a pompous statement, lemme guess, you must be doing a residency to become a clinical pharmacist

imo clinical pharm isnt as glamarous as its made out to be, ive realized no one in school tells you how long it takes b4 docs actually start (if ever) taking your recommendations seriously....and stuff like coag clinics, docs and rns are too busy, so thats why pharmacist are allowed to do it, dont really want to be the docs secretary on that one

 

[Epic]

thats a pompous statement, lemme guess, you must be doing a residency to become a clinical pharmacist

imo clinical pharm isnt as glamarous as its made out to be, ive realized no one in school tells you how long it takes b4 docs actually start (if ever) taking your recommendations seriously....and stuff like coag clinics, docs and rns are too busy, so thats why pharmacist are allowed to do it, dont really want to be the docs secretary on that one

It may be pompous. But it's accurate. Healthcare is not glamorous. It's quite dirty. But if glamour is an objective, being a clinical pharmacist as a part of a healchcare team is more desirable than working a drive thru.

There is more to clinical pharmacy than the ambulatory clinics you've mentioned.

 

[psurocks]

It may be pompous. But it's accurate. Healthcare is not glamorous. It's quite dirty. But if glamour is an objective, being a clinical pharmacist as a part of a healchcare team is more desirable than working a drive thru.

There is more to clinical pharmacy than the ambulatory clinics you've mentioned.

i dont think any hc is glamarous, but i dont think clinical pharmacy is everything that its made out to be....they all have advantages and disadvantages

 

[Epic]

i dont think any hc is glamarous, but i dont think clinical pharmacy is everything that its made out to be....they all have advantages and disadvantages

Clinical Pharmacy is everything it's made out to be if you're properly trained.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

It depends on who you are. For me, therapeutics is incredibly boring, so a residency is not in my future. You obviously like it, so you think it's awesome. To each his own.

Also, don't look down on all retail pharmacists. Sure there are some there just for a paycheck, but not ALL are like that. I was at an independant pharmacy last month and some of the diabetes counseling (PEIA face-to-face...look it up, great program for retail pharmacists) and work with compunding they perform rivals any of the "clinical" experiences you see in a hospital. Those fellas knew their **** and could throw down the pharmacotherpeutic smack with anybody.

 

[Epic]

We should never put down any pharmacist, anywhere.

But we're free to scrutinize the environment where professional development of pharmacist is not fostered.

 

[psurocks]

Clinical Pharmacy is everything it's made out to be if you're properly trained.

where do you work at?

ive only been exposed to clin. pharm so far in a hospital setting, and i didnt like it that much....but i know there are more oppurtunities, which hopefully i can see in my future rotations

but it does have disadvantages in the hosp. setting that ive seen

 

[Epic]

where do you work at?

ive only been exposed to clin. pharm so far in a hospital setting, and i didnt like it that much....but i know there are more oppurtunities, which hopefully i can see in my future rotations

but it does have disadvantages in the hosp. setting that ive seen

Oh, I've done some clinical work here and there. Really credible, right?

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

some pharmacy relevant informations for u....

Should residency be required in pharmacy school by 2020? (1 - 2 year free money, free labor for hospital...)

Should students have a B.S. in order to apply?

I'm a big proponent of residencies, and planned on doing one myself. However, I don't agree with making them mandatory. In my opinion, it implies that the education received in pharmacy school is lacking. If that's the case, we should figure out a way to incorporate some of it into the PharmD curricula. Otherwise we're just going to keep tacking on years of residencies...and where does it end? How would you become specialized?

 

[Epic]

I'm a big proponent of residencies, and planned on doing one myself. However, I don't agree with making them mandatory. In my opinion, it implies that the education received in pharmacy school is lacking. If that's the case, we should figure out a way to incorporate some of it into the PharmD curricula. Otherwise we're just going to keep tacking on years of residencies...and where does it end? How would you become specialized?

I sense oxymoron... kinda.

 

[psurocks]

Oh, I've done some clinical work here and there. Really credible, right?

not sure what you are trying to say here?

 

[Epic]

not sure what you are trying to say here?

Don't read too much into it.

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

I sense oxymoron... kinda.

Specialized residency?

 

[Epic]

Specialized residency?

No

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

No

Mandatory residency...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

If residents were paid as well as their colleagues out of school, I'd have no real problem with them. It's just a racket as it stands now. The reasons for being paid poorly as a physician resident make sense - it's possible, even likely that they will employ themselves, so really you are paying for further training that will benefit only you. In the residency-fueled brand of pharmacy practice, there is no pure private practice available. I mean, you aren't going to go rent some office space and set up on your own. You are always being paid by somebody. (If there is an exception, do share, I'd find that interesting, actually.) So really, you are paying for training you will use to be employed by your employer as a resident or some other employer...who themselves likely paid a paltry amount to train their future clinical specialists in a residency. You essentially have to pay for your training as those in other realms of pharmacy do not. It really isn't fair. I know I look at it from a more practical point of view rather than others, but I just calls it like I sees it.

I think there should be a resident uprising. C'mon comrades, take it to the capitalistic pigs! Viva, Stalin!

 

[Epic]

If residents were paid as well as their colleagues out of school, I'd have no real problem with them. It's just a racket as it stands now. The reasons for being paid poorly as a physician resident make sense - it's possible, even likely that they will employ themselves, so really you are paying for further training that will benefit only you. In the residency-fueled brand of pharmacy practice, there is no pure private practice available. I mean, you aren't going to go rent some office space and set up on your own. You are always being paid by somebody. (If there is an exception, do share, I'd find that interesting, actually.) So really, you are paying for training you will use to be employed by your employer as a resident or some other employer...who themselves likely paid a paltry amount to train their future clinical specialists in a residency. You essentially have to pay for your training as those in other realms of pharmacy do not. It really isn't fair. I know I look at it from a more practical point of view rather than others, but I just calls it like I sees it.

I think there should be a resident uprising. C'mon comrades, take it to the capitalistic pigs! Viva, Stalin!

Physicians have potential for self employment hence lower wages of residency is ok but since residency trained pharmacist will be empolyed, it's not ok?

Are you serious?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Physicians have potential for self employment hence lower wages of residency is ok but since residency trained pharmacist will be empolyed, it's not ok?

Are you serious?

It makes sense to me. Hospitals potentially get nothing from the training of physicians, but no matter what the effort used to train clinical specialists in pharmacy will benefit the hospital industry/academic system. Further, the above is just an attempt to rationalize not paying physicians well during their residencies. Such a rationalization can't be made for pharmacy. I really feel bad for the physicians, though. Those cats work 60 hours/week. They deserve massive bank.

The bottom line is that it isn't fair for those that want to pursue that specific type of specialty. All the hospitals have to do is wrap it up in a convenient little box called "residency" and they pay everyone less. Let their future employers put a four letter acronym after their name and they love the perceived prestige that comes with it. You certainly don't get paid more for doing it in the long run. I think it's an atrocity. It makes me wonder if there really will someday be a retail "residency" that is used to train retail pharmacists for 1/3 the rate they are paid today out of school to train today.

 

[PharmaSynergy]

Should residency be required in pharmacy school by 2020? Should students have a B.S. in order to apply?

Interesting articles, thank you for sharing.

As for residencies, I don't think they should be a mandatory requirement for pharmacy school graduates. As Speedie points out in the article, we already have a pharmacist shortage problem, and to add another year of residency on top of pharmacy school would further the pharmacist shortage, be more taxing to students, and discouraging to some current practitioners (who may feel that the requirement suggests that they aren't able to innovate their practices to incorporate medication therapy management).

On the other hand, Murphy suggests that mandatory residencies will lead to practitioners who are more prepared and better skilled in medication therapy management and are ultimately able to improve patient care. In theory this "sounds" good and makes sense, but that begs the question, Is a pharmacist who completed a residency really any better skilled to provide patient care vs. a pharmacist who has not completed a residency? And if we're talking about the retail setting, then the issue of residency is of even less importance. I think it's ultimately up to the individual to decide whether or not a residency makes sense for him/her, depending on the field of practice he/she plans to pursue. It will be interesting to see how this issue pans out in the upcoming AACP Board meeting in October.

As for the baccalaureate degree requirement, all I can say is, if they required a BS back in the days when I was a pharmacy school applicant, I would not be a pharmacist today. I was a rare bird who, while having completed 5+ years of undergrad studies, had a mere AA degree prior to transferring to pharmacy school. It was tough as heck to get in, because my school gave preferential acceptance to students who did their pre-pharmacy undergrad studies there. The last thing they wanted was a community college transplant who saved a few bucks instead of doing business with them in the first place. In my experience, my extended stay in the undergrad world just gave me some time to enjoy the taste of a few other courses other than pre-pharm requirements. It did not make me better prepared for actual pharmacy school courses, but yes I became a very seasoned student and more dedicated by the time I entered "professional" school.

 

[Priapism321]

It makes me wonder if there really will someday be a retail "residency" that is used to train retail pharmacists for 1/3 the rate they are paid today out of school to train today.

Here is one:

http://www.ashp.org/s_ashp/residency_listing.asp?CID=1212&DID=6080&id=63520

There is also one on ASHP's website with the heading: West Virginia University Rite Aid Pharmacy Residency, but the link is broken.

It's called post-graduate TRAINING, and to tell you the truth, most of my classmates that went into retail could have used a little more (read: they were ill equipped to put it lightly), in my opinion. The only retail pharmacist I have ever met that I thought was worth a damn was the preceptor of the community pharmacy residency associated with my COP. No surprise, he completed a pharmacy practice residency before taking a job at CVS. And, he only works in retail because he has a family and can't take the paycut to go back into academia (not that I can speak for him, just heard through the grapevine). My point, a year under this guy would provide some of the tools necessary to be a useful retail pharmacist, which I don't think many of them have currently (or they are not using them, I am not sure). It would be well worth the difference in pay to spend a year learning from this individual.