Are new grads contributing to the nursing job shortage?

UVA Grad Nursing · Mar 21, 2010

Elkpark is right on this. According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the University Health Corsortium, the mean cost of training a new graduate in their first year was $77,000 in 2008. This includes the cost of mentoring (when two nurses are doing one job), classes, reduced workload, etc. The 'break-even' point for most employers is this 24 months.

I have seen a handful of employers make new grads sign 2-3 year contracts (and makes them liable for the cost of their training if they leave before the contract is up). Most new grads I speak with do not want to commit three years to one job -- they want to move as soon as the orientation period is over, enter a graduate program after a year, etc. Perhaps if more new grads were willing to sign a 2-3 year contract (making their training a break-even for the employers), there would be more new grad positions.

As a means of comparison, the cost for training a RN with a 12 months of experience is approximately $10,000. Given the health care costs nowadays, I cannot blame employers for wanting to spend $10,000 to train an experienced RN over $77,000 for a new grad.

want2banrn · Mar 21, 2010

I strongly disagree with the notion that we should be required to sign contracts for three years. That's just not right because it basically means that they can do absolutely *anything* to you during that time knowing full well you won't leave because you can't afford to. Those things give the advantage to the employer to the point of checkmate. The better solution would be to find out why and I mean specifically why it takes so much money to train a new grad and then work to find ways to lower that cost. To come full circle with the argument earlier about poor nursing education, could that be a contributor to the cost of nurse training? If so, perhaps that is an implicit admission that the nclex is not the equalizer it is thought to be and maybe there ought to be other standards in addition to the nclex. Maybe the government should help reimburse hospitals partially for the expense of hiring new grads. That could alleviate the glut of new grads w/o jobs and it might make hospitals more willing to hire new grads.

lkwashington · Mar 29, 2010

In my opinion if you have a job you need to try to hang on to it...even work prn because if and when the hospital decide to get rid of anyone you would not be the first to go because you have seniority. Nurses do not think this way but sometimes it is this way. If you have any disciplinary notices against you, they will take this in consideration also. Just a thought.

Music in My Heart · Mar 29, 2010

Today at clinicals I was speaking to one of the nurses on the floor. I asked her if any new grads had been hired on the floor in the past year. She told me that there were 4-5 new grads, but they all left after their 6-month orientation. Sure, it isn't the greatest hospital and there are better opportunities elsewhere once you're past your precious orientation period. But doesn't this further discourage hospitals from hiring new grads, when they assume all the costs of training them but then don't reap any benefits? Maybe if new grads would commit and stick it out for at least a couple years there would be more openings for new grads.

I think there is some truth to what you say.

When I was hired, the CNO and I discussed and agreed upon a minimum tenure before I would consider leaving. We have no contract but I'm honor-bound to fulfill the commitment as much as if we did. I have also considered the impact on their willingness to hire other new grads if I were to leave without having provided them a worthwhile return on their investment in me.

Of course, it turns out that despite some serious drawbacks, I happen to really like the place so a decision to move on would be a very difficult one to make.