[Tweety]

Originally Posted by anc33

The ASN programs in my area require their students to take pharm, patho and ethics. Statistics is part of the general education requirement that fits into the pre-nursing curriculum at many schools.

The ADN program here just added Statistics and Ethics requirements as well. They don't separate the pharm. and patho. though from the cirruclum but teach it within the nursing courses. To do their BSN completion they need to take on government course and 18 months of part-time school, which they could probably finish in less than a year of full time work. So to go from a "two year" degree to a "four year" degree would take them under a year of full time work.

The program in your area and the one here is another example of how ADN programs are taking advantage of students by narrowing the gap between the requirements of a BSN and ADN, and requiring more than 2 years of work. ADNs nowadays take at a minimum three years. If I were an ADN under today's circumstances, I would feel a bit cheated to do all that coursework and practically have a baccalaureate degree yet receive an Associates Degree.

[anc33]

Originally Posted by Tweety

The ADN program here just added Statistics and Ethics requirements as well. They don't separate the pharm. and patho. though from the cirruclum but teach it within the nursing courses. To do their BSN completion they need to take on government course and 18 months of part-time school, which they could probably finish in less than a year of full time work. So to go from a "two year" degree to a "four year" degree would take them under a year of full time work.

The program in your area and the one here is another example of how ADN programs are taking advantage of students by narrowing the gap between the requirements of a BSN and ADN, and requiring more than 2 years of work. ADNs nowadays take at a minimum three years. If I were an ADN under today's circumstances, I would feel a bit cheated to do all that coursework and practically have a baccalaureate degree yet receive an Associates Degree.

I feel the same way. Don't get me wrong, I think the extra courses are great and make one more well rounded, but not necessarily a better nurse. But if you go to cc thinking that it will be faster you would be plain wrong. Add on waiting time and you could have gotten your BSN faster.

[Freedom42]

Originally Posted by Tweety

The ADN program here just added Statistics and Ethics requirements as well. They don't separate the pharm. and patho. though from the cirruclum but teach it within the nursing courses. To do their BSN completion they need to take on government course and 18 months of part-time school, which they could probably finish in less than a year of full time work. So to go from a "two year" degree to a "four year" degree would take them under a year of full time work.

The program in your area and the one here is another example of how ADN programs are taking advantage of students by narrowing the gap between the requirements of a BSN and ADN, and requiring more than 2 years of work. ADNs nowadays take at a minimum three years. If I were an ADN under today's circumstances, I would feel a bit cheated to do all that coursework and practically have a baccalaureate degree yet receive an Associates Degree.

Well said. This situation is another good argument for making BSN the minimum entry credential. If ADNs are already that close to BSNs, they wouldn't have to go that much further to get the baccalaureate degree and the job opportunities that come with it.

[hikernurse]

[quote=Tweety;2744661]The ADN program here just added Statistics and Ethics requirements as well. They don't separate the pharm. and patho. though from the cirruclum but teach it within the nursing courses. To do their BSN completion they need to take on government course and 18 months of part-time school, which they could probably finish in less than a year of full time work. So to go from a "two year" degree to a "four year" degree would take them under a year of full time work.

The program in your area and the one here is another example of how ADN programs are taking advantage of students by narrowing the gap between the requirements of a BSN and ADN, and requiring more than 2 years of work. ADNs nowadays take at a minimum three years. If I were an ADN under today's circumstances, I would feel a bit cheated to do all that coursework and practically have a baccalaureate degree yet receive an Associates Degree.[/QUOTE]

That is part of the reason I am applying for BSN programs now. We would get 11 credit hours (not even considered full-time status) when we spent between 20-25 hours a week just in class and clinicals.

I do believe that BSN should be the entry level for nurses, but I don't believe ADN nurses are less prepared. And sometimes a 2 year program gets good nurses into the field who for many reasons (family needs, job needs, etc.) aren't able to finish a 4 year degree at the time.

But, yes, we would come across more professionally with a higher minimum education.

[queenjean]

So, perhaps in response to the fact that people are pushing for a BSN education, ADN programs are increasing their requirements. And now people are hard on them, too?

I live in a state that is mostly rural. If you want to get your BSN, you might very well have to move 400 miles. That might be okay for nurses with no family, for young, straight out of high school nurses. Not for older ones with husbands who have established jobs, who own houses, who have kids in schools. There are many great ADN programs scattered throughout the state. For many, the reason to go to an ADN program is that that is what is available within 200+ miles of their home. Now those ADN programs are increasing their requirements, maybe in response to the call by some that BSN education should be the standard. But that is still not good enough? Then they get it from both sides. Can't win.

[Freedom42]

Originally Posted by queenjean

So, perhaps in response to the fact that people are pushing for a BSN education, ADN programs are increasing their requirements. And now people are hard on them, too?

I live in a state that is mostly rural. If you want to get your BSN, you might very well have to move 400 miles. That might be okay for nurses with no family, for young, straight out of high school nurses. Not for older ones with husbands who have established jobs, who own houses, who have kids in schools. There are many great ADN programs scattered throughout the state. For many, the reason to go to an ADN program is that that is what is available within 200+ miles of their home. Now those ADN programs are increasing their requirements, maybe in response to the call by some that BSN education should be the standard. But that is still not good enough? Then they get it from both sides. Can't win.

I don't think anyone means to be hard on ADNs -- quite the opposite. The argument is that ADNs ought to be rewarded with a higher degree. From everything I've read on this forum, it takes three years to complete an ADN, yet you're only rewarded with a two-year degree -- and you're within striking distance of a BSN. It's a lot of work to earn a two-year degree. I think the criticism is aimed at ADN programs that position themselves as two-year programs. Clearly they are not.

[queenjean]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

I don't think anyone means to be hard on ADNs -- quite the opposite. The argument is that ADNs ought to be rewarded with a higher degree. From everything I've read on this forum, it takes three years to complete an ADN, yet you're only rewarded with a two-year degree -- and you're within striking distance of a BSN. It's a lot of work to earn a two-year degree. I think the criticism is aimed at ADN programs that position themselves as two-year programs. Clearly they are not.

I know; I meant that now people are hard on the ADN programs from both sides. That they are two year programs, that they should be four year programs; that they aren't academically rigorous enough, that they require too much. We can't have the argument that ADN programs aren't good enough to be the entry level nursing position and that whoever is against this is silly because more education is ALWAYS a good thing; and then turn around and have this discussion that ADN programs are requiring too much of their participants--isn't more education always a good thing? Oh, I forget, of course we can have this discussion, it is the internet!

I'm getting ready to enter an RN to BSN program--online. I don't want the long commute to a classroom based program. A lot of nurses in my state get their ADNs and then do the online program. I'm thankful my ADN required so much; now I don't need much to get my BSN.

I must say, I'm not incredibly motivated to get my BSN. There is no job perk--I won't go up in salary, in status, there isn't a position in my hospital that I want that would now open up for me because I have my BSN. The course work looks pretty repetitive. I'm not even entirely sure why I'm doing it--I guess mostly in case we move (either within the US or abroad, which is a possibility) and the bachelor-degree thing comes into play. Also for the possiblity that maybe I will be too old to do bedside nursing at some point and want one of those rare positions that require a BSN; a school nurse in my local school district, for example.

[SandraHeartTeamRN]

One dollar an hour extra for BSN where I work.

[TimSRNA2b]

Originally Posted by CeCiRN

Lindarn I'm an ADN and proud to be an ADN and anyone who has gone through the fires of hell of nursing school and passed NCLEX whether they be ADN or BSN have earned RN after their names and deserve the utmost respest. I stand by my words in my post.

I agree that schooling was difficult, as with any profession. To be honest with you if you are referring it to the fires of hell then I probably wouldn't want you pushing my digoxin or amiodarone. I guess that is why the ivy league university hospital I am employed at requires RN's to be Bachelors prepared. It is pretty scary to see some of the nurses the ADN's push out. BSN/RN will have left the bedside to either to pursue a masters/PhD and/or managerial/executive position. I know I do not plan on being at the bedside for much longer. There are too many opportunities out there to sit and watch it pass on by. I guess if you want to make a fair wage with only two years of schooling and work at the bedside for your entire career then ADN is the way to go. I guess there wouldn't be any bedside nurses if there were not any ADN programs.

[flames9]

I will probably get some flamage for my opinion, but its only my opinion,lol, and yes I'm only a student (ADN, that wil go onto higher education) so my view is limited! But in my opinion, it the "person" that makes a good nurse, and not the school!! I have seen fellow students who excel in theory, sit around and brag about their high 90 average, yet you see them in lab or in clinical,and one is amazed they can even tie their own shoes. There is even a poster on this site that mentioned she has her masters degree, yet has NEVER given an IM injection? But hey,she has her masters, she is a super duper nurse! I guess i just see too many people hiding behind their degrees and not their actual skills. just because one has higher education, doesn't mean they have any skills! lot of book smart people out there, but when it comes to "hands on" or real world stuff, they don't do their degree justice!! Just my opinion! One can't say any school program is better than another, as they all differ soo much. But in the real world higher education will more than likely get one further,so will play the game,lol