I've always struggled with this question -- and it is question that I have been asked many times in my career as a nurse with a PhD who has spent most of my career working in hospitals. I strongly support the development of roles for nurses with doctoral level degrees in the practice arena, but understand better then most people (I think) how much a person needs both the academic foundation and practical experience to be successful in them.
In an ideal world, a person would get the practical experience and the academic foundation simultaneously -- or go back and forth between the 2 types of learning regularly. However, we don't live in an ideal world. Most people have to focus on one or the other first and then get the other later. I don't think that is the best way to do it, but it is the way some people have to do it because of the circumstances of their lives.
In the end ... I believe ...
1. It is best to intersperse periods of academic education with periods of clinical practice so that the individual can integrate the 2 types of education -- practical experience and academic, theoretical knowledge -- together. Focusing only on one half of the development picture and then getting the other half later is less than ideal. The best learning occurs when the two are combined.
2. Recognizing that many individuals can not (or choose not) to integrate their development activities in this way, we should be more open to acknowledging the weaknesses that arise when someone has only half of their development completed. In other words, people with a lot of practical experience but only an entry-level education need to fully acknowledge that they lack the academic education needed for certain role functions -- and people with the academic degree but little experience need to acknowledge that they lack the practical experience necessary for certain role functions.
3. Once we start acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses of the various career paths ... then and only then will we be able to develop roles and programs that match the reality of the workforce's true abilities. Realistic expectations can be developed, etc.
For example: Someone completing a DNP before ever actually working as a nurse could be expected to do a residency of some kind (like physicians do) before being "set loose upon the world" with claims of expertise and advanced knowledge. They could be acknowledged as a beginner-level practitioner with advanced academic knowledge who needs some practical experience before they can be expected to function at an advanced level. Job titles, salaries, etc. could be developed to reflect that lack of experience (just as it is for physicians, etc.) until the person has acquired the necessary practical experience.
Similarly, people with practical experience but little formal education would fit into roles developed to capitalize on their strengths while also openly acknowledging that they do not have the academic background to fulfill all of the aspects of a DNP role.
The same argument can be made for any advanced practice role. I just chose to focus on DNP's because that is what this thread is about.
So ... to the OP ... If you decide to go directly from BSN to DNP program, just remember that you will not be an expert when you graduate. You will be a beginner-level practitioner with some advanced academic preparation. To become a true expert, you will need to get "in there" and actually practice as a nurse for a while.