I've been debating about discussing pharmacy education...
but wasn't really sure where to start. I know my opinions about the
over-expansion of pharmacy schools, but did I have the data to back up
my point? Well, that information fell into my lap at Midyear. ASHP
President Diane Ginsburg announced that ASHP and APhA had created a discussion paper
that addressed "concerns about the accelerating expansion of pharmacy
education" and "how the continued expansion of pharmacy education could
affect the quality of pharmacy education". BUT I still didn't write
about it.
I didn't want other students to think that I was judging one pharmacy
program against another... because I don't think many of us are
qualified to make those judgements objectively. The final push came last
week, when an Ohio Pharmacists Association Facebook push rubbed me the
wrong way: Marshall Pharmacy School Prepares for Fall 2012 Opening.
Like I said before, I have nothing against Marshall. Except that
they're opening a pharmacy school that targets southern Ohio as one of
their recruiting areas. The current number of pharmacy schools in Ohio
is 7. When I applied to pharmacy school in Fall 2005, there were 4
accredited programs. Since then, it's almost doubled. For me, that has
meant less internship opportunities and an increasingly competitive
market to obtain IPPE/APPE sites for students. I've met great students
from the 3 newer schools in Ohio and know that they will make great
pharmacists... but where do we draw the line? Do we need an 8th pharmacy
school recruiting in Ohio?
Thinking about my concerns, I asked a few knowledgeable mentors about
their opinions. One led me to a fantastic example of what pharmacy
education may face in the next 15 years. An article titled Is Law School a Losing Game?
in the Wall Street Journal addresses the fact that law schools are
over-abundant, charging high tuition, and giving their graduates false
hope about the job market. Now, we're not just talking about the economy
for the last few years, we're talking about a flood of law students who
can't get jobs to pay off their loans. They're all bright. They all
took the bar exam. Yet they're working at jobs that clearly do not require
graduate degrees. Where's the justice?
One solution in the article mentions "limit(ing) class sizes or the
number of new law schools" A brilliant idea as far as I'm concerned...
just one problem: antitrust laws. So what we have are "American law
schools like factories that no force has the power to slow down — not
even the timeless dictates of supply and demand". I would hate pharmacy
education to come to this point. I can't imagine graduating pharmacy
school in a year and a half and not having a job. I didn't go into
pharmacy for the salary, but I need a salary to survive. It would be my
worst fear to be jobless and unable to practice a profession I'm so
passionate about.
While we think about the quantity of students graduating, we must
also address the quality of the education they're receiving. Who do we
want teaching our students? I prefer having professors who have real
life experience to back up what they know. As we increase the number of
positions available for academia, are all these positions filled by
highly qualified candidates? There's no way to accomplish that. While I
respect residency training and am 100% sure I will rank sites next year,
I do not feel that graduates of a PGY-1 residency have enough
experience to fill an academic position. Do they have clinical
knowledge? Yes. Do they have leadership and mentorship skills? Yes. But
they're lacking the experience of working on their own. Residency
training allows for the continuation of intense learning and
experience... but it's not quite enough to round out the whole picture.
The last point I wish to address goes back to the article about
Marshall. Is the increase in demand of pharmacists really what the
statistics say? In 2000 there were 81 accredited pharmacy schools, 112
in 2008, and now we're well above 120. In addition, established programs
are increasing class sizes... sometimes double what they had in the
past. We know the baby boomers are entering retirement and that the
number of prescription drugs will increase over the next 10 year, but
will the pharmacist need grow at the rate we're expecting it to? I'm no
statistician, but we all know that corporations are finding new ways to
employ less pharmacists to save money. Technology and automation are
great examples of that. This trend is going to continue, especially if
reimbursement (especially government) continues to decrease. Companies
are not going to hire more pharmacists and lose money. It just won't
happen.
Since we've basically realized we can't regulate new schools opening,
whether they be law or pharmacy. What do we do? Regardless, we need to
create awareness of the problem. We need to ask each other whether or
not opening new schools in a state that already has 7 is necessary. When
we decide, we talk to our local and state organizations... and gain
support. No one wants to be the person who puts the kabosh on the effort
to make money by opening another pharmacy school... but we're talking
about doing something for the greater good of the profession.
So, I ask two things of all of you...
1. Whether a student,
resident, clinical pharmacist, administrator, or professor... think it
over. Form an opinion and talk to others.
2. Comment on my blog. Argue with me. Present me with new facts.
Both of these things will help us all learn about our current
situation and prevent us from letting this growth of pharmacy schools go
on without at least a push back.