Effective Fall 2018, Sac State is changing their Selection Criteria for Admissions into the BSN program. I've created this thread for those folks that are planning on applying Fall 2018 to ask questions, share their thoughts, etc. I'm interested to know if the changes make it easier or harder to get accepted. I myself was planning on applying Fall 2018 but may decide to apply Spring 2018 if it's "easier" before the new changes are put into effect.
I agree that the new GPA calculation should be taken out entirely and returned with the original GPA rules.
On the other hand, I applaud the School of Nursing for changing the Bilingual requirement eligibility. We all know that America is the most diverse country in the world, therefore having a readily available translator is always crucial in every hospital or clinic. I personally know of many job openings in the medical field that automatically give priority to bilingual speaking applicants. Now, the School of Nursing is reflecting the actual requirements you see in the real-world nursing positions. The chief reason for which a student is being awarded these points is so that the student can efficiently translate what the doctor is saying to a patient, who does not understand a word in English, in the midst of a medical emergency. In prior semesters I only wonder how many students got away with acquiring these points, but were actually not capable of translating whenever the need arose because the only thing they remember from taking their 3 years of a high school language class left them knowing how to say "Hi, my name is _____, how are you, and where is the nearest library?" Thankfully, you now have to pass an oral exam; a true test of proficiency in a second language.
Let's not take our anxieties of waiting to hear back and use it to become an irrational witch-hunter.
I never meant to say or imply that economically disadvantaged/financial disadvantage is synonymous with stupidity. Do NOT take my post and try and portray me as this horrible person. What I think, is that economic disadvantage is very much related to financial disadvantage. Why does this give 12 points to a potential applicant?
I am not saying that these people are not smart or capable. They very well may be. I'm simply stating facts, which is that a student who underperformed on the TEAS/GPA can get into the program over someone who did excellent academically EASILY (with these optional categories).
TEAS has a big correlation to NCLEX pass rates. The lower the teas/gpa, the lower the nclex pass rates. It's the truth. Someone who is not great in either can get into the program through the optional criteria alone.
I also found that the points system for GPA's was very strange and unfair due to the omission option because I also worked very hard to get my 4.0 and many other people can omit their B's to get a 4.0 like mine since points also awarded only on the adjusted GPA. Also a huge flaw I found with the GPA point system was that the "minimum GPA" allowed to apply was a 3.3 but if you have a 3.3 you get 0 points. Even if you get 100% on the TEAS and all optional criteria, you still do not meet the 60 point cut off so the actual minimum GPA you need to apply is like 3.43. This aspect of the GPA points seriously needs to be adjusted because it makes no sense. Even with a 4.0, 91 on the TEAS, and being trilingual (but not having tests to prove I am so I couldn't get those extra points), I had 71 points and probably am not in the top 100 possibly because of the grade omission option. I got into other nursing schools, so I'm not relying on getting into here to be able to go to a nursing school but their points scale made it fairly difficult for very good students to get admitted if they don't have any of the 20 extra points, which I think does make it unfair to those students.
Let's not take our anxieties of waiting to hear back and use it to become an irrational witch-hunter.
I never meant to say or imply that economically disadvantaged/financial disadvantage is synonymous with stupidity. Do NOT take my post and try and portray me as this horrible person. What I think, is that economic disadvantage is very much related to financial disadvantage. Why does this give 12 points to a potential applicant?
I am not saying that these people are not smart or capable. They very well may be. I'm simply stating facts, which is that a student who underperformed on the TEAS/GPA can get into the program over someone who did excellent academically EASILY (with these optional categories).
TEAS has a big correlation to NCLEX pass rates. The lower the teas/gpa, the lower the nclex pass rates. It's the truth. Someone who is not great in either can get into the program through the optional criteria alone.
I believe what you truely should be concerned about is the newly implemented GPA rule. Because students have been receiving points for economic and environmental disadvantage for many many semesters already, and the NCLEX passing rates are still amazing.
If I had to devise what I think is reasonable structure for selection criteria, it would look something like this:
- GPA is your GPA out of 50 points. No dropping courses. GPA stays true. Basic right?
- TEAS test is out of 40 points.
- 10 points optional criteria: 3 points language, 3 points clinical experience, 2 point economic background, 2 points first generation degree (or something close to this ratio)
The language and experience components are a no brainer for me, of course people should get extra points for these. And there should be extra points for someone coming from a tougher economic background, love it. But to break out economic background/environmental background and first generation degree into 3 separate components totaling 12 points seems total overkill to me and skews everything. Add that to the fact that people with two C's can drop these two courses and apply with a 4.0? Who on earth decided this was a good idea?
It seems like Sac State was trying to solve the problem of people retaking classes, so they allowed people to drop courses rather than try and take them again. This is a totally backwards way of solving the problem of impacted nursing pre reqs. All they had to do was limit the number of retakes to 3, as they did with the new criteria. End of story. Allowing people to also drop grades, especially 2 of them, just allowed people who wouldn't normally be competitive to apply with a 4.0. That, to me, is absurb.
That is so true! To fix the problem of retaking classes, they should implement a rule that you get deducted 5 points for a re-take. This is a rule in Sierra College for example. Even if you have a W and re-take that course, you are deducted 5 points!!!
I've talked to Teri about the economic points, and she said it's very rare those points are given. I don't think the optional criteria is the issue here.. I think it's the adjusted GPA. The option to drop 2 grades is a bit unfair for those who already have 4.0 GPA unadjusted.
Hopefully they change some things for next semester. In the mean time, I am hoping the cut off point gets lower so many of us can get in.
If I had to devise what I think is reasonable structure for selection criteria, it would look something like this:
- GPA is your GPA out of 50 points. No dropping courses. GPA stays true. Basic right?
- TEAS test is out of 40 points.
- 10 points optional criteria: 3 points language, 3 points clinical experience, 2 point economic background, 2 points first generation degree (or something close to this ratio)
Agreed. The higher optional point totals make sense if the TEAS still provided 50 possible points, but upping the optional criteria while simultaneously decreasing the potential points available from the TEAS and effectively offering everyone a 4.0 makes zero sense for admissions that are supposed to be MERIT based.
If it's a system that is supposed to accept on merit instead of lottery, then students with an unadjusted 4.0 should not have to make a 100% on the TEAS to get a spot just because other people have 10+ points of optional criteria. As it stands, a student with 0 repeats, an unadjusted 4.0, 95% TEAS, and 4 points from work/volunteer hours shouldn't have to worry about whether or not they'll make the cut. That's insane.
At the very least put the TEAS back to 50 points if you're going to give so much for optional criteria while also handing out 4.0s. Merit-based admissions should be based on merit. There is nothing Merit-based about about someone with a 3.6 and TEAS in the 80s being able to hopscotch over the students with 4.0s and a TEAS in the 90s.
First of all, I feel attacked by the comments in this forum.
The TEAS scores do not reflect how good of a nurse you will be in the future. The TEAS is also not similar to the NCLEX, so it's best not to predict someone's ability to do good on the NCLEX based off someone's TEAS score. Everyone is different. I admit. I benefit from the optional criteria. I was fortunate enough to receive all 20 points, but that does not make me any lesser than the applicants with unadjusted 4.0 and 90+ TEAS score.
I have a GPA of 3.8, I had to drop a grade. I received a B in A&P last fall because I was busting my ass working full time to support myself because my family cant afford to support me or give me pocket-money; we are poor and I live off of my financial aid and scholarships. I was only able to get an 86.4% on my TEAS because I did not have the time to even study because of my situation. I studied for 3 days before I took the TEAS. I couldn't afford to pay for a second attempt. I speak fluent Spanish, and I get the points for that. I also went to a very bad high school and graduated as a salutatorian. I am not saying this to brag. All I am saying is that you cannot imply that you are superior to those who only scored an 80 on their TEAS.
I understand your concern, and I'm sure many people agree with you on that. However, you have to see this in a different perspective. Once you're a nurse, it's not about how smart you are. Employers will look for well-rounded people. It's best to not put others down just because they benefit on the optional criteria. Plus, if you look at past statistics, the average optional criteria points is 4.9. I just don't see why the blame is on the optional criteria and not the adjusted GPA.
I agree that the grade drop is a bit too much, and I could agree with everyone there.
Now let me ask you, am I not worthy of getting in this program just because I benefitted from the optional criteria?
I also feel attacked in this forums. First of all, I may have a B that I omitted but that does not make me any less better than the other applicants. I work a job in order to provide for my family and sustain myself in college. That took all the time instead of me studying for my academics and the TEAS. Someone who might have been more priviledged probably have access to all the resources that they could in order for them to succeed. I, however, do not. Instead, I have to balance all of that stress just to get good enough grades. Without all of these optional criteria, I would not have even dreamed of getting into nursing school compared to someone who is more priviledged. Obviously, private schools are not even an option for us poor people because of how costly it is. Our only bet is to get into a public university in order for us to even afford college. Now, if you are going take that away from us, people like me would not even have a chance to play in the same playing field. I do agree that ommiting two grades can be too much. But then again people like us who do not even have time to study will also be put at a disadvantage. Given, we might have to repeat classes that we got a B in just so we could apply. That is going to affect us negatively because it is going to cost us more money just to repeat a B which I think is ridiculous. Honestly if you do not like Sac State's new criteria, apply somewhere else. I am pretty sure other schools would definitely accept you.
Hey. I'm not sure if you're referring to a specific post or just the forum in general, but I was the first to voice concerns about the new criteria after the stats were released so figured I'd chip in.
I think we're saying basically the same thing - the grade drop is unnecessary. I have absolutely no issue with the applicants, including yourself, who applied and benefitted from the criteria they put forth (I have 2 of the 5 optional criteria). Rock on, I have no doubt you'll be a killer nurse. We all come from different walks, with different experience and skills and there should be ample room for those things to be reflected when applying for a program. Totally with you.
My issue with what Sac State did this go round is that across the board in all three areas (GPA, TEAS, Optional Criteria), they DRAMATICALLY impaired the ability of applicants who only qualified for only one or two optional criteria to be competitive.
They did this in three ways. First, they allowed everyone to drop 2 grades. This means a person with a B and C or two C's can apply with a 4.0. That means the applicants who had a true 4.0 have that legitimate advantage wiped away completely in one fell swoop.
Second, they made the TEAS worth 40% less. Instead of there being a point differential of say 12 points between an 87% on the TEAS and a 93% (as in previous years criteria) there is now a 7 point differential. Again, at the expense of the person with the higher score.
Third, they added more optional criteria that only a particular segment of the population could benefit from. This optional criteria in-an-of itself is not a problem, but when paired with the other two changes, it forms almost a firewall against people who scored well with GPA and TEAS but were only eligible for one or two criteria.
So, for example, say a person with a true 4.0, with a 95 on the TEAS and 100 hours of clinical experience would, under this new criteria, be the 80th person selected under this new criteria. By across-the-board taking away any potential advantage that students who performed better in GPA and TEAS, Sac State essentially made success in the system heavily biased towards optional criteria. And if a candidate doesn't immediately qualify for either the economic/background/first generation criteria, then an otherwise top-tier candidate is almost disqualified immediately.
Basically, I just think they should do away with allowing students to drop classes. That's the crux of the issue for me.
futurepediatricRN
38 Posts
I agree that the new GPA calculation should be taken out entirely and returned with the original GPA rules.
On the other hand, I applaud the School of Nursing for changing the Bilingual requirement eligibility. We all know that America is the most diverse country in the world, therefore having a readily available translator is always crucial in every hospital or clinic. I personally know of many job openings in the medical field that automatically give priority to bilingual speaking applicants. Now, the School of Nursing is reflecting the actual requirements you see in the real-world nursing positions. The chief reason for which a student is being awarded these points is so that the student can efficiently translate what the doctor is saying to a patient, who does not understand a word in English, in the midst of a medical emergency. In prior semesters I only wonder how many students got away with acquiring these points, but were actually not capable of translating whenever the need arose because the only thing they remember from taking their 3 years of a high school language class left them knowing how to say "Hi, my name is _____, how are you, and where is the nearest library?" Thankfully, you now have to pass an oral exam; a true test of proficiency in a second language.