I'm not going to lie...

[StudentOfHealing]

Some people genuinely annoy me on here, I'm ALL for furthering education but dreading those of us who choose to start with our ADN is complete disrespect.

Had my mother been healthier (she has RA and her pain is becoming unbearable.... she's a massage therapist ... her hands are her money makers) I would have gone the BSN route.

There's nothing more that I want than to retire my poor old mom.

Going the BSN route would have meant

a) A further drive... lets just say our vehicles SUCK! My community college is even walking distance .. need be!!!

b) I would have had to pay 25K for the BSN... my ADN costs 5K.

c) Graduating later...I need to retire my mom... NOW ... she's 57 ... has HTN ... she's already had 2 hypertensive crises. Her RA puts her in awful pain

I appreciate higher education. I know I will bridge for my BSN and I plan to obtain my MSN by age 24.

I'm currently 20 and in my second semester.

side note: I hope that after I obtain my BSN THEN I will be qualified worthy of obtaining a job in the ICU. I will apply everywhere either way....

what do I have to lose? My friend graduated with her ADN and received a position as a NICU nurse... as a new grad!

I'm glad to say that everywhere I go the nurses truly enjoy us... and tell as graduates from our college make some good nurses.

For a community college we've done pretty well. Recently spent millions on a simulation lab... new lecture rooms... ect. I personally am learning a lot here and he best part is that if I graduate with a 3.0 I AUTOMATICALLY am accepted into UTMB upon applying because my college has a deal with them.

[ImKosher]

Let me raise this question though. Let's look at a nurse 5 years in the process of education and experience.

ADN 3 years (approximate) and has 2 years of experience.

BSN 5 years (approximate and has ??? no experience

10 years.

ADN 3 years and has 7 years experience

BSN 5 years and 5 years of experience

If I remember correctly, society has favored experience.

[ImKosher]

I would like to also add that not matter what your view is on this "multiple entry", "non standardized", or "I'm better than you because I have a BSN" is irrelevant. Medical is pretty standard. Right? 4 years of school, 3 years of residency, and a fellowship. We should implement a system like this to get good nurses....right?

No, I know some amazing doctors. As, I've met some crappy doctors who can care less but the insurance reimbursement.

How about NP or PA. Ah, you went to a for-profit school, yours must be better than the state school...that makes you better NP..

No, I've worked with some awesome PA and NP. Also I've worked with some of the laziest and arrogant NP and PA.

Oh, and the 4 year degree...I'll be plain, professionalism and your career is not determined by what degree you get, what school you come and from how much you pay. The individual is who makes a great nurse.

ADN or BSN who cares, my theory, do what it takes to get your foot in the door, be an opportunist, get the RN, and then move on to the greater things in Nursing.

[StudentOfHealing]

I would like to also add that not matter what your view is on this "multiple entry", "non standardized", or "I'm better than you because I have a BSN" is irrelevant. Medical is pretty standard. Right? 4 years of school, 3 years of residency, and a fellowship. We should implement a system like this to get good nurses....right?

No, I know some amazing doctors. As, I've met some crappy doctors who can care less but the insurance reimbursement.

How about NP or PA. Ah, you went to a for-profit school, yours must be better than the state school...that makes you better NP..

No, I've worked with some awesome PA and NP. Also I've worked with some of the laziest and arrogant NP and PA.

Oh, and the 4 year degree...I'll be plain, professionalism and your career is not determined by what degree you get, what school you come and from how much you pay. The individual is who makes a great nurse.

ADN or BSN who cares, my theory, do what it takes to get your foot in the door, be an opportunist, get the RN, and then move on to the greater things in Nursing.

So wise. thank you(:

[BlueEyedGuy]

ADN and BSN nurses have the same scope of practice.. they both sit to become Registered Nurses.

Apologizes if this has been said (I skimmed through many pages, but might have missed it), but it is not the same scope of practice. You must have a BSN to be a public health nurse.

[StudentOfHealing]

Apologizes if this has been said (I skimmed through many pages, but might have missed it), but it is not the same scope of practice. You must have a BSN to be a public health nurse.

As far as my state legislation is concerned .... no.

That's a preference not a state mandate.... as far I know.

[PatMac10,RN, RN]

Apologizes if this has been said (I skimmed through many pages, but might have missed it), but it is not the same scope of practice. You must have a BSN to be a public health nurse.

In my area, Southeast NC, ADN nurses can work in the PHN role. Most health departments do, however, push for the nurse to obtain their BSN. I think that is fair. Same thing with case management and School Nursing. Many of these jobs will hire ADN nurses, especially with experience, and have an agreement that they will pursue a bachelors degree in X amount of time. I've seen some health depts. here that let's nurses keep their job if they don't get their BSN, but they have to take a set of public Heath classes annually or periodically.

It's like another poster said, it is according to your area and what the employer prefers.

Although a BSN, may be preferred in the roles, they are not required. Community Health nursing is within the scope of practice of any Registered Nurse who is trained and oriented appropriately. In my ADN program we have a few community health and community mental health rotations, though not as many as a BSN program, I'm sure. Also we don't have a separate community health course, but do have community health concepts infused with every module we cover.

[PatMac10,RN, RN]

I found this article from about 2 years ago. I'm positive there have been changes since then, but the statistics in it were interesting. I think it effectively summarizes that neither is better than the other, but that their are many benefits for having the 2 different entry options for the time being.

Pay attention to the conclusion on Page 11.

Take a look. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications/Briefs/Documents/2011-02PBL_DataDrivenNurses.pdf

Here's the actual name of the article in case the link doesn't work:

A Data-Driven Examination of the Impact of Associate and Bachelor’s Degree Programs on the Nation’s Nursing Workforce

By Roxanne Fulcher and Christopher M. Mullin

[ixchel]

I am in a BSN program. To compare my local options:

ADN:

Per-reqs and co-reqs for RN since it requires more 1 year (2-3 semesters depending on how much you want to take on at one time and they have most classes in summer session)

LPN program 1 year (3 semesters I believe, 1 of those in the summer)

RN program 1 year

Total of 3 full years including summers. You would probably spend $15-18k if you went to only this school.

BSN:

Pre-reqs 2 years. This can be done without summer classes. However, I wanted no more than 4 classes at a time so I had classes in the summer.

Nursing program 2 years, 4 semesters with none over the summer

Total 4 years. If you only attend this school, you are looking at about $40k. I did the community college thing for my pre-reqs, which has saved me $10-15k. Clinical experience, we are in clinicals on Tuesdays and Thursdays for 3 semesters. We are only in on one day a week the 4th semester (actually the first). Our clinical days are 8 hour days, usually with a choice of day or evening shifts.

I can't comment on the ADN clinical experience because I don't actually know. I believe they go on Tuesdays and Thursdays, too, from word of mouth.

ADN-BSN bridge

1.5-2 years picking up all of the missing gen eds and pre-reqs for the BSN program

1 year nursing classes

Total time roughly 6 years total. This was actually my original educational goal until I did this math and realized that just sticking it out in a BSN from the beginning is the way to go. I intend on getting a masters at some point (or doctorate, if that is where nursing is when I get there) so it just makes sense to do this the easier, straight shot way.

Will I be adequately prepared? I'm not sure. My school has the highest nclex pass rate in the state, so I'm sure we're meeting that minimally competent mark. I don't like minimally competent, though. I want fully prepared. I'm older than my fellow classmates by a decade and I have a family. I feel my life experience has given me a lot of what we may lack in our program. If I were 22 and walking across the graduation stage for our school, honestly I think I'd be a little scared. It's not that we need more hands on. It's that we need better hands on. So far we've worked with stable patients with nothing going on except that they are waiting for discharge. We do have one day in the ICU and one day in the ER for out rotations, but that's it. I want to know that the 60-something students I'm in school with right now are going to know what to do if I code. But I guess maybe that's something we get on the job.

So there you have it-- An honest, experiential opinion on one BSN program. I'm terrified I'm not going to have enough quality clinical experience to hack it in the real world. I'm too busy getting stuff off the chart for my care plans.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

The HPEC paper is an interesting one that, on the surface, encourages preservation of the status quo. It addresses a number of key points including the minority concern; this is a major problem that supersedes the ADNvBSN debate. There are three major problems with it, in my opinion.

1.) Are the authors biased? Both authors are affiliated with the AACC. This makes me a little suspect.

2.) Is the status quo really the status quo? They failed to mention (though you can clearly see it in figure 2-1) the widening gap between ADN and BSN nurses. This is at odds with the IOM recommendations and the trend towards increased education in any non-vocational field.

3.) The article makes strong recommendations on the direction of nursing eduction with evaluation of any of the concerns of a trend towards less education, the recommendations of the IOM, or a rapidly advancing healthcare field.

The article does an excellent job of making a case for ADN entry however there is considerable missing information, for me.

[4boysmama]

It's no different than any other profession. As more people reach a certain educational level, the "value" goes down, and employers find new ways to be selective.

Once upon a time a high school diploma was the gold standard. Then any old college degree would set you up for a great career. Now you're nothing without a graduate degree or a foot in the door.

As BSNs become more and more of a dime a dozen, employers will find some other way to up the ante. Some new, scarily expensive way.

Thus, the push for the DNP as the NP standard.

I was going to write out a big reply to BostonFNP's question, but this response pretty much sums up my thoughts. I'm all for furthering education, if that's an individual's goal. But I'm not sold on the idea that an decades-long experienced ADN nurse will somehow become a better or more competent nurse just because she goes through a few research and methodology nursing courses, and a bunch of non-nursing liberal arts courses, to get that BSN. But if she wants to get off the floor (cause she's wiped out after 15 years in the ICU) she's got to have that piece of paper to be considered for any managerial-type positions. Frankly, I'd much rather have that experienced ICU ADN-prepared nurse running the hospital I work in than the less experienced BSN-prepped nurse.

[PatMac10,RN, RN]

The HPEC paper is an interesting one that, on the surface, encourages preservation of the status quo. It addresses a number of key points including the minority concern; this is a major problem that supersedes the ADNvBSN debate. There are three major problems with it, in my opinion.

1.) Are the authors biased? Both authors are affiliated with the AACC. This makes me a little suspect.

2.) Is the status quo really the status quo? They failed to mention (though you can clearly see it in figure 2-1) the widening gap between ADN and BSN nurses. This is at odds with the IOM recommendations and the trend towards increased education in any non-vocational field.

3.) The article makes strong recommendations on the direction of nursing eduction with evaluation of any of the concerns of a trend towards less education, the recommendations of the IOM, or a rapidly advancing healthcare field.

The article does an excellent job of making a case for ADN entry however there is considerable missing information, for me.

It is an interesting document. However, if it does not suit your tastes there were plenty other scholarly articles discussing the issue that pulled up on google. Many of the more recent ones required a membership or fee to read, but the abstracts sounds promising. :)

[ixchel]

Thus, the push for the DNP as the NP standard.

I was going to write out a big reply to BostonFNP's question, but this response pretty much sums up my thoughts. I'm all for furthering education, if that's an individual's goal. But I'm not sold on the idea that an decades-long experienced ADN nurse will somehow become a better or more competent nurse just because she goes through a few research and methodology nursing courses, and a bunch of non-nursing liberal arts courses, to get that BSN. But if she wants to get off the floor (cause she's wiped out after 15 years in the ICU) she's got to have that piece of paper to be considered for any managerial-type positions. Frankly, I'd much rather have that experienced ICU ADN-prepared nurse running the hospital I work in than the less experienced BSN-prepped nurse.

I get what you're saying, however, I can honestly tell you I'm thankful for some of those irrelevant to nursing classes. History helps put a global perspective to local issues. Literature helps broaden reading skill and ideas. Art creates a deeper understanding for creativity and gives topics that you might use to connect with an artist patient. Who knows, some of these might inspire a hobby, which is so important to keep from burning out after long and thankless shifts. Physical education simply adds more direct and applicable knowledge to the nursing skill set but also helps us experience how much better we feel after a good work out. The basic, non-a&p science courses help give a better background to us as scientists.

Are all of these things necessary? No. But do they help? Yes. The one class I thought would be most irrelevant (history) proves to be most relevant in my opinion. There is a reason for the social struggles within our culture and others we may encounter. Understanding that helps to remove prejudice that I may or may not be aware of walking into a room. I'm very thankful for all that I've learned, in nursing and non-nursing classes.