Are privately owned schools and colleges of pharmacy objectionable and not likely to produce the best results?**Read before joint session of Section on Education and Legislation, American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties and National Association of Boards of Pharmacy

Edward Spease
1917 The Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (1912)  
The above question is one that has interested the writer not a little during the past few years. When the chairman, Mr. Freericks, of the Section on Education and Legislation asked me to submit a paper on one of twenty subjects, the above subject was chosen in order that the writer might ascertain what the opinions of others are upon it. The question asked and which may be answered in this paper is not one of past tense but is clearly one of the present day. It is certain that the founders of
more » ... t the founders of pharmacy, medical and dental colleges in the past have not acted from selfish motives alone; surely some of these motives, or better the major portion of them, have been altruistic and for the advancement of the profession. Is it not true that the major portion of institutions of learning at one time were privately owned? It certainly is true that such has been the case in regard to professional schools. Public institutions of learning have had to await overtures from the professions before they would include professional curricula, because the leaders in the professions have been interested financially in the privately owned schools. Medical and dental colleges have been entering the large universities quite rapidly in the past decade and so have quite a few pharmacy schools. Has this movement been a backward or a forward one? If graduating to-day, would you prefer a degree from Harvard or Yale to one from a college owned by John Jones? Suppose the said John Jones is recognized as the very topmost man in his profession-the success of his college and its reputation depends upon him and his name. When he dies, a leader of his ability may or may not appear. From which school, then, is the degree worth the more? Would you rather own stock in a small railroad paying high dividends to-day and owned solely by one man than stock in the Pennsylvania System? Which is the better permanent investment? The above questions of course are based upon the fact that the public does take cognizance of the school from which your degree is obtained. Some of our university authorities have taken the stand that pharmacy is a trade and not a profession and that they do not wish to include with themselves trade schools. From the character of some drug stores to-day, they have abundant grounds for such views. Is not this state of affairs due largely to lack of proper education on the part of the pharmacist? The physician has rapidly increased the standards of preliminary education and the pharmacist has not kept pace with him. Where is the pharmacy school that requires an A.B. degree for matriculation? How many require the minimum medical demands-two years of approved college work? We are not, however, overlooking this fact and we are tightening up as rapidly as we can, in fact, as rapidly as our large rank and file of non-college men will let us. So long as our schools One little thought occurs at this point.
doi:10.1002/jps.3080060212 fatcat:n3oxzrdzcjabzgcxilrjckw32u