Pennsylvania Joins ADN vs BSN Debate - Page 3

"I think that for young people straight out of high school, a BSN is very valuable. I think that for educated (BA/BS, etc) adults, it is just another hoop to jump through."

I hold a BA and work in corporate America. I recently watched one of my colleagues - a well-respected employee, who began her career in our company and has been there for 8 years - get demoted because she never completed her bachelor's degree. They were looking to cut costs during the recession and look what they did to her.

My sister-in-law has been overlooked for promotions left and right at her company because she doesn't have a bachelor's degree. In fact, this company no longer hires people without bachelor's degrees, and it's one of the largest employers in the Philly area. She's been there for 11 years, and has watched college-educated people with only a few years experience surpass her. After the latest promotion of someone on her team, she decided it's time to go back to school.

In my dad's company, they won't even look at anyone without a master's degree. He thinks it's silly, but it's how they weed them out. Degrees do matter. Whether we like it or not, they do.

i graduated from a very reputable diploma program, and am not the least bit insecure about my nsg education, or its lack.

i guess i am not understanding why some get so darned insulted and defensive?
while i cannot fathom my clinical skills becoming any keener if i were to pursue my bsn, i can see myself becoming more enriched, enlightened, and just becoming more well-rounded.
i am not even addressing the fact that my bsn would make me more desirable and marketable.

if i had a choice of an inexperienced adn vs bsn, i'd hire the bsn.
whether you, as a nurse, cannot understand the allure of a higher education, the fact remains that nursing is indeed, trending in this direction.
if we don't aknowledge this reality, whether we agree with it or not, you can't say you didn't see this coming.

and it's about darned time.
maybe we'll finally be taken even a tad more seriously.

leslie

BSN minimum entry is a tiny Band-Aid over the big gaping wound of the nursing profession’s problems.

Philadelphia hospitals demanding BSN’s is nothing more than a symptom of the current economic situation, not an interest in improving the profession or in improving patient care/outcomes. They are currently in a position to demand BSN’s simply because they now have more BSN applicants to pick from. Why hire an ADN nurse when you can get a BSN nurse for the same wage?

BSN nurses do not command a higher salary and do not demand any safer working conditions or anything else than your average ADN nurse would expect/demand, so why wouldn’t HR and administration choose BSN’s to fill jobs?

As economic conditions change over the years, those hospitals will once again need to revamp their hiring practices. Hospitals want the highest qualified nurses for the lowest possible wages, particularly if they are looking at achieving things like Magnet status.

I’ve lived in Philadelphia as well as other cities and have seen the hiring cycles and trends come and go over the years. I’ve heard that LPN’s are getting phased out and BSN’s are taking over as the minimum level of nurse for many years.

If we want to be looked at and treated as professionals, why not start with simple things like addressing RN’s coming to work dressed like they are going to a nightclub with long glitter sculptured nails and clothing way too tight for their figure?

All the while talking on their cell phones in patients rooms having arguments with their sig. others and/or children within an earshot of everyone?
Just the other day I saw a male RN with an “I Love Hooters” button attached to his RN nametag.

Our profession and its image is in serious need of help, but a BSN requirement isn’t going to fix it.

Welcome to nursing. Seriously. It is indeed a matter of jumping through hoops and sometimes it feels pretty discouraging to go from this level to the next level, only to find the level one is on is not sufficient and one must go on to yet another level. Many advanced nursing roles that once required only a post-entry level certificate now require a master's degree. When I was a novice nurse, the hospital at which I worked made a radical decision about the hiring of nurse managers. No longer would it promote AD or diploma graduates; new managers had to have a minimum of a BSN. Now, that same hospital will not consider promoting anyone who does not have a master's. Having done an AD program and a BSN program and a fair amount of graduate school, I do see the difference in the degrees and I think the hospital is right to require managers to have a master's. It used to be that a master's was sufficient to teach in most schools of nursing but I am making the effort to go on for more education because the trends now are that more schools prefer PhDs.

I am not sure I understand the vitriol against accelerated BSN programs that are tailored for educated adults with bachelor's degrees or higher. I do understand wanting to get the best education possible and if a prospective feels that other programs in the area do not give adequate preparation, particularly in clinical hours, then he/she needs to go to the school that he/she thinks is best.

I understand the pressures of financial constraints, however, why do you think it would be more financially feasible for you to get a BSN later rather than now? While many institutions do offer tuition reimbursement, some are cutting back on this benefit---or cutting it out altogether. I think that's wrong and short-sighted but it's reality.

I hope that you are right about the hiring managers looking at the individuals rather than solely at their educational backgrounds but as it is at the current time, why not make yourself as competitive as possible? If hospitals in your area are still hiring diploma graduates, then you don't have to worry about the "stamp of BSN". But if they aren't it might behoove you to find out why and figure out now what you can do to make yourself as attractive to employers as possible.

I'm a second career RN with a B.S. in a non-heath care field (spent 12 years in my past career). Personally, I did not view it as another hoop to jump through. Rather I saw it as another method I could use to make myself more competitive to a potential employer. It was one less factor an employer could use to poke a hole in my RN job application, especially in a tight job market. I've also considered the option of having more opportunities available for career advancement and plans to pursue an MSN in the future.

I'm not so sure I agree that the entire state of PA has jumped on the BSN bandwagon. I think it's more of a trend we're going to see in areas with a number of university hospitals (like Philly) which seemed to start about a year or so ago.

Now the rural areas are another matter. Pennsylvania has the majority of the remaining hospital diploma programs in this country, and as a former native who grew up in a rural area, I understand why those hospitals like them. They tend to attract local high school graduates who want to live there lives there and who don't feel a particular need to move away somewhere else to attend college. Those who do, don't tend to return to those areas. While I would like to see nursing education standardized across the board somehow, I think we're going to see a rising demand for BSNs in metropolitan areas and college towns in the very near future, but that it will be quite some time before this happens elsewhere.

Thanks for all the comments. It was certainly not my intention to come across as sounding defensive, or angry....I am not either. I understand all of the points put forth here, and they are valid.

I agree with the poster that had comments about the BSN requirement being a band aid. I think he may be on to something.

As far as my "vitriol" for accelerated BSN programs....there is none, just presenting an opinion regarding the length of program, and preparedness of the student. Not saying it cannot be effectively done, just surprising that someone can absorb what they need to learn over a 12 month or less time frame.

Please don't take my comments the wrong way. Seems I have touched a few nerves, again not my intention.

We are all (or will be) on the same team, that's what is really important. If people in this profession cannot stick together, it will never get the respect it deserves. I wish you all the best.

No surprise the ANA is trying to back stab its ADN members, not my idea of advocating for the profession. If the ANA were a nurse and nurses were patients we would all be dead.

The problem with managers automatically dismissing ASNs in favor of BSNs is that all BSN programs are not created equal (just as all ASN programs aren't). I'd like to know what schools the nurses in the Penn study came from (actually I'll probably go look that up if I can get a copy of the article). If their study focused solely on their hospital nurses, well there is no secret that the majority (or a statistically significant portion) of them were probably Penn grads.

A quick look at NCLEX pass rates will show that plenty of BSN programs are barely able to get their students to pass a test that, as I think someone else mentioned, anyone should be able to study for and pass. So how can graduates of those programs automatically rank better than ASN programs that ARE at a minimum able to get their students to pass and a very high rate.

To me it boils down to a marketing ploy by the hospitals. In our (capitalist) society, yes, degree=more favorable but it doesn't translate to the better candidate 100% of the time. I say that to say, yes I agree that hospitals technically have the right to choose from only BSNs if that is possible for them given the economy, however, I think they know they are handicapping their applicant pool, but prefer to choose marketing slogans ("95% BSN prepared!") over actually having the ability to choose from ALL of the best candidates.

where is your proof that this is even remotely true?

where do you get that bsn programs are barely able to get their students pass? nclex is a pass/fail test, no scores are reported.

according to nclex reports, the pass rate for rn-bsn vs rn-adn is not all that different for 2009 and 2008, and it slightly favors the bsn. i didn't look at any other year or test and i can't find any discussion of whether or not the difference is statistically significant.

https://www.ncsbn.org/1237.htm


if you are going to make a comment like:

" a quick look at nclex pass rates will show that plenty of bsn programs are barely able to get their students to pass..."

then link to a report or document that supports your claim.