I'm in a third and final semester of RN-to-BSN program. Today I had another class of "Community health nursing". It was so boring that most students were falling asleep. I don't understand what is a purpose of BSN degree if the only difference from ADN is that you have to take a whole bunch of useless classes that have nothing to do with the art of medicine. So far I took six so-called nursing classes and did not have to open a book to get through. All the used book at the campus bookstore look like new which means other students did not touch them either.
I will list classes that are required for BSN degree at my university:
First semester:
1. Professional nursing.
2. Health assessment.
3. Transcultural nursing.
Second semester:
1. Issues facing profession.
2. Nursing research.
3. Leadership and management.
Third semester (currently taking)
1. RN-BSN seminar.
2. Community health nursing.
3. Community health (practicum).
I can't say much about community health practicum so far, but I'm telling you the other classes (except for the health assessment and research classes) is a waste of time and money. The majority of my classmates have the same opinion.
Yes, I will have BSN after my name, and I will be able to get international experience in other Westen countries (which I'm looking for), but it does not give me any advantage teaching me new skills or giving the knowledge that is valuable in clinical settings.
I would like to hear opinions of others currently enrolled in RN-to-BSN program or who have already graduated.
This is coming from a guy that did BSN. I chose it over the ADN simply because I would get admitted a semester earlier, and since I had a BA already, the prereqs were all taken care of.
As a first semester project in "Nursing as a Profession" (and just to be contrary), I did an in-depth credit-by credit comparison of the BSN and ADN programs offered locally. I don't remember all of the details, but the only significant difference was an extra 2 credits in patho/pharm. There was virtually no difference in clinical hours required. What WAS different were the required classes in gero and community. The adn program had a leadership class, so we couldn't even claim that "advantage".
Seems to me that RN-BSN is just about "moving up the ladder" so to speak. Similar to the MSN, and the DNP. The profession has placed these degrees before nurses as the academic pathway available to move up. Heck, I'm honestly surprised at the relative de-emphasis on clinical skills in the NP program. I mean, the NP is all about going to a whole 'nother level of CLINICAL expertise, right? Diagnosing disease, prescribing medications, ordering and interpreting diagnostic testing...sure, it's there in the program, but buried in piles of (gah) nursing "theory", nursing "research", etc. Why isn't it front and center? Why isn't BSN education about excellence in assessment, clinical skills, and real-world critical thinking?
I am taking grad-level nursing courses, and I am finding that the same issues I had with BSN-level nursing education carry on to the MSN level. Seems such a screwy way to approach the education of a clinical practice-oriented profession.
I have such great respect for the ADN nurse. And I absolutely mean no disrespect to those of you that pursue RN-BSN. But I certainly empathize with the disappointment expressed by the OP of the thread.
And to llg, I have read your posts on this forum, and I say this with great sincerity: I believe that you are an absolutely awesome instructor, and I'm sure your love of your subject makes for a very enjoyable educational experience for your students. But now that I am studying nursing "theory" in more detail, at the grad level, I can say that there is nothing you could say or do to make rme espect the vast majority of what is called nursing "theory". This is from someone that has been actively striving to set aside any preconceived notions from my BSN-level theory studies, and to give nursing theory every chance. My efforts have let me cherry-pick some gems (including a surprisingly deep respect and admiration for Nightingale), but the majority still strikes me as pap. (But I really do enjoy your posts, both for tone and content).
Gah, I've turned into such a critic of nursing education. But it comes from a deep love for, and respect for, our profession. A great nurse is an wonderful thing to behold; I'm not there yet, but I work with several (ADN and BSN both), and witnessing their clinical excellence and *true* "critical thinking" skills is an inspiration. And from our conversations, it is clear that none of this excellence came from theory of management classes. It comes from clinical training, experience, and a continuous striving for what is best for the patient. Design a curriculum around those "theoretical concepts" and I'll be on it in a heartbeat, whatever letters it would put behind my name.
.......... but the only significant difference was an extra 2 credits in patho/pharm. There was virtually no difference in clinical hours required. What WAS different were the required classes in gero and community. The adn program had a leadership class, so we couldn't even claim that "advantage".
I don't think there should be any difference in basic nursing and clinical hours since both take the same NCLEX and become entry level RNs.
However, you do bring up a point that has been a thorn in my side that I've mentioned in this forum before, and others like llg have discussed, and that is the rip off that the ADNs are getting. The program you describe has very little difference in cirriculum but one person gets a BSN and another gets an ADN. However, there is a sigificiant difference in job opportunities (in some areas such as where I live) between the two. (Not entry level positions but other positions later on down the line that require a BSN).
If I was an ADN student in your area I would feel ripped off and taken advantage of.
I don't think there should be any difference in basic nursing and clinical hours since both take the same NCLEX and become entry level RNs.
However, you do bring up a point that has been a thorn in my side that I've mentioned in this forum before, and others like llg have discussed, and that is the rip off that the ADNs are getting. The program you describe has very little difference in cirriculum but one person gets a BSN and another gets an ADN. However, there is a sigificiant difference in job opportunities (in some areas such as where I live) between the two. (Not entry level positions but other positions later on down the line that require a BSN).
If I was an ADN student in your area I would feel ripped off and taken advantage of.
Heck, there's a significant difference in the availability of entry-level positions in my area. My own hospital where I currently work only takes BSN grads into their internship program. I'm lucky in that my department's internship program is new and my boss wants me to do it so I have sort of an inside track.
Lucky for me my hospital offers a fairly painless transition to BSN with classes AT MY HOSPITAL through UT-Houston.
Since I've attended several nursing schools due to my husband's moves, I have to say that I am at least familar with Sr Calista Roy and darn if I can remember anyone else....of course it may be that I'm just getting old - lol
However, you do bring up a point that has been a thorn in my side that I've mentioned in this forum before, and others like llg have discussed, and that is the rip off that the ADNs are getting. The program you describe has very little difference in cirriculum but one person gets a BSN and another gets an ADN. However, there is a sigificiant difference in job opportunities (in some areas such as where I live) between the two. (Not entry level positions but other positions later on down the line that require a BSN).
If I was an ADN student in your area I would feel ripped off and taken advantage of.
Funny, I always thought of it the other way around...that the adn was a great deal, equally well prepared to enter the profession at a lower cost (in general, state cc vs. state uni). Interesting difference in perspective I hadn't thought of.
Still think the adn is the way to go, unless (like in my situation), the only difference was in terms of tuition cost (i.e same time to complete the degree). Get the adn, then complete rn-bsn, while already earning as an rn, and maybe with facility tuition assistance.
I work in a critical care area (NICU), where adn new-grad nurses are very well represented. Many have acted as resource nurses to me during my first year of practice.
Heck, I'd love to be able to claim that the bsn prepares a superior clinician right out of the gate. We all know that is not the case. Arguements for bsn as entry-to-practice seem to always end up being about 1) "respect" from other professions/"the public" or 2) better preparation for management-type positions down the line. Counter-arguments generally can just say 1) equivalent clinical education, 2) same entry-to-practice exam, and 3) almost universally same starting pay/job description. Pretty strong argument in my opinion.
I've even read suggestions (by the "leaders" of our profession in the academic world) for the msn to be the entry to practice. Why stop there? I propose the DNP as entry to rn practice, msn for the lpn, and bsn for the cna.
Seriously, as I stated before, I have much respect for the adn nurses. I'm think it's great if you want to pursue the bsn. I think some advanced instruction in research utilization, leadership/management theory, etc. can be a good thing. I'm sorry to see that some adns are disappointed by what they get out of going rn-bsn. You all have earned the right to get something worthwhile out of this extended education.
One of my favorite clinical instructors had his msn (generalist, not np or cns). He quite frankly told us that he had done it simply to expand his knowledge. He was still a charge nurse, as well as an awesome clinical instructor. I have great respect for pursuing education for it's own sake, and with the hope of making your practice that much better. (As an aside, I found out last night he is now the manager of the unit that he used to charge...good for him!).
And to llg, I have read your posts on this forum, and I say this with great sincerity: I believe that you are an absolutely awesome instructor, and I'm sure your love of your subject makes for a very enjoyable educational experience for your students. But now that I am studying nursing "theory" in more detail, at the grad level, I can say that there is nothing you could say or do to make rme espect the vast majority of what is called nursing "theory". This is from someone that has been actively striving to set aside any preconceived notions from my BSN-level theory studies, and to give nursing theory every chance. My efforts have let me cherry-pick some gems (including a surprisingly deep respect and admiration for Nightingale), but the majority still strikes me as pap. (But I really do enjoy your posts, both for tone and content).
.
I agree with some of what you say. A lot of nursing theory is not very good. In particulary, I think spending a lot of time learning the theories of the 1960's and 1970's is a waste of time -- except as a study of nursing history. As a very young academic discipline, we have a long way to go.
But I don't think that means we should stop trying -- and stop trying to develop better theory. We need theory if we are going to progress as an academic discipline, and we need to be strong in the academic side of nursing if we are going to successfully address the challenges in the practice world.
So ... As I teach theory, I teach it's weaknesses as well as its strengths. I encourage the students to critique and identify those aspects that are valuable and encourage them to build on those positive aspects. We need the current and the next generation of nurses to build on those positive aspects and improve our theoretical base for the future. We can't do that by omitting those theory courses. But I agree, most theory courses need significant overhauling and improvement.
It's bad logic to say that because a class was badly taught ... the whole subject matter is useless. We need to identify the real problem, which is bad theory classes.
Since I've attended several nursing schools due to my husband's moves, I have to say that I am at least familar with Sr Calista Roy and darn if I can remember anyone else....of course it may be that I'm just getting old - lol
Thank you!
I never use her theory -- and I have to review it every time I have to teach it. There is a lot more out there, and some of those other theories have real value to our profession.
If I was an ADN student in your area I would feel ripped off and taken advantage of.
You know I heartily agree with you Tweety. ADN programs were originally designed to be 4 semesters in lenght - TOTAL, with no additional semesters of pre-req's etc. They were not supposed to prepare a nurse "equal to" a BSN.
But the ADN programs have continually added requirements, often making their programs 6 full time semesters. It's partly a matter of pride: they want their graduates to be considered "equal to" BSN graduates. It's also about money. They collect more money from the students for the extra classes.
The students end up on the short side of the deal. They take the extra classes, pay the extra money ... but are still awarded the ADN, not a BSN. They don't have the official credential they need for career advancement and have to go back to school, often ending up have taken (and paid for) more academic credits than those who went for the BSN to begin with.
If I were in their place, I would definitely feel ripped off.
It's bad logic to say that because a class was badly taught ... the whole subject matter is useless. We need to identify the real problem, which is bad theory classes.
Ahhh, and here is where we disagree. I maintain that nursing theory itself is fundamentally flawed, and there is no way to teach it "well" (unless the course is designed to show how most nursing "theory" is not theory at all, and to show how true scientific theories are actually formulated).
Pick a real world phenomenon, define it operationally, and describe how it can be predicted and/or controlled. This is theory that drives experimental research. Modify (or discard) the theory as indicated by experimental results. Apply the experimentally-supported theory to clinical practice. Monitor outcomes, and further modifiy the theory as needed.
I see very little of the above in nursing theory today. The trend towards more practice-level theory is a good start. Most grand and mid-level theories can be junked outright.
Academic nursing could become the bastion of relevent nursing knowledge, but the research philosophies and methodologies would need to change dramatically for this to be achieved.
I like to think that you would change your mind about theory if you took the class that I teach! :chuckle Most of my students rate it highly in the course evals.
I have read your theory debates with Timothy with great interest.
I realize that some of my theory posts are beginning to "channel" him, and I'm not sure that is helpful in any way.
If we were to get into a theory thread, I would love to get a chance to partake in your knowledge and opinions of nursing theory.
I would do my very best not to simply disagree with your position on the relevence of nursing theory. I would value an opportunity to actually discuss/debate the strengths/weaknesses of nursing theories, how they are developed, tested, taught, etc.
I say this because I admire your willingness to discuss this subject, but I imagine that you must get a bit weary because everytime you post, "I teach nursing theory, and find it a valuable part of the nursing profession," someone like me pops up and says, "No, nursing theory sucks!"
If such a thread pops up, I would be fortunate to engage you in a discussion.
If I were in their place, I would definitely feel ripped off.
Ripped off for time (to get BSN after ADN)? Yes.
Ripped off for inferior teaching? Yes.
Ripped off for money? No.
My tuition in this ADN program is no more than $600 a semester. Had I elected to do an Accelerated BSN, I would be looking at close to $5000 a semester, and that's a the public colleges.
That's also not including the increased use of gas to get to the medical center for classes instead of the local community college.
So while it lacks the upward mobility, the ADN for me and others is the most financially painless way of getting to the RN.
Farmer Jane
281 Posts
Certainly there's always something to be gained, but I'm still quite disappointed in the utter lack of content, and I think it's okay to think that.