Quote from RCBR
"I finished CNA clinicals".
I didn't even know there was such a thing as a CNA clinical.
Doesn't help your argument much, when you're not even aware of that. For the record - when taking a CNA course in California, students must receive a minimum of 100 hours of clinical instruction as per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 5, Chapter 2.5, Article 3, § 71835, Subpart (g).
Quote from RCBR
"There is absolutely no reason for hiring managers to choose new grads who never worked in healthcare over those who have."
This is a rather radical statement. Imagine a nursing grad with a BSN from a reputable university with a 3.8 GPA, extensive clinical rotations and superb faculty recommendations and another nursing grad from an obscure community college with a 2.2. GPA who failed several semesters and is on her 3rd attempt at the NCLEX but has 3 years of hospital experience as a tech. Who would you hire if you were the nursing manager?
As a former hiring manager - it depends. Every manager I've spoken with over the past 25 years or so (including me) has had their own set of horror stories about the scholastic "wunderkind" who was hired and summarily had to be terminated because they simply had no clue as to HOW TO APPLY their hard-won "book knowledge" to real-world situations. If I had some sort of verifiable reference from someone that I knew personally that could vouch for the 3.8 GPA candidate, I'd consider them - but, frankly, I'd be inclined to lean toward the person with the 3 years of floor experience in a hospital setting as a tech. Why? Because (a) the 3 years on the floor indicates that they're likely to stick with an offered position, (b) odds are good that I probably know someone at the hospital they're coming from that can give me an "off the record" assessment of the person's abilities, and (c) I can verify employment independently via Social Security, background check agencies, etc. All I've got for a "new grad" is that (a) they've done a good job scholastically, (b) faculty members will vouch for them (incidentally, if you think faculty members don't tell the odd "whopper" about their grads - guess again!), and (c) they've got supervised floor time. No real proof that they can handle the stresses & strains of actual employment.
Quote from RCBR
While one learns valuable skills as a tech, many of which such as prioritization and communication are transferable to the RN position, the role of tech and RN are fundamentally different. Most of the knowledge, skill set and critical thinking required of the RN are not learned working as a tech but in the classroom, during clinical experiences and later during orientation on your first RN job.
While true that the role of an RN has to be something of a "superset" of the CNA role, there's an entire class of knowledge that you're ignoring, which is sometimes referred to as "tribal knowledge". This is the knowledge acquired by working in the field that isn't (and, moreover, in most cases CAN'T) be taught in school. A simple example - in CNA class, they'll teach you how to do single-person & two-person patient transfers using a gait belt. By working with experienced CNA's, you'll learn techniques for doing the very same patient transfers that are (a) just as safe for both you and the patient and (b) don't require the use of a gait belt. Likewise, as an experienced RN you'll have your own set of "tribal knowledge" that never saw the inside of a classroom, and you'll never hear about - until you get out in the "real world" and experience it first-hand.
Quote from windowrn
While I agree that having a job in healthcare while in nursing school can be a great in for a job, I don't think this statement is true. There are absolutely reasons for a hiring manager to choose a new grad without experience over one who has experience in health care.
Other than possibly cost, I'd love to hear your rationale for this one.
The reason that experienced people (or, "connected" people) are hired over others tends to boil down to one main reason - risk. There's less risk in hiring Uncle Bob's second cousin on Aunt Elsie Mae's side than a total stranger - even when someone comes along with excellent credentials. And, I've been passed over several times for positions for that very reason alone. Likewise, someone with a proven, verifiable track record in a given field will be a better risk than someone just starting out.
Does that mean there's no hope for a new grad? Nope - sometimes you can get the gravy jobs even with everything stacked against you, depending on circumstances. That said - don't be too quick to turn your nose up at less "desirable" opportunities - typically, what you'll tend to find is that the less "risk-averse" organizations tend to pay less, or are more toxic workplaces. However, they will give a new grad a chance to prove themselves - which, when you're starting out is really what you need more than anything else.