[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by hpcat

I doubt any hospital can afford to pay nurses what they pay OTs, PTs and RTs, regardless of what those nurses do. Let's face it, they need a LOT more nurses than these three disciplines combined.

I do think this a major point that must be considered.

PsychRN's suggestion really does make sense to me. Everyone has to go through the same basic RN training and get the same basic RN licensure and THEN, if they choose to, they can take the added coursework to earn a bachelor's degree in nursing.

I can see the argument that was probably made for RN-BSN programs... that they could provide the same quality clinical instruction while also providing the BSN content... and it would be more efficient time-wise while also appealing to those potential students biased against non-college options. My family and teachers expected me to get a uni degree and would've discouraged me from any course of study that didn't grant a bachelor's. So I can imagine direct BSN programs were developed partly to appeal to that group of potential students - in the same way that direct entry MSN programs were developed to appeal to those who already have bachelors' degrees and find it difficult to imagine going back to school for "just" an associate's degree. Why can't they just train to be a nurse WITHOUT having to earn an associate's degree? (I know there are a few diploma programs around, but it's not an option for many).

So I can imagine that a properly structured and marketed RN training program could be more widely accepted by ALL interested parties. I image some kind of standard RN training that DOESN'T impart an associate's degree or a bachelor's degree or master's degree... it ONLY provides whatever is required for RN licensure. Pre-reqs would be standard across schools (wouldn't that be great?!). Let's say a basic human anatomy course, a basic human biology/physiology course, an intro chemistry course, a hands-on nursing assistant class, a basic writing course, and a basic math class. Those already holding degrees could have the writing and math class waived; and any previous science courses evaluated for equivalency. There could also be a standard language and math test that must be passed by all.

Everyone would go through the same kind of RN program to earn their license. Those without an associate's degree could take the extra classes (intro to psych, social science, etc) to earn an associate's in nursing. Those who wanted a BSN could take the added classes (upper division psych/human development, history of nursing, intro to nursing research, statistics, etc) to qualify for that degree.

There are still lots of problems and potential pitfalls with that type of plan as well. Sigh!!! No easy answers here!!!

[hpcat]

Originally Posted by RNGrad2006

Even after multiple years of work experience? That is what I was referring to. An ADN with 15 years of experience will get paid a LOT more than a BSN as a new grad with no experience. We even have an LPN at our hospital with multiple years of experience making a lot more than the RN's with a few years experience. So I do believe you get paid as per experience and that education has only a very minor impact on pay.

Even after multiple years! I know, stupid, right? Generally the only way around it is moving up the ladder. A certification can get you a slight increase, a BSN can get you that 50 cents, but it's not like the business world where I am now, you get big raises for major self improvement like a degree and salary corrections if you're valued - I once got a $10,000 raise when they found out I was looking elsewhere. I went out on disability for a year, when I came back I got another $15,000 increase (I guess they missed me). Nursing doesn't get you that but it really should.

[PsychRN03]

Originally Posted by hpcat

I like this idea.

It makes sense to me.

For the student, it's quite a bit cheaper to get an ADN. Once you start your career on a floor, if you find yourself working for a good employer, there is likely an opportunity to have your employer assist with the financial burden of school; however, it's only 1 year (3 semesters), so again, this is a cheaper version than going to a university. Also, you will be making a decent salary, so university education is likely more manageable. Furrthermore, no more perceived eletist attitude because we all came from the same 2 yr degree.

[RNGrad2006]

Originally Posted by PsychRN03

It makes sense to me.

For the student, it's quite a bit cheaper to get an ADN. Once you start your career on a floor, if you find yourself working for a good employer, there is likely an opportunity to have your employer assist with the financial burden of school; however, it's only 1 year (3 semesters), so again, this is a cheaper version than going to a university. Also, you will be making a decent salary, so university education is likely more manageable. Furrthermore, no more perceived eletist attitude because we all came from the same 2 yr degree.

Most schools it is more than a year. I am doing it part time and it is going to take me just over 2 years to complete. Part of the reason I am doing it slowly is because that way it will be 100% employer paid so a great advantage financially for sure. I am required to complete an additional 45 semester credits which is about 1.5 years. Definitely by the time I am done I will have closer to 5 years of education doing the laddered approach but definitely cheaper this way and have no student loans to pay back so there are definite pros and cons to each approach taken. I am paying mostly with time since there are always sacrifices to be made as I feel I have put my "personal life" on hold for many years now.

[jjjoy]

Just to reiterate, why even have RN programs necessarily confer ANY degree? What about RN training/licensing programs that do not confer any degree? Why confuse things by having some programs grant an associate's, some a bachelor's, and some a diploma? At some point, to draw students in I imagine, schools started adding "extras" and combining programs. Get your RN license AND an associate's/bachelor's/master's degree at the same time! That approach only seems to confuse things now.

With clear, consistent pre-req coursework and a wholly nursing-focused curriculum (as opposed to split between degree coursework and nursing), those with previous degrees could minimize the amount of redundancy with any previous studies in order to pass their program and create less tension among students & graduates from differing backgrounds - since they all can rest assured that they have the same foundational knowledge and the same level of nursing education.

If a person chooses to take extra coursework to qualify for an associates' degree or for a bachelor's degree, then that's up to them, depending on what various schools require. But the RN training programs, and their pre-req coursework, would be consistent across the board.

Then it could be consistent and known to all that RN training requires certain college-level pre-req coursework and then 2 years of full-time nursing education focused solely on basic registered nursing. Everyone would know that you couldn't just enter RN school straight out of high school - that you'd need college-level credits to qualify for RN school.

Everyone would know that all RNs have two years of full-time nursing coursework.

Everyone would know that nurses could choose to build on this foundation, applying their RN course credits to count towards an ADN or BSN, if they so chose - and - ideally - workplaces would encourage and reward their bedside nurses to continue their education such that nurses could improve their wages both through accumulating years of work and through adding to their education.

Ah, I'm dreaming again....

[Susan9608]

Some hospitals, like mine, have higher starting rates for their new BSN grads than they do for their experienced nurses. In the past several years, my hospital has gone through several market value increase raises just because of this. Even with these 2 market value increases, I discovered that even with 6.5 years of critical care experience, I'm only $0.83/hour ahead of the newest batch of BSN grads. And since my hospital is one of the ones that does pay more for a BSN education, I can only imagine that it's probably worse for the ADN nurses in my hospital and unit.

So not every place pays more for experience, at least, not unless you bounce from one hospital to another. That, I've found, is the only sure fire way to see a significant increase in pay.

I would hate to see nursing go backwards and eliminate the stride towards more education by eliminating the BSN entirely and instead requiring everyone to get an ADN. I think that would be a huge turn off to some people, just as much as being forced to attend a 4 year university is a turn off to some.

Perhaps there is no way to end this debate to everyone's satisfaction, but usually there are never answers that will please everyone. I think, though, that there are enough pluses to higher education to make a BSN worth pursuing, and I think that many others must see the same benefits, given how many hospitals now offer bonuses for BSNs or higher pay for BSNs or tuition reimbursement for bridge programs and how many places prefer to higher BSNs. And I think that's a really good thing.

[hpcat]

Originally Posted by Susan9608

Some hospitals, like mine, have higher starting rates for their new BSN grads than they do for their experienced nurses. In the past several years, my hospital has gone through several market value increase raises just because of this. Even with these 2 market value increases, I discovered that even with 6.5 years of critical care experience, I'm only $0.83/hour ahead of the newest batch of BSN grads. And since my hospital is one of the ones that does pay more for a BSN education, I can only imagine that it's probably worse for the ADN nurses in my hospital and unit.

So not every place pays more for experience, at least, not unless you bounce from one hospital to another. That, I've found, is the only sure fire way to see a significant increase in pay.

I would hate to see nursing go backwards and eliminate the stride towards more education by eliminating the BSN entirely and instead requiring everyone to get an ADN. I think that would be a huge turn off to some people, just as much as being forced to attend a 4 year university is a turn off to some.

Perhaps there is no way to end this debate to everyone's satisfaction, but usually there are never answers that will please everyone. I think, though, that there are enough pluses to higher education to make a BSN worth pursuing, and I think that many others must see the same benefits, given how many hospitals now offer bonuses for BSNs or higher pay for BSNs or tuition reimbursement for bridge programs and how many places prefer to higher BSNs. And I think that's a really good thing.

One hospital by me tried to hire only BSNs or those with an RN who were enrolled in a BSN program. They have magnet status, so it makes sense that they would want to try to raise the standards for their nurses. Unfortunately, I it may have been a problem, because they no longer indicate this in their job postings. Most likely culprit is the nursing shortage - and where I am, there are a number of hospitals that do not require a BSN, so there's more choice.

I've also heard of older nurses getting paid less than new hires - increases are not keeping pace with increasing starting salaries. That's stupid on the part of administration, they should want to keep their experienced nurses by paying them accordingly - no wonder they bounce to other hospitals!

I don't think we should eliminate the BSN, but I think the ADN should be the starting standard, and you can get a BSN by choice. Going up the ladder may require a BSN, but I also think experience counts, so it shouldn't be all inclusive.

[s.maire.2126]

At this point there is a lot of speculation, but I havn't heard anything official. I am a recent grad and being so young(with a lot of working years ahead of me) I went directly into my BSN program. I don't want to find myself without it in 10 years if that does happen. I would assume they would grandfather ASN nurses and LPNs in or allow a time frame for completion. Sad thing is, no one really knows. I would recommend anyone to further their education if their personal and financial life allows for it. In my opinion, having your BSN won't necessarily grant you more respect from everyone...especially MD's, but it can only help to advance your career if you so choose. There are lots of opportunities for nurses outside of bedside nursing, but most require a BSN or MSN.

[loriangel14]

I am in Ontario and BSN is mandatory right now for initial licensure of RNs.Those that don't have it are being grandfathered in.

[s.maire.2126]

How long has a BSN been mandatory? Just out of curiosity, what was the general reaction among RN's regarding this??