Career change

[ferretmanabu]

There are plenty of four year courses available these days. The advantage is obviously the year you save and also a nice bursary from the NHS. The standard medical course is five years.

[Pharmanaut]

Originally Posted by admin

My friend has just finished medicine, and she had to do the full course. I don't think any of the medical courses give you any time off for having previous qualifications, including pharmacy.

It would be a long slog after 5 years to qualify as a pharmacist to start with, although you would probably end up a better medic at the end of it though.

My views on choosing pharmacy are well known - most of us would not make the choice again. After 26 years on the register I've never known stress like this and it is set to increase.

[N.T]

[quote=ramroum;6118]

Originally Posted by ferretmanabu

If a qualified pharmacist (without doing pre-reg)

Such a thing does not exist. To be a 'qualified pharmacist'* you have to do, and pass, pre-reg. Otherwise you are just a person with a pharmacy degree. (Although maybe a wise person with a pharmacy degree since you decided not to do pre-reg.)

* Technically speaking, a 'qualified pharmacist' does not exist at all. You are either a 'pharmacist' (by means of 'qualifying' by passing the pre-reg exam) or 'not a pharmacist'. People seem to add the prefix 'qualified' to enhance their status (which of course we all need). Pedantry over.

[kemzero]

Hey people ..come on pharmacy is NOT that bad, albeit stress levels these days are unprecedented...but folks always look on the bright iside of life

My philosophy is .if you want it bad enough youve got to go for it...Pharmacy is not a bad career and until remote supervision etc set in its' employment potential is definitely above average..pay hovers between average and a bit above average depending on your area of work...its not all bad!

[ramroum]

[quote=N.T;6134]

Originally Posted by ramroum

Such a thing does not exist. To be a 'qualified pharmacist'* you have to do, and pass, pre-reg. Otherwise you are just a person with a pharmacy degree. (Although maybe a wise person with a pharmacy degree since you decided not to do pre-reg.)

* Technically speaking, a 'qualified pharmacist' does not exist at all. You are either a 'pharmacist' (by means of 'qualifying' by passing the pre-reg exam) or 'not a pharmacist'. People seem to add the prefix 'qualified' to enhance their status (which of course we all need). Pedantry over.

Dear NT,

You are right, but I thought if you do the pre- reg you become "registered pharmacist", without pre-reg you have a degree so you are qualified isn't it? can't you use your degree overseas, or become a secondary school teacher (fast track)...lots of options in case someone couldn't pass Pre-reg!!

[rafhelp]

would you say the same thing if you were not qualified....

[N.T]

[quote=ramroum;6159]

Originally Posted by N.T

Dear NT,

You are right, but I thought if you do the pre- reg you become "registered pharmacist", without pre-reg you have a degree so you are qualified isn't it? can't you use your degree overseas, or become a secondary school teacher (fast track)...lots of options in case someone couldn't pass Pre-reg!!

No, a 'registered pharmacist' is a 'pharmacist'. You cannot call yourself a pharmacist unless you have: (a) your pharmacy degree*; (b) have completed your pre-reg year and been signed off by your tutor and have passed your exam.

If you just have a pharmacy degree alone then you are NOT a pharmacist. With just the pharmacy degree you are someone, like thousands of other graduates, who hold a general science degree. (i.e. you can not call yourself a 'pharmacist')

Yes...you're right...there's plenty of options if you don't pass pre-reg (although 99% of people do)....and most of the options are far more enjoyable than pharmacy. Heh heh.


* Yes, the pharmacy degree does not necessarily have to be from UK...can be overseas.