higher pay for BSN grads?

BeHappy! · Feb 15, 2007

Nope, the pay is the same for ADN and BSN at both hospitals where I have worked.

srna2008 · Feb 20, 2007

I recently graduated with my BSN and where I work BSN get $1 more per hour.

gerry79 · Feb 20, 2007

A new graduate be it a Diploma, ADN, or BSN is an inexperience nurse so the pay should be the same. Management level positions should require more education along with the experience. Many complain about the Diploma/ADN/BSN entry to nursing but the bottom line is that the NCLEX cares not what degree you carry, if you cant pass the test you wont be an RN. Why is there not an NCLEX BSN, NCLEX ADN, or NCLEX Diploma exam. There is but one exam and those that graduate from an approved school are eligible to take the exam and become an RN.

GIRN · Feb 20, 2007

edited

Sheri257 · Feb 20, 2007

A BSN entry into practice would also lessen the sheer numbers of nurses graduating, and market forces would increase the pay for nurses. That, by the way, was part of the thinking when PTs, OTs, Pharmacists, increased their educational levels. Less of them = more money to obtain their services.

This would be true in theory but, not necessarily in reality.

OT's for example required a bachelor's until this year where they now require a master's yet ... they only make $2K on average more than RN's nationwide. If a bachelor's, in an of itself, made that much of a difference you'd think the pay difference would be a lot more.

Same with PT's, who require a masters and make about $7K more a year than RN's but, for a master's degree it's not that much of an increase when you consider that CRNA's make a hellava lot more than that with their masters.

In California RN's make exactly the same as OT's and PT's, on average, so the bachelor's and master's makes absolutely no difference there ... probably because California has nursing unions that have increased wages for bedside RN's.

Meanwhile dieticians and medical social workers who require a bachelor's make at least $10K less than RN's nationwide while RT's, who have about the same level of education as ADN RN's also make about $10K less.

Even though pharmacists require a doctorate, and they do make more than RN's, OT's, PT's, RT's etc. their pay is actually quite low in comparison with other doctorates like dentists and MD's.

MD pay can also vary widely by specialty ... even though most them have pretty much have the same level of docorate education.

Bottom Line: a certain kind of degree, in and of itself, does not always guarantee higher wages.

:typing

MuddaMia · Feb 20, 2007

This would be true in theory but, not necessarily in reality.
OT's for example required a bachelor's until this year where they now require a master's yet ... they only make $2K on average more than RN's nationwide. If a bachelor's, in an of itself, made that much of a difference you'd think the pay difference would be a lot more.
:typing

Those are all interesting comparisons...but I think what really is meant by the OP (Less of them = more money to obtain their services) is the difference WITHIN the profession..not a comparison of degree level across professions. What you would really want to look at is what the average PT salary was before the entry point was changed to MS--did it increase and by how much? When looking at these numbers I am sure you will see a substantial increase--and I think this would cross over to the nursing world if implemented

missapoo · Feb 20, 2007

A new graduate be it a Diploma, ADN, or BSN is an inexperience nurse so the pay should be the same. Management level positions should require more education along with the experience. Many complain about the Diploma/ADN/BSN entry to nursing but the bottom line is that the NCLEX cares not what degree you carry, if you cant pass the test you wont be an RN. Why is there not an NCLEX BSN, NCLEX ADN, or NCLEX Diploma exam. There is but one exam and those that graduate from an approved school are eligible to take the exam and become an RN.

I would argue that the NCLEX exam is designed to measure your clinical knowledge base and not your ability to be a leader. The difference in my mind is that a BSN gives the basic groundwork toward leadership and management skills and that is, imho why they should be considered with a slightly higher compensation even when starting out fresh out of school. The BSN takes longer to complete and is more involved and in-depth. The same basic nursing training is given and similar clinical experience, but when you go for the BSN you are getting the training you need to go on and become a leader/teacher/manager. In a way, there are much tougher hurdles in the BSN program because not only are you expected to learn to care for your patients, but your are put in the position of making management decisions, solving staffing issues, doing research, ie things that make you think on a more global level. I agree that anyone with initiative can get their BSN but not everyone is born to be a leader. In part that is an in-born thing in our nature, and it is also partly a learned behavior. To compensate or not for the extra training I think is a no-brainer. Most places that are interested in furthering progress should agree that if you do the time you should be compensated. I am sorry for those of you out there where that isn't the case...I thought I was in a pretty backward place until I read most of the posts and saw that I actually have it pretty good where I am (BSN's get 1$ more per hr than ADN's).

gerry79 · Feb 20, 2007

I would argue that the NCLEX exam is designed to measure your clinical knowledge base and not your ability to be a leader. The difference in my mind is that a BSN gives the basic groundwork toward leadership and management skills and that is, imho why they should be considered with a slightly higher compensation even when starting out fresh out of school. The BSN takes longer to complete and is more involved and in-depth. The same basic nursing training is given and similar clinical experience, but when you go for the BSN you are getting the training you need to go on and become a leader/teacher/manager.
Then again I argue why is there not an NCLEX-BSN exam. All new graduate RN's, regardless of there education, are inexperienced nurses and should be paid as such. I am not against higher education but if the nursing profession wanted to change the entry level requirement it would have done so a long time ago. I plan on getting my BSN for personal reasons but I know many ADN and Diploma nurses who are in leadership positions in many facilities. In my opinion the BSN allows entry to advanced practice nursing, it does not make one a better nurse or leader. Additional letters behind one's last name does not make a leader.

gerry79 · Feb 20, 2007

Melissa states: In a way, there are much tougher hurdles in the BSN program because not only are you expected to learn to care for your patients, but your are put in the position of making management decisions, solving staffing issues, doing research, ie things that make you think on a more global level.

I must respectfully disagree with your comment. At the hospital I am employed at on my floor (a large teaching hospital) ADN,s are often charge nurse and must make the above decisions that you infer only BSN's can make. I am not trying to make this an ADN vs BSN thing, by my ADN program was quite challenging also. Many people with prior Bachelor degrees did not make it. And what do you make of the fast trac BSN programs for those with prior Bachelors. The nursing portion of the programs in my area are 18 months. So would it be safe for me to assume that one can actually finish a nursing education in under 2 years?

jjjoy, LPN · Feb 20, 2007

(copy of my posting from another similar thread)

Personally, I don't think any new grad nurse should be making the same as an experienced nurse. Orientees should be on a lower pay scale until they are taking a full-load.

I understand that no one likes to see someone get paid more for doing the same job. However, as it is RNs don't have any control over increasing their payscale. If BSNs were on a different pay scale (though straight out of school newbies should get the same pay, BSN or not), then one could boost one's salary by going back to school instead of having to find another job altogether to get better pay.

But nursing costs are one of the many things hospitals are always trying to control. So of course, they don't want to create a system that means increasing salaries. It also doesn't make sense to them to encourage nurses to have BSNs because BSNs are less likely to put with poor staffing and the like because they have more well-paid opportunities outside of the hospital where they aren't daily struggling on the front line with chronic understaffing.

missapoo · Feb 20, 2007

Melissa states: In a way, there are much tougher hurdles in the BSN program because not only are you expected to learn to care for your patients, but your are put in the position of making management decisions, solving staffing issues, doing research, ie things that make you think on a more global level.
I must respectfully disagree with your comment. At the hospital I am employed at on my floor (a large teaching hospital) ADN,s are often charge nurse and must make the above decisions that you infer only BSN's can make. I am not trying to make this an ADN vs BSN thing, by my ADN program was quite challenging also. Many people with prior Bachelor degrees did not make it. And what do you make of the fast trac BSN programs for those with prior Bachelors. The nursing portion of the programs in my area are 18 months. So would it be safe for me to assume that one can actually finish a nursing education in under 2 years?

Ok, I didn't mean to imply that BSN's make decisions that ADNs can't...in my experience that is totally untrue. That is the problem with putting words on paper...they can be easily missunderstood. I know nursing school in general is tough whether it's ADN, BSN or LPN, nursing is a tough field...there is no denying that. I am no better than my ADN associates and many of them have been in nursing so much longer and have so much more experience and I totally respect them. I go to my colleages for advise without bias as to what degree they have obtained and I know there are many ADN's in charge positions and leading other nurses....I see nothing wrong with that. I for one owe so much to the nurses that had a hand in my training, both ADN, BSN and LPN. I agree that all new grads are wet behind the ears and need on the job experience without preconceived expectations and I will say, on the flip side, that there are those out there that expect a BSN grad to know more and do more upon entering the work force and this is so unfortunate....as many have said before, you have to earn the right to lead and be respected because you have worn those shoes of the staff/floor nurse, and even on to critical care areas, and you know what it takes to get the job done. You learn by experience how it takes a team to make everything flow naturally. I totally understand those that believe all entry level nurses should receive the same pay scale. I can see that side of the discussion. I do think it would be safe to say that most of the people saying that are probably not BSN RN's, for the simple reason that I stated before...if you go to school and do the extra work for a 4yr degree then it only seems right to be compensated for it. All of the old-timers at work fuss about the new grads coming in that are making close to what some of us make at our base pay rate. It just goes to show how desperate times call for desperate measures as hospitals try to recruit and retain nursing staff....that is a fine line and I for one don't want to be the one making that kind of call. You will never find a perfect solution that will make everyone happy so there needs to be some middle ground where we could call a truce wouldn't you agree?

missapoo · Feb 20, 2007

Gerry wrote: And what do you make of the fast trac BSN programs for those with prior Bachelors. The nursing portion of the programs in my area are 18 months. So would it be safe for me to assume that one can actually finish a nursing education in under 2 years?

Not if you count the 2 yrs of prior training that is factored in. I think that as long as they have done the core curriculum that is required (I had to have 64 hrs of prerequisites that were not specifically related to nursing, prior to applying to my BSN program). The actual nursing part of the program once I was in, lasted 2 years. I didn't do the fast track since I went straight for the BSN and didn't even have an associates degree prior, but that doesn't mean I didn't still have to have all the core basics that the program requires. Again, the BSN degree only means that you have taken more classes and training to prepare you to do more in the area of leadership and management if you choose to pursue that. The basic nursing curriculum and training as far as clinicals and etc...is probably very comparable to ADN programs....there are simply more prerequisites in order to enter the program and from my experience, nursing schools can be very picky about who they let into the BSN program. They look at other things besides your overall GPA and need convincing that you have what it takes, not everyone that applies gets into the program. All in all, at the end of the day it's just a piece of paper that says I have gone to school for that long to obtain that degree....what I choose to do with it is what matters.