Frustrated with RN-BSN classes

[microkate]

I just feel like I'm not learning much. Maybe it's because I already have a B.S. (biology), but I was expecting the classes to be focused on improving practice and going deeper into topics that were skimmed over during the ADN program. I would love an in-depth patho or pharmacology class.

Of the 10 courses we have to take, THREE are dedicated to career development, and they're all 4 credit classes. I simply don't understand the reasoning behind having 12 credits entirely devoted to career development. A few classes have been interesting - health assessment, case management, and genetics nursing. Health assessment was the only one where I really felt that I learned anything substantial. Theoretical foundations has been the worst so far. I'm doing great grade-wise (because I can BS with the best of them), but I honestly want to become better at what I do, and I don't see the program as helping me get there. I've gotten much more useful information by seeking out other reading.

I feel that as you advance, the classes should keep challenging you to work to the next level, and it's just not happening.

[elkpark]

I don't buy that. If that were true then an ADN plus bachelors degree in anything else would be equivalent to a BSN. However it's not.

According to the associate dean of the community college ADN program who send students to my hospital for preceptorships more than half of their ADN students already have a bachelors or masters degree in something else prior to starting the ADN program. Many in sciences like biology or chemistry.

I am also skeptical that there is more, or much more, community health, leadership/management and introductory research in average current ADN vs BSN programs, though I know that was true in the past.

And, for those who already have a BA/BS in something else, they typically don't have to repeat the general ed requirements. I know that, when I wanted to enter a BSN completion program (after graduating from a diploma program), I got credit for all the liberal arts/general ed credits I had from my first college experience (I didn't complete that degree, but the courses all transferred). I only had to take a few non-nursing courses that were specific requirements at that university and that weren't on my transcript. However, lots of people in the program with me, who didn't have any additional college, had to take lots of general ed courses and kvetched continuously, as so many people here do, about why they had to take a history or lit course that had nothing to do with nursing.

I did mention the limited amount of specific nursing content in BSN completion programs -- that is why ADN + other BA/BS doesn't equal BSN. But you clearly already have a well-formed opinion about this, which you are entitled to. I'm not looking to argue with you about this.

It's just silly, IMO, to expect that a BSN completion program would contain a lot more hard science than a "regular" BSN program. The point of the BSN programs is to provide the people coming from diploma and ADN programs with the additional content and general requirements for a BSN degree, not to go above and beyond what traditional, "regular" BSN programs provide.

I'm not a fan of BSN programs in general; I have no problem with the idea of baccalaureate education for nurses, but I think nursing education, in general, has thrown the baby out with the bathwater over the last few decades and is doing a pretty poor job of preparing RNs these days. However, I don't make those decisions. People who don't like the programs are under no obligation to enter one.

[applewhitern, BSN, RN]

What I was trying to say is that different schools seem to require completely different classes. One would think that nursing schools would be more similar in content. I already have a previous degree, so yes, I already had a lot of the classes required for the BSN. Also, not every ADN program is at a community, or 2-year college. I took mine at a 4-year university. Same classes, same clinicals as the BSN program at the same 4-year university. I think that for an ADN nurse to spend a fortune taking classes toward the BSN, there should at least be something new to learn. I just get tired of people thinking an ADN is somehow a sub-standard education; it isn't. As for the professionalism of having the BSN, it certainly doesn't allow us to do anymore than the ADN as far as what an RN is allowed to do.

[applewhitern, BSN, RN]

If tuition were more affordable, I wouldn't even be having this discussion. I already have a BSN, plus a previous degree in business; I am close to retirement, so I don't have to be concerned at all. I simply think that if you are going to spend a lot of money, or go into "tuition debt," then you should at least get something more out of it. I work with several RN's who are still saddled with debt from their ADN.

[PMFB-RN, RN]

I

t's just silly, IMO, to expect that a BSN completion program would contain a lot more hard science than a "regular" BSN program. The point of the BSN programs is to provide the people coming from diploma and ADN programs with the additional content and general requirements for a BSN degree, not to go above and beyond what traditional, "regular" BSN programs provide.

I don't disagree. I would just like to see BSN programs, both entry to practice and RN to BSN become a lot more meaningful and do a much better job of preparing RNs. I think we agree.

I'm not a fan of BSN programs in general; I have no problem with the idea of baccalaureate education for nurses, but I think nursing education, in general, has thrown the baby out with the bathwater over the last few decades and is doing a pretty poor job of preparing RNs these days. However, I don't make those decisions. People who don't like the programs are under no obligation to enter one.

I don't agree about nurses being under no obligation to enter one. I think those that don't will be pushed into unemployment wasteland.

[applesxoranges, BSN, RN]

The issue is that the ADN has a lot of the general educations built in as pre-reqs. It is really a three year program. What bugs me is that the theory that the BSN is supposed to show a higher level of education. What it really is is a broader education, especially in cases of new entry nurses.

Also, on one hand I really do think we need to cut back on the cost of education and one way is streamlining all of the degrees.

[SC APRN, DNP, APRN, NP]

You don't really know what a program or individual courses are like until you are knee deep into it.

I've had no problems with my classes so far, except Nursing Ethics it was basically the same as my Ethics class at the community college, and my Nursing Assessment class which was the same book (Jarvis) and information as my ASN Nursing Assessment class. Two easy A's for my GPA and I didn't have to study for the final. I got a 100% on my Assessment final, shocker!!! a working nurse knows something about assessments. My only real complaint is being bored for 3 hours a week the evening before my early day at work. keep me engaged please. I think my last few nursing classes are more intense so I am not complaining. Its nothing like my ASN program though, that was hard!!!

[elkpark]

I

I don't disagree. I would just like to see BSN programs, both entry to practice and RN to BSN become a lot more meaningful and do a much better job of preparing RNs. I think we agree.

I don't agree about nurses being under no obligation to enter one. I think those that don't will be pushed into unemployment wasteland.

We do agree completely on your first point. On your second, I agree with you about the likely consequences, but it is still a choice. People who object strongly to BSN completion programs and are willing to take their chances, professionally, are free and welcome to do so.