[silnarnin]

Perhaps it's the way that the graduations are formulated. I studied in the University of Lisbon, and we had six to seven subjects per semester, each with a theoretical component and a pratical/lab component. Many had two exams, we could only go to the theoretical exam if we passed (more than 50% score) the pratical/lab one. It was a five year course followed by a six month pre-reg (unpaid!).

However, at the same time private universities were opening pharmacy graduations of doubtful quality. I had access to exams from another pharmacy course, and they were much easier than ours, even if it was the same teacher. We even went to the parliment to bring atention to the problem, but no-one listened.

So a person can come out of my university with a 16 out of 20, and that would be considered very good, but with the same grade from another university and that would be average. To combat that, the portuguese equivalent of the RPSGB had the idea to accredit graduations, and the ones that weren't good enough their students would have to do an exam to become a pharmacist. I don't know if this is happening because I left Portugal two years ago and I'm a bit out of touch with what's happening there.

The point is that, at least in Portugal, the quality of graduations depends on the university. This works there because the prospective employers know which ones are the best. But in the UK, a pharmacist is a pharmacist, and that's it. I hope that Portugal would introduce an exam like the one for the pre-regs, and everyone had to pass it to be a pharmacist.

Nevertheless, being Portugal like it is, there would always be the risk that the son/daughter/friend/cousin of someone important would have access to the exam before, or had someone special marking it. So there would always be the risk of someone incompetent/ignorant ending up being a pharmacist.