BSN versus ADN?

[echo*echo]

Echo will you please stop posting!!!! I know, I know some of my posts are becoming repetitive. I even said "I know" twice!

Okay I have been freaking out over waiting lists trying to figure out how I can position myself to get in sooner. I have actually come up with a *plan* but have almost exclusively looked at ADN programs because they are shorter. Basically I need to complete A&P, Microbiology and a Math class to get in.

BSN? I need to take the aforementioned courses and a couple of others. Most of the general education courses I completed a long time ago, and none except Math or Sciences would need to be repeated. Basically it would only take two semesters to complete my pre-reqs for either program.

Would I be foolish to go the ADN route if I could go the BSN route in the same time frame? I realize the costs would be higher, but I will likely qualify for FA.

Lastly, are the waiting lists usually shorter for a BSN program?

I do plan on finishing up my pre-reqs at a Community College, but in your humble opinion should I be looking at a BSN program over an ADN program?

[LoriB]

It is my understanding that you already have to have a BS (in any subject) to bridge from an ADN to the MSN program. Is this correct? I have a BS in Computer Science and when I asked the college about continuing on after my ADN I was told I don't need to finish the BSN, I could go straight to the MSN with one semester of transition (community health nursing).

[pama]

At WVU you only need the Associate Degree in Nursing. You then go directly into the MSN program.

[llg, PhD, RN]

iliel:

Every RN (ADN) to MSN program I know of includes the BSN as a step along the way to the MSN. It's built into the program. Are you sure that the program you are consideing doesn't do that?

llg

[rstewart]

Originally posted by ainz

"Whether nurses choose to believe it or not, our profession (or should we say quasi-profession) is a target for being greatly reduced and possibly eliminated. Why? Consider the following:

The people that run healthcare in this country are not clinicians. The people that run it are the people that control the money.

We must do a few things to counter this. One is to clearly define the one, single way a person can become a registered nurse. In the eyes of an administrator who is an accountant or MBA or MHA, how do you explain the difference between a nurse with a 3 year diploma, 2 year degree, 4 year degree, or a 6 year masters degree, when they are all qualified to essentially do the same things that will generate revenue for his hospital, they are all called "nurse" they all took the same NCLEX, and all are called RNs?"

I have heard this type of argument used in support of the minimum BSN professional entry level many times in the past, and frankly it has never made sense to me economically or otherwise.

You state that the people who run healthcare are not clinicians, and that they are bottom line driven. Then you say that all of the various preparations for RN produce individuals qualified to do the same things that will generate revenue for the hospital, that they are called by the same title, took the same licensure exam etc. Agreed. So why then would these cost conscious administrators pay a meaningful premium to a BSN prepared nurse if the lion's share of the nursing work can be accomplished by individuals with less education? In my view the answer is...they wouldn't.

The nurse as employee situation bears no similarity whatsoever to that of the independent practioner physicians. Rather, the situation is not unlike the hospital drug formulary. Management is looking for a drug for a problem, a job to be done. Yes, it has to be approved by the FDA and yes, it must be proven effective to a certain degree but it doesn't have to be the most effective, or be a recognizable brand name to avoid confusion, or be the newest drug or be of a particular drug class to be selected/preferred. In this environment, it is the least expensive alternative which is chosen. Now I have little doubt that if costs were equal, hospitals would routinely prefer the branded, most recognizable, newest most effective drugs available. But routinely pay a premium? Not gonna happen in any facility that I know of.

Direct care is where the rubber meets the road in nursing. That is by far where the most need for nursing services exists, that's where the lion's share of employment opportunities are and that's where the positions are most difficult to fill----------and that's also where diploma and AD prepared nurses have provided high quality nursing care for decades.

I would submit that there is no evidence whatsoever that salaries and/or even nontangibles would improve if all professional entry nurses were BSNs. If that were true, we'd all be moving to North Dakota. The more likely scenerio would be more BSNs working in lesser compensated but much more widely available associate direct care slots which would be newly created under differentiated practice models. So I can easily envision nurses as a whole making less money, not more.

I am a strong believer in the value of education. But education is very expensive these days and the amounts these new grads owe is staggering in many cases. I realize that nursing academia wants more and more education requirements. And as I mentioned earlier I suspect hospitals would favor BSN nurses if the ongoing expense of having them did not hit their bottom line.

And as a rule, at present it doesn't.

But make no mistake: Hospitals will never pay more than they have to for nursing services. Requiring a BSN for so-called professional practice is not the panacea it is made out to be.

[iliel]

llg, it does do that, but what I'm asking is, does it matter that after thoes classes, does it matter that the school will not reward me a BSN?