/sci/ - Science & Math

or does it depend on the school?

Better off in computer science. You'll be replaced by machines soon enough. Pharmacist? Who needs an error prone human to memorize drug interactions? Machines can do the same job error free. They're already dispensing pills in pharmacies. It'll only be a few years until pharmacists are mostly done away with.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5498551_math-requirements-become-pharmacist.html

>>4844342
thanks

>>4844338

pharmacists will always be there because thats the law.
They could've been replaced a long time ago by "dispensers" but they aren't because legally there has to be a qualified person there to instruct people on how to take medication, what not to take, and sometimes make custom mixtures, etc.

Funny thing is, comp sci is something that is easily outsourced while pharmacy is something here to stay, everywhere on earth...unless we somehow make Robots advanced enough to be Lawyers, Doctors and Pharmacists...

>>4844338

this is retarded, there are already pharmacy technicians who can do the job of a pharmacist...but they can't replace a licensed Pharmacist. The issue is liability, legality, customer service and management of the pharmacy

>>4844352
Most of those tasks don't really require any original thought. It's more like a basic set of rules based on age, sex, etc. Easily can be turned into a program I think.

>>4844357
Things change in time... Current trends show machines taking over tasks formerly reserved for humans. We already have Roombas cleaning the floors, machines that can debone chickens in factories (working 24/7 no off days or injuries), road building. A machine that substitutes a pharmacist isn't a huge leap.

>>4844370

Then what's the point of getting any job if people are going to create machines that will be as intelligent or even far intelligent than a human?

Meh, machines won't take over the pharmacy job for at least 50 years. By then, OP would be nearing retirement.

>>4844381
Well you need to take into account which jobs are more easily "mechanized". Pharmacist making decisions based on memorized formulas? Easily replaced. Lawyer that needs to come up with original ideas? Machines in the mainstream probably won't be doing that any time soon.

>>4844383
Basically, this, except my predicted timespan is much shorter than 50 years. Maybe 10, which would put any aspiring pharmacists' future at risk.

Meh, pharmacist will always have a job in South. Places like Texas still use 1950s gas stations.

>>4844385

pharmacists do a lot, you don't know their profession, so why are you talking about it?

doctors are usually pretty dumb when it comes to prescribing appropriate drugs and often make mistakes involving contraindication, pharmacists phone them up and correct them or argue with them. It happens daily.

pharmacists, depending on the state/province, can also prescribe drugs, modify regimens, and alter dosages depending on how the treatment is going

pharmacy is a heavily regulated profession, its not just about being able to perform it, its about being licensed to do it....robots will never be allowed into the field even once we have VERY advanced AI that can pass off as humans, why? Because its not a profession that simply demands skill, it demands licensing and qualification, pharmacy school, etc..

Why? Thats how the world works, we need reliability...Same reasons Doctors won't be replaced by robots until a cultural revolution changes how we do licensing

>>4844400

>..Same reasons Doctors won't be replaced by robots until a cultural revolution changes how we do licensing

ya, the cultural revolution will happen much later than the technological revolution that gives us powerful AI


so unless you plan on living for 200-400 years, you shouldn't worry about losing any job that requires licensing to automation.

>>4844400
Actually I do know the profession, which is why I say everything they do can be automated with software. Machines are reliable. People are not.

calculus and mayyybe linear algebra


you'll never end up using more than basic arithmetic

>>4844430
liar. it would be efficient to use machines, but no never anytime soon.
>>4844400
this.

anyway, op: I imagine calc I, possibly calc II for good measure, Im in pharm now, formerly biochemistry which went up to calc III, so im not entirely sure.