Pennsylvania Joins ADN vs BSN Debate - page 11

by DoGoodThenGo 29,984 Views | 175 Comments

When the kind of nursing degree determines hiring By Stacey Burling Inquirer Staff Writer "While John Jerzak, a newly licensed registered nurse, was looking for a job this spring, he stumbled into a controversy that... Read More


  1. 2
    Quote from Moogie
    It is interesting that the union states it is against the mandatory BSN because it would decrease the numbers of nurses.

    Uh, union---hello!

    There's a job shortage right now. Wouldn't it be better for fewer nursing schools to graduate fewer numbers of grads instead of cranking out all these new nurses who can't get hired?

    In Minnesota, for example, state budget problems are going to result in cuts to higher education. The cut in nursing I have seen so far have been an entry level BSN program at one state school. (The RN to BSN is still going at that school---for now.) Another school has had to suspend its accelerated BSN program. AFAIK, there have been no similar cuts in nursing programs in the community colleges/technical schools, which operate under the state budget. As the trends show that BSNs are preferred in the workplace, shouldn't the state put less funding into a model (ADN or LPN) that is having more difficulty finding work, and maintain that funding in the state universities?
    Service workers union in NYS is made up of more than just nurses, and is concerned with one main thing: jobs for it's members. Any possible reduction of nurses, could translate into less union members. Also there is the chance that four year educated nurses may choose a different union, this would lower membership.
    lindarn and Moogie like this.
  2. 0
    I personally don't like the term "techinical nurse",and it sounds like its a lower title than lpn.(they already have nurse techs) But,there will still be two ways to become a nurse,which I thought they were trying to eliminate. Maybe I'm confused,but are adns going to get demoted to lpn? Are lpns going to get demoted?(the titles only)
    I guess what I'm getting at is why adns would have to get a bsn but not lpns? Adns seem to be in the middle of things.
  3. 1
    Quote from smartnurse1982
    I personally don't like the term "techinical nurse",and it sounds like its a lower title than lpn.(they already have nurse techs) But,there will still be two ways to become a nurse,which I thought they were trying to eliminate. Maybe I'm confused,but are adns going to get demoted to lpn? Are lpns going to get demoted?(the titles only)
    I guess what I'm getting at is why adns would have to get a bsn but not lpns? Adns seem to be in the middle of things.

    Ok, despite my previous long post, had things backwards (shouldn't post after a heavy dinner including a few glasses of red wine).

    Under the New York State "BSN in 10" law, graduates of diploma and ADN programs would be required to have their BSN within ten years post graduation in order to "continue their registration". In other words, if one is reading correctly, a nurse that does not have her BSN in those ten years would no longer be a licensed RN, period. Would have to read the entire bill to see if there is some sort of reinstatment method for a former RN whose license is no longer vaild for failing to obain the BSN.

    Both New York State and New Jersey have exemptions to their "BSN in Ten", both states grandfather curently licensed RNs. Also at least in NYS, a RN who reaches the ten year mark and does not have her BSN can apply for an exemption (conditional) good for one year. One would have to pay a fee and agree to obtain the BSN within one year,the period of the exemption. Failing this one could apply again for a second conditional exemption under the same circumstances, however after that any further remedies must come from applying to the state board of nursing directly. In other words after twelve years, if a diploma or ADN grad does not have her BSN, she would probably need a good reason to sway the BON, or that is the end of her RN license in NYS.

    So it seems the matter of LPNs isn't addressed. The scheme is designed to affect RNs only, in short making BSN mandatory, but gradually in that you do have ten years to obtain.

    However this just highlights points raised before. As a potential nursing student, what would you do? Ten years isn't that long a period of time, and many will probably just go for the BSN and get things over with, this in turn will lead to closing of many ADN programs, that is if they cannot convert to a BSN.
    lindarn likes this.
  4. 1
    Why can't all nurses no matter what their education level be supported!
    Because there is a group of nurses who want to set up a rigid class structure (with themselves at the top, of course).

    You don't advance the profession by excluding most of the people who comprise it.
    I think the elitism has to stop before nursing self destructs!
    I'm with you.
    Under the New York State "BSN in 10" law, graduates of diploma and ADN programs would be required to have their BSN within ten years post graduation in order to "continue their registration". In other words, if one is reading correctly, a nurse that does not have her BSN in those ten years would no longer be a licensed RN, period.
    I don't see how this is legal. If the person was qualified to get a license in the first place, yanking it in the absence of a violation of the nurse practice act is a slippery slope. Does New York want a complete void of RNs?
    Last edit by Orca on May 14, '10
    tokidoki7 likes this.
  5. 0
    Would you allow a Physician's Assistant with "ALOT OF LIFE EXPERIENCE", but did not have a MD degree, perform your heart transplant or brain surgery?

    *** No but I would consider him for an entry level PA position like the entry level position the man in the OP was applying for. Keep in mind that PA may well have an associates degree as well. About 1/4 of the PAs where I work have no degree other than the associates degree, including some fairly new grads and they assist in CABG and neurosurgery all the time.
  6. 1
    Question: What is the difference between an ADN and a BSN?

    Answer: 18 months of partime-online classes.
    tokidoki7 likes this.
  7. 2
    Quote from Orca
    Because there is a group of nurses who want to set up a rigid class structure (with themselves at the top, of course).

    You don't advance the profession by excluding most of the people who comprise it.?
    As a member of the public I don't see this as wanting to set up a rigid class structure. As an outsider I see that you (RN's) ALREADY have one whether you like it or not. Three ways of entry into the profession, besides having LPN's, CNA's and techs (yes, I know the SOP differs, but not among RN's)? Are you kidding me? As an engineer I have one...a BS. Can you name me another professional career (and one as highly regarded as nursing) that has such a disjointed path to entry? The first proposal for BSN's to be the entry point was DECADES ago! Again, are you kidding me?

    Perhaps I missed the part that it said that the BSN-in-10 proposals will ever deny license's to currently licensed nurses that do not have a BSN. I would bet that it isn't part of it. This is for NEW RN's that get licensed once this goes into effect. There is no 'exclusion' going on, but there is an attempt to advance the practice.

    http://news.nurse.com/article/200909...AL02/309070028


    There is a choice that currently licensed diploma and ADN educated nurses would have to make if this comes to fruitition: Is it in my best interest to get a BSN, even though I do not need it to continue working?

    I would argue that you don't advance the profession by maintaining the status quo, you search for ways to actually advance the profession.


    Quote from Orca
    I don't see how this is legal. If the person was qualified to get a license in the first place, yanking it in the absence of a violation of the nurse practice act is a slippery slope. Does New York want a complete void of RNs?

    Do you have to get CEU's to maintain your license. In Alabama your license is only good for 2 years, I know of no state that grants a 'forever' license. After you graduate (from whatever program) you have a certain amount of time to pass the NCLEX, (60 or 90 days?) If you do not pass your license can be pulled...no violation of the nurse practice act, just a failure to meet a condition of licensure.

    I know 1 or 2 of my wife's cohorts that did not pass w/i the requisite amount of time and had their licenses (temporarily) suspended until they passed the NCLEX. By the way, in Alabama college nursing courses are accepted for the CEU requirements.
    Last edit by Jbrock718 on May 14, '10 : Reason: added link...grammar (I'm an Engineer not an English major)
    pers and lindarn like this.
  8. 2
    Quote from Orca
    Because there is a group of nurses who want to set up a rigid class structure (with themselves at the top, of course).

    You don't advance the profession by excluding most of the people who comprise it.

    I'm with you.

    I don't see how this is legal. If the person was qualified to get a license in the first place, yanking it in the absence of a violation of the nurse practice act is a slippery slope. Does New York want a complete void of RNs?
    Yes, it is perfectly legal. New York state already has such requirements for other licensed professionals. For instance teachers in NYS must obtain their masters degree within five years of being licensed, or loose else....

    Long as one is advised of the conditons at time of application, there is nothing wrong or odd about telling someone they have to meet a requirement down the road.

    By the way the New York State Nurses Association came out in favour of NYS's "BSN in Ten"
    http://www.nysna.org/images/pdfs/adv...0_S294_mos.pdf

    What persons simply have to understand that there is not a bit of punishment about either New York's or New Jersey's BSN plans. If one is a licensed RN at the time the law is passed, nothing changes and no one is taking anything away from you. Persons already enrolled in a nursing progam would be able to continue,graduate and upon passing the boards will be licensed under the old system/rules. Only persons starting nursing school *after* the bill becomes law would be affected.

    Regardless of what many may say or think, the healthcare market in many states is moving slowly towards making the BSN "mandatory" on it's own.

    http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media/facts...impactednp.htm

    One can argue the merits of this approach until pigs fly, but the fact is simply as the nature of healthcare is changing, so is the RN's role. It is just not possible to cram into two years everything hospitals (still the major employer of nurses in the United States), expect a RN to arrive at their doors knowing.

    Finally from purely a point of raising the social standing of the profession, and having it's members seen as fully deserving a place at the table, nurses are going to have to walk the walk. For many ages a nurse that dared to question or even speak up to a doctor was either dismissed or slapped down. How could someone with a two year "technical degree" or worse a diploma possibly know enough to question someone with four years of college, another of graduate school, and several years of post graduate work? Senior and or experience nurses may have gotten away with it, but they were respected by virtue of years of "on the job training".

    Yes, a diploma grad with >20 years of experience would or could run rings around a new graduate or recently licensed RN, but then again one would expect that in any profession. But consider that nursing as such a nurse knew it at graduation is streets different than the profession today. Indeed find a copy of Lippincott, Mosby, or Saunders from even the 1980's versus today and see just what a difference twenty years has made.

    Most every other professional a RN interacts or liasons with has either a BofS, or MofS. As pointed out upthread, many of the UAPs RNs are expected to train, supervise and indeed may legally be responsible for actions of, have associate degrees.
    Rose_Queen and Moogie like this.
  9. 6
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    Question: What is the difference between an ADN and a BSN?

    Answer: 18 months of partime-online classes.
    I'm sorry, but this is the kind of disrespect that gets nursing nowhere.

    People complain that BSNs and nurses with graduate degrees are elitist, but there is a lot of snark from people who don't have degrees and don't see that they are useful. Until we can get over ourselves, we are going to continue to argue about this until someone outside of nursing makes the decision on entry to practice. And whether you believe that the "best" RNs are ADNs, diploma, BSNs or graduate-prepared, the disregard and disrespect of fellow nurses continues to divide our profession.

    I am really sorry---perhaps I am just an elitist who has her head in the ivory tower---but I do not understand the attitude of "I have experience, I know it all, I don't need a degree." NO ONE knows it all. Not the most experienced nurse. Not the most educated nurse. Not the most experienced AND most educated nurse. NO ONE. So why the attitude against higher learning? Why the disdain? Why the snark?

    As other posters have said and as I have said in previous posts, people outside of nursing are going to make the decision on entry-to-practice if we don't. The decision will be in the hands of hospital human resources people (who may or may not be nurses) and in the hands of state legislators, with or without input from nurses. Whether or not nurses get on board with the BSN as the educational requirement for entry-to-practice, it appears that it is going to happen. Many hospitals are already making the decision, right or wrong, to curtail hiring ADNs (and LPNs) and are seeking to hire BSNs. They may be right, they may be wrong, but the bottom line is---it is happening, like or or not.

    I feel sorry for the man in the original article that was posted here. It is very frustrating to go through an educational program and be told, when it's done, that it is not adequate for a facility's needs. But if there was a standard, minimum entry-to-practice level for registered nurses instead of three (well, actually four, counting the DEMSNs) perhaps there would be less time and money wasted on education that will not get a person's foot in the door.
    CuriousMe, kdrose01, SharonH, RN, and 3 others like this.
  10. 0
    Quote from smartnurse1982
    I personally don't like the term "techinical nurse",and it sounds like its a lower title than lpn.(they already have nurse techs) But,there will still be two ways to become a nurse,which I thought they were trying to eliminate. Maybe I'm confused,but are adns going to get demoted to lpn? Are lpns going to get demoted?(the titles only)
    I guess what I'm getting at is why adns would have to get a bsn but not lpns? Adns seem to be in the middle of things.
    Associate degrees are also known as "technical" degrees, hence the term "technical college" or "technical school"

    Such programs are created mainly to teach courses and or programs that allow persons to quickly enter the workforce trained in "trade" or in this case profession. Instead of purely a practical and or technical training, programs are rounded out with basic college level courses (100 level math, science, etc), which in theory should produce a better person/graduate.

    Normally but not always Associate Degrees in Applied Science, are of limited use outside their particular major. Also depending upon credits and school, not all classes will transfer to a four year degree college or university. This is one of the reasons various diploma and ADN programs have agreements with RN to BSN schools (or started their own if the college is able to award BofS degrees). Otherwise students of the former could find themselves retaking much of their two year degree content all over again before starting on the BofS.


Top