In a few years all RNs will be required to have a BSN?
- 1Sep 22, '10 by FutureNurse2BHas anyone else heard of this? I was told by someone that pretty soon all RNs are going to be required to have a BSN and those who only have an ADN will be required to go back to school. Is this a roomer? I hope so.
- 2Sep 23, '10 by belaRNIt depends on what state you are in. I know that in NJ it is required to get your BSN after 10 years only if you became an RN after the legislation passed. If you became an RN before, you're safe.
American Nurse Today
NJ State Nurses Association
RESOLUTION SEEKING LEGISLATION TO REQUIRE A 10-YEAR BSN PASSES AT 2006 ANNUAL MEETING PRESERVING ENTRY | New Jersey Nurse | Find Articles at BNET
Hope these articles help although they are a little outdated, they are still in effect.
I would check with your state just to be sure.
- 0Sep 26, '10 by stressednurse70That rumor has been around my area in Maryland ever since before I graduated from nursing school back in '97. I don't see that happening with a nursing shortage. Especially since ASN and BSN students take the same exact state boards. I have heard that ASN programs give more hands on clinicals compared to the BSN programs doing more theory. Now there are many jobs out there that require a BSN, but these are not bedside nursing positions. I do advocate for RNs to return to school at earn their BSN because as you age, you might not want to be a bedside nurse any more and instead want one of those other jobs. It will give you more options as you age and make you more marketable when job hunting. One option is an online RN to BSN program. It is doable, I am about to finish my BSN in a few months while working full time.
- 0Sep 26, '10 by elkparkI just did a Google search and found no evidence that the NJ bill has actually passed the legislature -- just several older articles about various nursing groups discussing and promoting the proposal. NY and NJ have been talking about this possibility for a few years now, but there's a big difference between what nursing associations and organizations want and what state legislatures actually pass into law (and that's what would have to happen for it to become a state requirement). I'm sure that, if the bill had actually been passed by the legislature in NJ, we would have heard a lot more about it (here and in other nursing circles -- it would be huge news).
People have been talking about requiring BSNs for licensure for over 30 years now (it was an old debate when I was in nursing school in the early '80s), and it's no closer to happening now than it was then. The only state that has ever made the BSN mandatory for licensure, North Dakota, rescinded the legislation several years later after it proved unworkable.
Preserving multiple entries into practice but requiring a BSN down the road after inital licensure may have a better chance of getting passed than a strict BSN-minimum proposal, but, still, I'll believe it when I see it ...
- 2Oct 5, '10 by goingCOASTALBSN-only in hospitals is something the ANA has pushed for for 25-30 years, but why hasn't it happened? Because community colleges were pushing out much-needed RNs by the truck-load ... it absolutely wasn't feasible.
Today, with the recession and the economic realignments going on, we're mostly in a glut ... and hospitals and state boards of nursing are able now to hire and legislate what they want about nurses because the market allows for it.
It's not some corporate conspiracy ... it's market forces at work, and at the moment, there are more RNs than there are jobs for RNs. Hospitals have a choice, and the states can enact laws they feel will impact healthcare in a positive way without impacting the industry economically.
Of course, there is a downside to this. In a lot of places, nurses get paid by licensure ... not degree ... so you have to ask yourself, if a hospital had a choice ADN vs BSN, which would they choose considering they cost the exact same hourly?