Why, would any RN oppose requiring a BSN for all future nurses?

[Roland]

Okay, I could see certain philisophical objections, such as if you are a libertarian, or strict conservative that opposes most governmental regulations (after all standards for education are a form of governmental regulation). However, any such provisions would almost certainly have provisions that "grand-fathered" in all current RN's who had diploma or ADN/ASN degrees (and would probably include those students currently enrolled in ADN programs).

The bottom line is that pay, and to a lesser extent respect for ANY profession, is primarily determined by supply and demand for that profession. Now as nurses, there is little that we can do to address demand ( save perhaps for buying stock in fast food restaurents since that will surely generate more business in terms of cardiovascular disease). However, we can address supply. In so much as getting a BSN requires more time and effort than a ADN it will TEND to diminish the supply of nurses. Virturally every profession in the United States has recognized this simple principal from accountents, to physicians and pharmacists. Over the years they have successfully lobbied their various state and federal representatives to steadily raise the requirements in order to obtain a license to practice their profession. Consider Pharmacists for instance. At one time all one had to do was "work behind the counter" under the instruction of an experienced pharmacist for several years to acquire a pharmacy license. Then they required an examination. Gradually, the requirements were increased to a two, then a four year degree. Now it requires SIX years of difficult schooling plus a challenging examination to practice pharmacy. The net result is that the pay of pharmacists has dramatically increased, and they are now in a true "buyers market" for their services.

It's the way the "profession game" is played in the United States. I'm not saying that it is without it's moral implications. As someone who is largely libertarian, I am usually opposed to most governmental intrusion in the private sector. However, I'm also a realist, and as someone who plans on spending the rest of my life in this profession, I realize that this is the sort of thing that will help to raise the compensation, and benefit level of my chosen profession.

[ChicagolandRN]

HMM...compelling ideas, but I'm not too sure it would work. Judging from all the overtime I and my fellow nurses do, and from almost every report I've seen, there is ALREADY a limited supply of nurses. Pay has gotten slightly better, but I don't think we're being taken too seriously. You mentioned accountants, physicians and pharmacists. I wonder is maybe the fact that these have always been male-oriented occupations contributes to the results you've mentioned. I don't know, but what I do know is that I'd take better ratios over better pay any day!!!

[VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN]

WHY, oh why, are we starting THIS old argument again??!

[Marie_LPN, RN, LPN, RN]

Excuse me, has anyone seen the lid for this? :

It appears to be missing:o

[NurseRatchet26]

Sorry, I am afraid I opened the can of worms with my question about whether or not I should get my BSN or would ASN be just as good. It was an honest question, not meant to start a debate.

[Roland]

of regulations will have the net effect of increasing the wages of nurses. If this is ever going to happen then it will take a consensus, at least within nursing organizations to pursue this sort of legislation (via lobbying efforts to their representatives both state and federal). For this sort of consensus to occur it will take clear and convincing arguments to persuade those who are currently opposed to such efforts within the nursing community. It is my hope to further this process.

I will concede to the above poster that the fact that the professions that I mentioned are male dominated has probably contributed to their success (if for no other reason than men have historically often been basta*** who will pursue any legislative advantage that will help their economic position without regard to moral consequences) However, that in no way weakens the strength of my argument, which goes to the LAW of supply and demand.

Your point about nurse to patient ratios is well taken and I will concede that requiring BSN's will not fix this problem (indeed it might exascerbate the situation to the extent that the supply of RN's is diminshed). However, my central thesis is goes to RN"s pay and benefits. Nurse to patients ratios is a seperate issue. I can suggest some interventions in that area. One approach would be to work with medical malpractice attorneys in order to facilitate their RECOVERY in lawsuits where nurse to patient ratios could be an issue in a malpractice situation. In addition, studies that show negative patient outcomes in high nurse to patient ratio situations can also be useful both in medical malpractice situations, and to educate the public at large. Nursing organizations should encourage top of mind awareness in the publics mind about nurse to patient ratio issues, by using television and print add's ect.

I would also point out that the drive to increase requirements to enter professions goes far beyond those professions that I listed. During my work as a real estate appraiser and as a mortgage broker I witenessed no less than five incremental increases in the requirements to hold those licenses in about a six year period. The reasons given to the LEGISLATORS was that these changes (which consisted of higher bond amounts and more education in both cases) were necessary to better protect the public. However, internally within the organizations that pushed the increased regulation there was no mystery that the primary motivation was to decrease supply and thereby increase compensation. What is different with nursing is that the forces opposed to such legislation (HMO"s, Insurance companies, hospitals, and physician organizations) are much stronger than the typical opposition that most professional groups face. This challenge is compounded by the fact that there doesn't even exist a consensus among nurses themselves for the necessity of such regulation or even it's usefulness. Understanding the efficacy of this approach requires only a basic understanding of economic principals, however economic education is not stressed in today's economic environment. Indeed, most Universities no longer require a basic economics course as part of their core curriculum (although they still require Sociology). I remember that during my first day of ECON 201, that the instructor a one Dr. Spector explained that he would be canceling our class next week due to the fact that he would be addressing a local nursing association by invitation over ways to increase salary levels for nurses! He went on to outline many of the arguments that I presented above.

Also, never apologize for starting debate! The crucible of heated debate, can serve as a powerful tool of discernment in order to elucidate truth especially when it is conducted in a civil manner.

[obeyacts2]

My opposition to a BSN req is that it would decimatw nursing in rural areas. It is well known that the typical RN is well into middle age and before long will be retiring. So, grandfathering in practicing RNs is a short solution. In many rural areas, there are NO BSN programs. In my area there are two ADN programs and a hospital based LVN program, thats it. A university nearby is starting a program but wont have any grads for 4 yrs. They expects to graduate 23 students per year. Rural areas aren't likely to attract BSNs fresh out of clinicals at the big city trauma centers. Furhtermore, nursing programs usually are filled with re re-entry students, not kids right out of high school, with kids, mortgages, jobs and arent likely to be able to pick up and move 100 miles to the nearest BSN program.

Laura

[Marie_LPN, RN, LPN, RN]

Originally posted by Roland

The crucible of heated debate, can serve as a powerful tool of discernment in order to elucidate truth especially when it is conducted in a civil manner.

THen you'll enjoy this thread:

https://allnurses.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45246

[SmilingBluEyes]

The search feature is YOUR BEST FRIEND HERE......this is my best advice:

USE IT.

Welcome to the boards and best wishes. This one has been "done". Too much.

[SmilingBluEyes]

Originally posted by obeyacts2

My opposition to a BSN req is that it would decimatw nursing in rural areas. It is well known that the typical RN is well into middle age and before long will be retiring. So, grandfathering in practicing RNs is a short solution. In many rural areas, there are NO BSN programs. In my area there are two ADN programs and a hospital based LVN program, thats it. A university nearby is starting a program but wont have any grads for 4 yrs. They expects to graduate 23 students per year. Rural areas aren't likely to attract BSNs fresh out of clinicals at the big city trauma centers. Furhtermore, nursing programs usually are filled with re re-entry students, not kids right out of high school, with kids, mortgages, jobs and arent likely to be able to pick up and move 100 miles to the nearest BSN program.

Laura

This was MY exact roadblock to getting MY BSN first time around. But I have actually been told by a poster here a while back that I "could have sucked it up and DRIVEN the 100 miles each way trip to DO it, if I wanted it bad enough". Apparently, she had. BUT she did NOT have kids to care for, unlike me.

SOOOOOOO......not having a BSN meant I lacked amibition to some?

EEEEnteresting. It's why I am now doing an online RN-BSN (Oh so painfully slowly) just to reach that goal. It is unfair but it's the way it is.

[chris_at_lucas_RN, RN]

Can of worms is right.

Here's the lid:

Never gonna happen.

1) The ADN program was developed in the late forties/early fifties in response to an acute nursing shortage.

Riiiiiing! It's the clue phone and it's ringing for us.

2) There are soooo many diploma and ADN nurses out there, that probably couldn't be bought out with grandfathering in.... Imagine the din!

3) It would take an awfully long time to convert those diploma and ADN schools to BSN awarding schools, or satellites of BSN awarding schools. To expensive and time consuming for the outcome.

I think we are safe.

[ADNRN]

Again, why don't we make it like a "real" profession and say that everyone entering nursing school must first have a BS or BA with the appropriate prerequisits and then award a Masters of Applied Science in Nursing. Nursing school is much tougher than most bachelor's degrees are, so to keep calling it an associate degree is not fair.

If we're going to play the education game, let's do it for real. Otherwise, let's realize the truth: obviously, nursing can be done with an associate degree or diploma. It's just the nature of our profession.

But the poster is right: if everyone had to have a BSN, there would be less nurses and they would be paid more. You'd probably also see a rise in LPN use, or medication technician use.