[pharmasaurus]

wonder what this means for the future of pharmacists; more supply less demand? or are us brits just getting too fat too fast that they can't dish out the statins fast enough?

[petzneo]

Sorry but wtf, I know about durham but where did you hear about birmingham?

The GPhC are being stupid, they JUST about get every graduate into pre-reg!!!

EDIT: http://www.pjonline.com/news/univers..._mpharm_degree

Just found the link...in shock lol will add to the pharmacy guide!

It won't affect people who are already in their pharmacy degree, e.g. me . It will just make the good pre-reg places more competitive to get and technically produce better pharmacists through the increase in competition for the pre-reg places. In terms of jobs, we will all be fine as they are loads of jobs currently available for pharmacists....we have high graduate employment so I'm personally not too worried!

[pharmasaurus]

(Original post by petzneo)
Sorry but wtf, I know about durham but where did you hear about birmingham?

The GPhC are being stupid, they JUST about get every graduate into pre-reg!!!

http://www.pjonline.com/news/univers..._mpharm_degree

posted today

[firestar101]

Something seriously needs to be done about this. There is already too many pharmacy school as it is

This will just make it harder for pharmacy graduates to get jobs or a pre-reg.

[pharmasaurus]

(Original post by firestar101)
Something seriously needs to be done about this. There is already too many pharmacy school as it is

This will just make it harder for pharmacy graduates to get jobs or a pre-reg.

i dont think it will be a problem. In London you have so many "100 hour" pharmacies popping up which take three pharmacists to run them efficiently. By the time they start enrolling students we'll be graduated anyways.

[firestar101]

Birmingham are retarded. I am shocked. There seems to be too many pharmacy schools opening up. There is one opening in Ireland as well soon.

[firestar101]

(Original post by pharmasaurus)
i dont think it will be a problem. In London you have so many "100 hour" pharmacies popping up which take three pharmacists to run them efficiently. By the time they start enrolling students we'll be graduated anyways.

I hope so. It would really suck doing a second degree in pharmacy and not getting a job at the end of it.

[petzneo]

(Original post by firestar101)
Birmingham are retarded. I am shocked. There seems to be too many pharmacy schools opening up. There is one opening in Ireland as well soon.

Ok, but with Ireland now that makes sense. There are barely any pharmacy schools there. I know that in Northern Ireland the most recently opened up school of pharmacy is at Ulster and they are bombarded with applications!

But it is kind of good, as I think (well, I hope!) that the GPhC planned this in such a way that they will force companies such as Boots, Superdrug and the NHS to make extra pre-registration places to accommodate these new students....

But in terms of jobs don't worry, there are plenty!

[firestar101]

(Original post by petzneo)
Ok, but with Ireland now that makes sense. There are barely any pharmacy schools there. I know that in Northern Ireland the most recently opened up school of pharmacy is at Ulster and they are bombarded with applications!

But it is kind of good, as I think (well, I hope!) that the GPhC planned this in such a way that they will force companies such as Boots, Superdrug and the NHS to make extra pre-registration places to accommodate these new students....

But in terms of jobs don't worry, there are plenty!

yeah, thanks. But, the thing about Ireland is that at the moment, a lot of pharmacists are struggling to get work, and a new pharmacy school will not help those students as they will not have a job to go to.

If you go to Google and go on the pharmacy forum. Great forum for current students, pharmacy applicants and pharmacists. If you go on the Irish thread, you will find that is the case.

I sort of feel sorry for their situation. But, I think we should be ok. My degree will be from rgu in Scotland.

[Caponester]

Good. Glad to see decent universities getting in on the pharmacy act. Can only help bolster the image of the profession.

[pharmasaurus]

a lot of complaints about the the lack of finding a pre-reg placement. you guys heard that they're trying to make pharmacy 5 years long with the pre reg year integrated between years 4 and 5? means you wont have to find it yourself, but you also wont get paid for it

[petzneo]

(Original post by Caponester)
Good. Glad to see decent universities getting in on the pharmacy act. Can only help bolster the image of the profession.

I totally agree. For example the fact that the Oxford University does not accept a pharmacy degree for graduate entry medicine as it is a vocational degree really annoys me (the degree is just as good as a biomed degree, better really!) Hmm maybe things might change now...

[Caponester]

(Original post by petzneo)
I totally agree. For example the fact that the Oxford University does not accept a pharmacy degree for graduate entry medicine as it is a vocational degree really annoys me (the degree is just as good as a biomed degree, better really!) Hmm maybe things might change now...

Where did you hear that?

[firestar101]

(Original post by Caponester)
Good. Glad to see decent universities getting in on the pharmacy act. Can only help bolster the image of the profession.

As long as I still get a good job at the end of my pharmacy degree, I do not care which university decides to run the pharmacy course.

[Caponester]

(Original post by firestar101)
As long as I still get a good job at the end of my pharmacy degree, I do not care which university decides to run the pharmacy course.

Well you're going to one of the longest established schools in the UK. All of these new schools still have to build up that reputation. I have no doubt Durham and Birmingham MPharm will be good though.

I wonder what effect the Durham MPharm will have on Sunderland or the Birmingham Mpharm will have on Aston? I'm also just thinking to myself, is there some sort of sinister undertone to these new schools opening? Put it this way, even though pharmacy is oversubscribed, it's poor candidates who probably wouldn't have been able to cope that don't get in. This is in contrast to medicine where good candidates routiinely fail to get in.

So why all the new MPharm courses? To persuade more students who would have typically picked medicine to go for pharmacy? The entry requirements are almost the same at quite a few schools of pharmacy in England... I hope to christ they don't intend for pharmacists to take on more responsibilities re: the nations health UNLESS they are appropriately remunerated.

I spoke to a GP not too long ago who came out with an interesting concept. In order to save money, the good old GP practice would cease to exist in its current form and instead be run by nurse and pharmacist prescribers with GP oversight. You do the math.

Normal GP practice = 5 GP's + 2 nurses + 1 pharmacist
New practice = 5 nurses + 2 pharmacist + 1 GP

There is the potential to save millions. All they would need to do is offer a tiny bit more and this meek profession would bite the hand off the NHS for what we deem to be image enhancing professional responsibilities. An interesting thought anyway. As for nurses, well they are perennially shafted by the NHS anyway so christ knows what they would get out of this system!

[GPSurrey]

I think you all miss the point. Birmingham and others are not "retarded" as someone states.

Ask yourself this - pharmacy is about patient safety, not granting graduates full employment. Law has a similar professional examination and there are loads more law schools than there are pharmacy schools.

So, why should each pharmacy student, no matter how weak (maybe with a 3rd class degree) be guaranteed a pre-reg place? Should they not go to the best students? Would this not be best for patients?

Clearly, the law profession thinks this approach is good enough. For too long pharmacy has been a profession where students can walk into a pre-reg and, if they pass the exam, into a job. The RPSGB and GPhC are not silly - they know there is a shortage of competitive places for pharmacists and opening more schools will result in more students, and they will result in better pharmacists as only the better ones (like in law) will get a professional training place. This is only good news for patients.

Remember, pharmacy is not a closed shop profession run for the benefit of pharmacists. It is a health profession that has huge responsibility for patient safety. If some people on this thread no longer see it as an easy route to good money and full employment then they maybe should not become responsible for patient safety at any time in the future!

And this is all in the context of a recession and health cuts. Why should pharmacy be a little island all on its own, with little or no effects of the recession or cuts?

And, as well as Birmingham and Durham, there are a few other schools rumoured to be opening. The more the merrier...

[member9876]

GP surrey i agree on the point it can be good in the sense that durham and birminhgam are two top unis and opening MPharm at these places is better than **** schools such as DMU, Medway etc.

However, with so many new graduates being churned out, the wage will surely go down, its low as it is!

[member9876]

(Original post by GPSurrey)
I think you all miss the point. Birmingham and others are not "retarded" as someone states.

Ask yourself this - pharmacy is about patient safety, not granting graduates full employment. Law has a similar professional examination and there are loads more law schools than there are pharmacy schools.

So, why should each pharmacy student, no matter how weak (maybe with a 3rd class degree) be guaranteed a pre-reg place? Should they not go to the best students? Would this not be best for patients?

Clearly, the law profession thinks this approach is good enough. For too long pharmacy has been a profession where students can walk into a pre-reg and, if they pass the exam, into a job. The RPSGB and GPhC are not silly - they know there is a shortage of competitive places for pharmacists and opening more schools will result in more students, and they will result in better pharmacists as only the better ones (like in law) will get a professional training place. This is only good news for patients.

Remember, pharmacy is not a closed shop profession run for the benefit of pharmacists. It is a health profession that has huge responsibility for patient safety. If some people on this thread no longer see it as an easy route to good money and full employment then they maybe should not become responsible for patient safety at any time in the future!

And this is all in the context of a recession and health cuts. Why should pharmacy be a little island all on its own, with little or no effects of the recession or cuts?

And, as well as Birmingham and Durham, there are a few other schools rumoured to be opening. The more the merrier...

erm are you a law graduate, law is different to healthcare. people can't survive without healthcare. Medicine, dentistry and pharmacy have always been resistant to recession and thats the way it will continue to be you tart

[GPSurrey]

It is nice to see a healthcare professional exhibit such high standards of intelligence and "professionalism" (that's popular in pharmacy at the minute, no?).

Firstly, it is not appropriate to call someone a "tart". Would you do the same for your patients?

Secondly, why assume I am in the law? Do you lack the foresight to understand the point of my message - law is a profession governed by a registration exam. Sounds familiar? The idea of having lots of law schools and not all students moving on to the registration is clear and will come into pharmacy - the professional body favour it, or do you not keep up?! The way to make pharmacy a better profession is to get rid of the rubbish - you know the types, those who moan that chemistry and pharmaceutics are not relevant, those who haven't got the basic respect or manners to work with the public and those who are thick and cannot count!

And you really think you are recession-proof? Really? When the head of one pharmacy school was quoted a few years back saying that pharmacists were "one act of parliament away from becoming irrelevant". What do you think led to the new "more clinical" curriculum? When cuts are being made do you think the general public will cut doctors (will the GMC let them?), nurses or pharmacists? Who really has the biggest perceived impact (remember, read carefully...) on the public? And why not collate pharmacies into dispensing doctor's practices, to give one example - maybe look outside the UK for good examples of this type of thing...

You sadly sum up a lot of pharmacy students - a money-grabbing little egotist who has not got a clue about the bigger picture. Your profession will be all the better for having more pharmacy schools as it will mean the dross that actually might endanger the public are removed from harm's way. Then pharmacy will get only those who are truly committed to the profession.

And no, I am not in law but a subject closer than you might think...

[Ralpharm]

(Original post by GPSurrey)
It is nice to see a healthcare professional exhibit such high standards of intelligence and "professionalism" (that's popular in pharmacy at the minute, no?).

Firstly, it is not appropriate to call someone a "tart". Would you do the same for your patients?

Secondly, why assume I am in the law? Do you lack the foresight to understand the point of my message - law is a profession governed by a registration exam. Sounds familiar? The idea of having lots of law schools and not all students moving on to the registration is clear and will come into pharmacy - the professional body favour it, or do you not keep up?! The way to make pharmacy a better profession is to get rid of the rubbish - you know the types, those who moan that chemistry and pharmaceutics are not relevant, those who haven't got the basic respect or manners to work with the public and those who are thick and cannot count!

And you really think you are recession-proof? Really? When the head of one pharmacy school was quoted a few years back saying that pharmacists were "one act of parliament away from becoming irrelevant". What do you think led to the new "more clinical" curriculum? When cuts are being made do you think the general public will cut doctors (will the GMC let them?), nurses or pharmacists? Who really has the biggest perceived impact (remember, read carefully...) on the public? And why not collate pharmacies into dispensing doctor's practices, to give one example - maybe look outside the UK for good examples of this type of thing...

You sadly sum up a lot of pharmacy students - a money-grabbing little egotist who has not got a clue about the bigger picture. Your profession will be all the better for having more pharmacy schools as it will mean the dross that actually might endanger the public are removed from harm's way. Then pharmacy will get only those who are truly committed to the profession.

And no, I am not in law but a subject closer than you might think...

You are right to highlight the fact that competition will greatly benefit the profession by making sure only the most efficient pharmacists get the jobs. However you cannot deny the fact that when there is greater supply than demand, wage decreases. 100 hour pharmacies will exploit this as they won't really care so much about 'the best', they'll probably prefer to pay the least to whoever is qualified (has passed their exams) for that job.

After having given someone else a lecture on manners - "...it's not appropriate to call someone a tart..."- I think you should apologise yourself for calling many pharmacy students "money grabbing little egotist..."