I have been a RN since 1989, graduated with a ASN. Since that time I worked in ICU, Open heart surgery, PICU, Med/Surg and Behavioral Health. I have had the pleasure to have worked as a Nurse Executive only to be told after 25 years to get a BSN. I have a BS in Public Policy and Organizational Leadership and Master of Arts in Theology/Counseling. I asked my employee why after working 13 years a their Executive Nurse on Med/Surg/Peds that they thought I needed a BSN. No answer just demands or lose my job. I told them to stuff it! At 57 I was not going back to school for a BSN when it would only achieve increasing my debt ratio.
Since then I haven't been able to hire on anywhere but a Nursing Home. Let me tell you it is a blessing to work in geriatrics, yet the BSN's that work there are clueless, needing alot of training and retraining which I don't mind doing. It just saddens me that at the end of my career Nursing still has its quirks like they did in the 80's. Remember the period when medical assistants where hired to work in ICUs? That fiasco lasted less then a year.
God bless all of you who have had to face this new fiasco of BSN only apply. I am wondering who agrees with BSN only need to apply?
BSN only will decrease the number of nurses. Our degrees will become more valuable. Salaries will have to go up. Maybe the North Dakota experiment failed because no one was willing to pay enough to nurses to stay in a state, which at that time, was very poor.
Pay them and they will come.
I would hope that will happen; however there are so many nurses in the market and pay us still stagnant for nurses; even in many markets where there hasn't been a true shortage, wages have been typically the same for decades, who knows?
Specializes in Peds/outpatient FP,derm,allergy/private duty.
I'm not talking about "public relations and media strategy." In this issue, it matters v. little what the public thinks. I'm talking about lobbying at the state legislature level, which is where any changes in nursing licensure have to happen,
I'm not sure what type of lobbying you thought I was talking about, but yes, I know what roles boards of nursing and state legislatures play generally. That relationship is not uniform across all the states, though. That fact was intsrumental in the choice of the first four states in the initial campaign launched in 1965, I believe.
It may seem to matter very little what the public thinks, except that a legislator has to explain to his constituents why he or she is voting for something that will increase the cost of getting educated to do that thing and until recently would exacerbate the nursing shortage.
and, believe me, community colleges are v. popular with state legislatures and have a tremendous amount of clout there. I've seen this first-hand. It's going to be v. hard to convince any state legislature to eliminate the state's community college ADN programs,
I never mentioned anything about eliminating ADN programs. I talked about transitioning current ADN programs into BSN programs because it would save the community-college based option.
I'm sure community colleges in general are very popular considering that the absence of those institutions would place a college education out of reach for a large number of lower-income people who also vote. I don't believe that to call something "popular" necessarily translates into advocacy or transfers special significance to a lobbying group in the absence of the dollars invested in it.
To highlight the point, you stated that the IOM has been trying for decades to implement BSN entry-to-practice. That is no doubt true, but their charter under the National Academy of Sciences is to provide unbiased analysis and objective recommendations on health policy matters. An organization that gets millions of dollars from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has already decided what they are going to conclude before they do their two-year study culminating in the Future of Nursing section of the IOM Report stacks the deck no matter how you look at it.
State legislators may not have a clue on such matters, but they do understand the cache of a "philanthropic" group funding an "objective" committee with many stellar and powerful names on it's letterhead.
ADN programs are not only going strong, new ones are still being opened around the country. Given that, how do you draw the conclusion that those organizations are much more powerful that the ADN lobby?
Because lobbyist vs lobbyist isn't the battle. The well-heeled lobbyist can't change overwhelming support among the public for the more modest, easier access option to a career which went begging for new students for decades.
If they don't hear their doctors or hospitals saying that over half the nursing workforce is "uneducated" in the parlance of the BSN ETP advocates why would they spend the time and money on it?
Also, to say "the handwriting has been on the wall" since 1965 make a number of false assumptions, I think. The most important would be what wall you are looking at to the exclusion of other walls that are there as well. The question really is why has it failed? Within nursing, it's nurses blaming other nurses while nobody is looking at more influential stakeholders.
Perhaps if the ANA had been less intransigent in their definitions and had incorporated things like the digital and communications revolutions and revised their Position Paper accordingly they could've achieved their goal. Instead, they are pretty much at square one in the legislative arena. That their objectives are finally being achieved is not due to anything other than market forces.
I suspect it will be market forces that will ensure that none of it will be codified. The other walls some factions of nurses aren't looking at will guarantee that to be the case, but nurses will continue to blame other nurses.
I chose a non-APRN track for my MSN because I knew I would be graduating after the 2015 deadline for DNP entry. I figured I could always go back to school (again) for the DNP if that was my choice. Interestingly, I discovered that won't be an option. The DNP can only be in what I specialized in for my master's. So if I want to become a NP, CNS or any other practice specialty I have to start all over. One university (UCLA) offers a post master's cert for CNS, two years, no degree. I have only found one program that grants a DNP in a new specialty- Rush.
Interestingly the education I received for my ADN at the local community college was better than the one I received for my BSN. The RN to BSN was just the same classes I already had in my ADN without clinical. The MSN is just a retread of the BSN. No new knowledge whatsoever.
I highly doubt that a DNP will be required to become an NP. I know certain colleges offer this route, but I doubt that it will be mandated by any BON because it is impractical.
Community Colleges in my California will be offering baccalaureate degrees. The Governor just signed the bill. Cal State Universities are already offering the DNP (a Doctorate xouldw previously only be awarded by the UC system).
I was completely wrong. In addition, look at this:
Community Colleges in my California will be offering baccalaureate degrees. The Governor just signed the bill. Cal State Universities are already offering the DNP (a Doctorate xouldw previously only be awarded by the UC system).
I understand that the community colleges cannot repeat any bachelor degrees conferred by the UC system. Two specific examples were given. Chemistry was one of them (bachelors in chemistry). The CC's cannot offer BSN's at this specific time, however, I do believe that it is a distinct possibility in the future. Perhaps, if the law remains unchanged, the UC system could stop offering BSN degrees so that the CC's could start producing BSN's.
Thanks for the link dudette10. I had no clue so many states offer this now. Of course not all community colleges that are offering a Bachelors are offering the BSN, but still it's a big step. Does anyone know how that works? Is it a traditional 4 year track or is the degree compressed into a shorter time frame?
Thanks for the link dudette10. I had no clue so many states offer this now. Of course not all community colleges that are offering a Bachelors are offering the BSN, but still it's a big step. Does anyone know how that works? Is it a traditional 4 year track or is the degree compressed into a shorter time frame?
What I have noticed is that, as far as this conversation is concerned, many posters appear to be having a verbal argument. In other words, we are talking over each other. With regard to education, there are two distinct issues here. Also, sorry for the typo in my statement above. I was on break, on my cell. I am off now, on my computer.
#1) mandate BSN as the entry into practice (existing ADNs grandfathered, or not, doesn't matter) as long as there is a seamless transition from ADN to BSN. This already exists in California. California Community Colleges have articulation agreements with all California State and University of California systems. Your credits will transfer and count toward the BSN. That is how I got mine.
#2) allow Community Colleges to offer the BSN for entry into practice. In California, we already matriculate into a "4 year track" as community college students. In other words, to obtain the ADN one needs to take general education in addition to prerequisites. For most people, this ends up taking two to three years, in addition to two years of nursing school. ADN grads have more clinical experience, plus all the general ed requirements at university. We just paid less. When I went to school, one could obtain an ADN with the "30 unit option," which basically eliminated the ADN degree courses (at my college they were psych, sociology and communication, now they have changed it to psych, poli sci & communication) but that would not transfer out of state. It existed for LVN to ADN students who needed to get the ADN ASAP or be out of a job.
So basically, in California at least, the argument is moot. Community College ADN's have no excuse not to get (or already have) the BSN. The classes are pointless though, since we already took the exact same classes at community college. We are just paying money for the stress and time of getting a piece of paper which does not improve practice as far as I can tell. I have met many BSN graduates who lack the critical thinking and science skills I learned in community college. It was a better education, period. I am in graduate school now, taking the exact same classes I took for my BSN, over and over. There are no more science classes and the clinicals are a joke.
Meanwhile, these "accelerated" programs (ADN/BSN, doesn't matter)are at for-profit "universities" offering a worthless education and graduates who cannot think critically. When you cut out the degree requirements that so many here dismiss (I am thinking psych, sociology, poli sci, anthro, basically all the social sciences, as well as the soft sciences like geography) you get task oriented nurses who just do what they are told. That is what employers want, but it does not make for a good nurse. A well rounded liberal arts education is essential to thinking critically, dealing with patients, dealing with physicians, and dealing with ancillary staff.
I think that there needs to be a greater emphasis on the sciences for any advanced degree, whether it be for APRN or general MSN, because I have been genuinely frightened and offended by the "advanced practice" nurses I have personalty met or know of that seem to be utterly clueless about basic science, and life in general. They also received degrees from the for profit diploma mills. Their BSN's make my ADN look like advanced education. Their MSN's make my BSN look like advanced education. They are, to put it bluntly, idiots.
I have been caring for patients since 1968, shortly after the ANA came forth with their position that the entry level for RN be a BSN. The profession has evolved since then from being almost exclusively hospital and direct patient care to today where less then 60 % of RN are employed in a hospital and many of them not in direct patient care. The broader education obtained by through the BSN route will only enhance the opportunities for those entering Nursing today over an expected 40+ year working career. Nursing will continue to evolve in ways that are not even contemplated today.
As for the original poster I agree with what she did and would have done the same thing in her position. She had an extremely closed minded employer( after all she has degrees beyond the ADN) and I understand her anger, but it should be directed at the employer and not at the push for BSN.
#1) mandate BSN as the entry into practice (existing ADNs grandfathered, or not, doesn't matter) as long as there is a seamless transition from ADN to BSN. This already exists in California. California Community Colleges have articulation agreements with all California State and University of California systems. Your credits will transfer and count toward the BSN. That is how I got mine. .
The state of North Carolina also moved in this direction years ago, reorganizing all the public community college nursing programs and state uni BSN completion programs programs so that people can complete an ADN at any state community college and then transition seamlessly into any state uni BSN completion program, all credits accepted, no hassles, no barriers.
The community college programs all converted from "quarter" systems to "semester" systems to make this happen, and the community college nursing programs had to develop a more consistent curriculum that was implemented state-wide.
The state of North Carolina also moved in this direction years ago, reorganizing all the public community college nursing programs and state uni BSN completion programs programs so that people can complete an ADN at any state community college and then transition seamlessly into any state uni BSN completion program, all credits accepted, no hassles, no barriers.
The community college programs all converted from "quarter" systems to "semester" systems to make this happen, and the community college nursing programs had to develop a more consistent curriculum that was implemented state-wide.
And all states should follow this model. No room for issues or further infighting.
Some of your comments are rather pointed and bordering on disrespectful and unprofessional. I attended an Accelerated BSN program, which you are referring to as a "worthless education" and further going on to state that I, therefore, can't "think critically". Excuse me, but I take exception to those statements. What you need to keep in mind is that the accelerated nursing programs require entrants to have an existing Bachelors degree (if not more) in some discipline, thus they have all of the liberal arts that you state is so essential to "thinking critically, dealing with patients, dealing with physicians, and dealing with ancillary staff". I graduated with honors and now I am working on my MSN to become a NP.
I happen to love science. I hold a Bachelors degree in Biology and graduate work in cellular and molecular physiology. But I wouldn't ever say to someone that my science education makes someone else's look like less than it is.
I agree with you that there should be more emphasis on science and clinical medicine in graduate nursing education, particularly in NP programs. Aside from clinicals, the only hard and fast science we got was advanced pathophysiology and advanced pharmacology.
I also attended an Accelerated BSN program. I didn't say they were all worthless(if it came off that way I apologize) but the ones at for-profit diploma mills certainly are. The students in the accelerated MSN program at my university all have degrees in other fields and are brilliant individuals. They actually give me hope for profession.
There are accelerated programs that do not require prior degrees, just a great deal of money. They are graduating idiots.
BTW- your science education is far superior to mine. It does make mine look like less because mine was pathetic in comparison. Your education will make you an assest to this profession.
Some of your comments are rather pointed and bordering on disrespectful and unprofessional. I attended an accelerated BSN program, which you are referring to as a "worthless education" and further going on to state that I, therefore, can't "think critically". Excuse me, but I take exception to those statements. What you need to keep in mind is that the accelerated nursing programs require entrants to have an existing Bachelors degree (if not more) in some discipline, thus they have all of the liberal arts that you state is so essential to "thinking critically, dealing with patients, dealing with physicians, and dealing with ancillary staff". I graduated with honors and now I am working on my MSN to become a NP.
I happen to love science. I hold a Bachelors degree in Biology and graduate work in cellular and molecular physiology. But I wouldn't ever say to someone that my science education makes someone else's look like less than it is.
I agree with you that there should be more emphasis on science and clinical medicine in graduate nursing education, particularly in NP programs. Aside from clinicals, the only hard and fast science we got was advanced pathophysiology and advanced pharmacology.
LadyFree28, BSN, LPN, RN
8,429 Posts
I would hope that will happen; however there are so many nurses in the market and pay us still stagnant for nurses; even in many markets where there hasn't been a true shortage, wages have been typically the same for decades, who knows?