Hospitals Hiring only Nurses with BSN Degree
- 0Oct 9, '09 by nlhnurse1982Has anyone heard of hospitals hiring only nurses with their BSN? I was told that a hospital in my area was doing this and also making all of their RN's that don't hold the degree go back and complete it with in 5 years. I hope this is not the case. If that is something that becomes mandated we will have one heck of a nursing shortage down the road!
- 7,379 Views
- 7Oct 9, '09 by IMABSNRNI'm not sure this is all bad. Lately, the nursing field has allowed itself to become saturated with schools of nursing on every corner, many even graduating two classes a year. Nurses need to take measures to keep themselves more marketable by actually limiting their numbers, making ourselves more in demand.
- 0Oct 9, '09 by ibmeI have heard of this in some areas of the country. Also, I just found a job, but while I was searching almost all of the positions I applied for stated "BSN Preferred".... I think with the economy in the toilet they can be selective, but I think once the economy improves, and the boomers retire, they may not be so selective.... hopefully
- 0Oct 9, '09 by rb123I was surprised by this also....I am working on my BSN (an accelerated program) right now, and have called many hospitals in the los angeles area about qualificaitons. most recently, ucla new grad program has changed their criteria to only new grads with BSNs to be qualified. it's that way in nyc in many of the hospitals right now as well (ny presbyterian, mt sinai, nyu). I think it's just a further indicator of the current economy and hospitals attempt to control the heavy influx of new grads.
- 2Oct 9, '09 by Spritenurse1210I've always been an advocate for education. Do I agree with mandating that all nurses be required to have a BSN in order to work in a hospital? absolutely not. Not everyone wants to spend that long in school! it's expensive, (yes it pays off in the long run) and time consuming. I feel as though it should only be the deciding factor in hiring if one is going for a supervisory position. any one else agree?
- 6Oct 9, '09 by llg GuideI think employers should hire the best-qualified nurses they can find to fill their open positions. If they are finding that the local ADN graduates are able to do a great job, then they should feel free to hire them. But if they are finding that their BSN applicants are better-suited for the positions, then they should seek BSN graduates. Employers are in business to meet THEIR needs (and the needs of the patients). Whichever group BEST meets their needs should expect to receive the preference in hiring.
Perhaps they are finding that hiring BSN's is cheaper in the long run because fewer of those BSN grads consume tuition reimbursement funds. The ADN's they hire might be getting paid the same as the BSN (or nearly) -- but require extra money in the form of tuition reimbursement programs to return to school for BSN's. They might prefer to hire the BSN's because they are cheaper employees in the long run. Tuition reimbursement programs are expensive, as is "working around people's scheduled" as they need the flexibility to go back to school. I've never seen any research data on that aspect of the issue. That's something to thnk about.
- 2Oct 9, '09 by care4youQuote from dream_nurse2bi really don't think that it is a good idea at all. also as for making us more in demand, there is already a shortage of active rns so nurses are in demand and that still hasn't translated in to better working conditions or better pay.
hmm... i would like to disagree with you on the fact that there is a shortage of active rn's. i graduated with a class of 120 from a bsn program a little while back and know that there are still about 20 nurses that are still looking for full time positions. however, i donít agree with having associate nurses go back to get their bsn's. these nurses who have hospital experience already are more than qualified to provide competent care. making a bsn mandatory for new graduating nurses is a good path to explore in the future though.