A brief history of pharmacy admissions in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The move from a Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy to a Doctor of Pharmacy degree, both in the United States and in Canada, has been accompanied by a general move towards increased prepharmacy admission requirements and longer pharmacy programs. Historically, the most thoroughly researched pharmacy admissions variables include grade point average (GPA), Pharmacy College Admissions Test (PCAT), interviews and critical thinking tests. Most programs now require a combination of academic (GPA ± PCAT) and nonacademic characteristics (e.g., interviews, volunteering, critical thinking tests, essays). This review focuses on GPA and the PCAT as academic admissions measures and the interview (both traditional and the multiple mini-interview) and critical thinking tests as nonacademic measures. There is evidence that prepharmacy GPA, the PCAT and admissions interviews are correlated with academic success in a pharmacy program. Repeating a prepharmacy course is a negative predictor of academic success. The multiple mini-interview and various critical thinking tests have been studied in pharmacy admissions, but the evidence to date does not support their use for predicting success. Several areas require further research, including finding an effective measure of reasoning and critical thinking skills. The relationship between admission test scores and clinical performance also requires further study, as academic achievement in pharmacy programs has been the main measure of success to date.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".