BSN as entry into practice; why we decided against it. - page 15

by MunoRN

25,633 Views | 240 Comments

While hopefully avoiding stoking the ADN - BSN debate unnecessarily, I thought I'd share my experience with my state's consideration of BSN as entry into practice, as well as the BSN-in-10 initiative. About 3 years ago I sat... Read More


  1. 0
    Quote from PMFB-RN

    Your position is inconsistant. You activily argue aginist what you call a lower education standard for RNs and yet tell us you wish to seek a lower education standard for yourself for NP.
    My position is not inconsistEnt at all. How am I seeking a lower education standard for myself for NP when:

    A) I plainly said I have only toyed with the idea of getting my NP

    B) The MSN is currently the ONLY standard. Soo....that's just silly.


    Should a DNP be required if/when I decide to be a NP then that is what I will get.
  2. 2
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    *** I can think of at least one easy solution. Many countries that require a BSN have a 3 year BSN program for nurses that looks very similar to many ADN programs here. I have worked as an RN in New Zealand and that is the case there. Why not simply change ADN to BSN on the degrees and keep everything the same as it is now? Then everyone would be happy. The pro BSN people would get their wish of the BSN being the single entry point for nursing. The rest of us could be satisfied that the local community college programs will continue.
    We also have 3 year BSN programs, Chaplain college offers one, it's 1 year of pre-reqs (A&P, micro, Psych, math, etc) and 2 years of the program. Of course this is completely different from an ADN program, which is 1 year of pre-reqs and 2 years of program.

    Saying a BSN is better than an ADN doesn't make as much sense when you put it another way; 1 year of pre-reqs and 2 years of program is better than 1 year of pre-reqs and 2 years of program.

    Of course Chamberlain's program isn't exactly the same as ADN programs; it costs $85,000.
    Esme12 and redhead_NURSE98! like this.
  3. 0
    Quote from MunoRN
    "If it goes along with your theory, no need to question it!" - I'm not sure if you're referring to your views or mine.
    If I was talking about my theory then I would've said, "If it goes along with my theory." The word 'your' is the keyword.

    Do you honestly think that there's no difference between the programs other than the names?
    So, students spend "45 more credit hours" doing nothing for a BSN? That's funny because my final semester practicum was spent answering to several ADN nurses as to why I was spending over 200 hours on the floor getting hands on training when they claimed that they, "went a day or two."

    If experience is the best teacher then the difference in hours spent doing direct patient care could be just one piece of the puzzle. We're not comparing an ADN nurse with 2 years of experience to a new grad BSN. We're talking about an ADN graduate and a BSN graduate side by side doing the same job.

    Take the name of the degree out of the equation. Who do you think would be better at...let's say...making balloon animals? Someone who spent a few hours practicing how to make them, or someone who spent a few hundred hours practicing how to make them? Who would you hire for your kid's party?

    I really don't see the big mystery here. More education is always better in my opinion...no matter who the subjects are. People are just too close to the situation to see that. I bet if you ask random people off the street who have no emotional involvement who they would rather have caring for them, they'll pick the person with more education every time. Again, we're comparing new grads.
  4. 1
    And yet, I've never heard anyone, ever, actually say that they've seen any discernible difference between a new grad BSN and a new grad ADN in how they perform their job. We've ALL, every last one of us who've been doing this for a while, seen new BSNs and New ADNs start at the same time. Has anyone seen a difference? I'm seriously very curious.
    redhead_NURSE98! likes this.
  5. 0
    Quote from Ntheboat2
    I'm pretty sure that your definition of "in depth" when it comes to research studies and my definition of "in depth" are nowhere near the same.
    You are here arguing a point of view, yet stated that,

    I haven't done a lot of in-depth research or determined what factors may have impacted any study regarding this topic whether it's in favor or against. Why? It's time consuming so it has to be something that's not already obvious in order to dedicate any time to it.
    If your definition of "in depth" is what is already obvious to you as an individual or has an abundance of evidence on the surface (whatever that means) then I'm sure we won't agree. I'll submit that what the committee Muno was part of did compares quite favorably in even a lay person's estimation of the meaning of the phrase "in depth", when even a cursory look was declared by you to be too time consuming --yet you stated "ADN advocates" were sweeping pertinent information under the rug just to support a predetermined conclusion, even though many of them have BSNs themselves.

    In fact, there's a pretty wide variety in the time it takes to get an overview of a study without going deeply into their models, but if you never look at them because you assume your opinion trumps their research, again, there's no real point in your jumping in.
  6. 0
    Quote from nursel56
    You are here arguing a point of view, yet stated that,



    If your definition of "in depth" is what is already obvious to you as an individual or has an abundance of evidence on the surface (whatever that means) then I'm sure we won't agree. I'll submit that what the committee Muno was part of did compares quite favorably in even a lay person's estimation of the meaning of the phrase "in depth", when even a cursory look was declared by you to be too time consuming --yet you stated "ADN advocates" were sweeping pertinent information under the rug just to support a predetermined conclusion, even though many of them have BSNs themselves.

    In fact, there's a pretty wide variety in the time it takes to get an overview of a study without going deeply into their models, but if you never look at them because you assume your opinion trumps their research, again, there's no real point in your jumping in.
    Again, I'm pretty sure our ideas of "in depth" are very different.

    If you knew a lot about how to analyze a research study then you would know exactly what I meant by "on the surface."

    When all posters are required to do in depth research on a topic before there's a point in "jumping in" then I will refrain from doing so. However, the day that is required will be the day the discussion board all but dies.

    Until I see every opinion followed up with evidence that includes measurement reliability and validity (including the degree) and also provide values (p-value) as well as effect size...

    Then I will assume that this is a discussion based upon opinions and references are made based upon casual reading of reliable articles rather than "in depth research."
  7. 2
    Quote from Ntheboat2
    If I was talking about my theory then I would've said, "If it goes along with my theory." The word 'your' is the keyword.
    Ah, thank you for explaining the complexities of personal pronouns . My lack sentence structure knowledge allowed my to think your statement could have just as easily been applied to you, now I see that your statement could not have described your position in any way.

    Quote from Ntheboat2
    Do you honestly think that there's no difference between the programs other than the names?
    So, students spend "45 more credit hours" doing nothing for a BSN? That's funny because my final semester practicum was spent answering to several ADN nurses as to why I was spending over 200 hours on the floor getting hands on training when they claimed that they, "went a day or two."

    If experience is the best teacher then the difference in hours spent doing direct patient care could be just one piece of the puzzle. We're not comparing an ADN nurse with 2 years of experience to a new grad BSN. We're talking about an ADN graduate and a BSN graduate side by side doing the same job.

    Take the name of the degree out of the equation. Who do you think would be better at...let's say...making balloon animals? Someone who spent a few hours practicing how to make them, or someone who spent a few hundred hours practicing how to make them? Who would you hire for your kid's party?

    I really don't see the big mystery here. More education is always better in my opinion...no matter who the subjects are. People are just too close to the situation to see that. I bet if you ask random people off the street who have no emotional involvement who they would rather have caring for them, they'll pick the person with more education every time. Again, we're comparing new grads.
    So just to clarify, it's your impression that the Nursing program portion of an ADN program is 45 less credits than that of a BSN?

    And you're also under the impression that an ADN practicum is "a day or two" long?

    And you also believe that typically BSN's graduate with more direct care clinical experience than ADN's?
    tntrn and redhead_NURSE98! like this.
  8. 0
    Quote from MunoRN
    Ah, thank you for explaining the complexities of personal pronouns . My lack sentence structure knowledge allowed my to think your statement could have just as easily been applied to you, now I see that your statement could not have described your position in any way.

    So just to clarify, it's your impression that the Nursing program portion of an ADN program is 45 less credits than that of a BSN?

    And you're also under the impression that an ADN practicum is "a day or two" long?

    And you also believe that typically BSN's graduate with more direct care clinical experience than ADN's?
    Uhh....I specifically quoted "45 credit hours" because YOU said the only difference between ADN and BSN is 35 general credits and 8 core credits. Okay, so that's 43 hours. You're right, I was wrong!

    Which ADN practicum? I was talking about ONE practicum. One in which actually was "a day or two long" in comparison to a couple hundred hours long. You know that the entire sum BSN clinicals is much more than a couple hundred, and I wasn't implying that the entire sum of ADN clinicals is a day or two long. I was speaking of ONE clinical rotation and yes there was a huge difference.

    Yes, I believe that BSN's graduate with more direct care experience than ADN's because...well...they do.
  9. 3
    My questions were admittedly rhetorical, so I'll just go ahead and answer them.

    ADN and BSN credit and clinical hours are largely standardized, in my state ADN and BSN programs have to meet the same requirements minus 8 credits, clinical hour requirements are state mandated and the same for both types of programs. Aside from just having similar programs in terms of numbers, affiliations between BSN and ADN programs are becoming more common which has led to the two often sharing curriculum.

    I googled "top ranked BSN programs", and UPenn, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins came up frequently. I couldn't find curriculum information for the first two, but I did find a breakdown of Johns Hopkins clinical requirements. Their final semester practicum is 168 hours, the minimum for practicum clinical hours in my state for an ADN is 180 hours for a quarter system, 220 for a semester system (more than your BSN required).

    In terms of clinical experience, there's a reason my hospital stopped hiring BSN new grads for two years. While all RN graduates in state need the same number of clinical hours, not all clinical hours are equal. BSN programs often struggle with limited clinical placement opportunities as compared to more dispersed ADN programs, as a result it's not unusual for ADN grads to come out of school closer to being able to take a full load. That's not an observation specific to my Hospital, from an online article "Diploma and Associate Degree RNs will clearly tell you that they can run rings around BSN program graduates when it comes to patient care. Theyll explain that they have more actual clinical experience and patient care know how in their little finger than a new BSN grad, and 99% of the time theyre right about that!" It may just be a myth, but it's a frequently stated myth. As an aside, I don't think time-to-full-load is all that important, potential to progress should be more important.
    Last edit by MunoRN on Nov 20, '12
    tntrn, Esme12, and redhead_NURSE98! like this.
  10. 2
    Quote from Ntheboat2
    Uhh....I specifically quoted "45 credit hours" because YOU said the only difference between ADN and BSN is 35 general credits and 8 core credits. Okay, so that's 43 hours. You're right, I was wrong!
    A bachelor's degree (any bachelor's degree) includes your major program, typically about 2 year, and 2 years of general electives. ADN programs typically have about 45 credits of pre-reqs (including the pre-reqs' pre-reqs). So that leaves about 45 credits of electives (art history, english lit, etc). The programs themselves are pretty similar, in my state the only difference is 8 credits of leadership and community health.

    To put that another way, ADN and BSN programs are not nearly as different as they used to be. These days the main difference between the two is a year of art history, english lit, etc. While I'm all for a well rounded education, I'm skeptical that an ability to expound on pointillism significantly contributes to better patient outcomes.
    Last edit by MunoRN on Nov 20, '12
    tntrn and Esme12 like this.


Top