Do I REALLY need a BSN?

allnurses Guide · Apr 11, 2018

I can't not publish their name for the same reason you won't reveal your real name. I have published links to the research rebutting Aiken's study on other threads concerning this topic. I work for a living and don't have the time to spend hunting for them now. You may feel free to go and hunt for them.

I am willing to bet I can spend 5 minutes, look through your post history, and confirm that you have never posted a link to a peer-reviewed study that refutes any of Aiken's work, but that burden is on you.

What you "have the time" for is:

1. Making up fake quotes to try and pass them off as the authors.

2. Peddle hearsay and conspiracy theory.

3. Make fake claims.

4. Avoid/dodge questions asking for proof.

elkpark · Apr 11, 2018

I can't not publish their name for the same reason you won't reveal your real name.

People who are serving as elected presidents of state nurses' associations are basically public figures (who chose to take on that role) who make public statements on a regular basis. No reason to be so bashful about protecting anyone's anonymity. That ship left the harbor when the individual chose to run for that office.

allnurses Guide · Apr 11, 2018

I vowed to myself to stay out of this argument, but as of now I've failed....:-/ I'll just make the hopefully benign observation that market forces have largely obviated the need for schools to push hard on the BSN, as hospitals in large urban areas have such a large pool of applicants these days it makes sense for them to hire the highest-degreed individual, especially if they aren't going to pay them much more than they would an associate-degree nurse.

Most of us offering advice to prospective nursing students suggest getting the BSN for strictly practical reasons, whatever we think of the validity of Aiken's 2003 study.

It seems we had "patient outcomes" threads every two weeks for years, but now I hardly see any.

avengingspirit1 · Apr 13, 2018

I am willing to bet I can spend 5 minutes, look through your post history, and confirm that you have never posted a link to a peer-reviewed study that refutes any of Aiken's work, but that burden is on you.
What you "have the time" for is:
1. Making up fake quotes to try and pass them off as the authors.
2. Peddle hearsay and conspiracy theory.
3. Make fake claims.
4. Avoid/dodge questions asking for proof.

That means a lot to me coming from someone who a few years ago, in their usual smug way, bragged about whether they were going for a doctorate in Psychology or Nurse Practitioner because they knew they were only going to have to pay back only a portion of the tuition. I also suspect from reading between the lines, that you or your spouse probably had friends, acquaintances or connections on the admission committee so the application process was merely just a formality for you. Now you boss around young 20 somethings who have to cow-tow to your ego for an good evaluation. You or no one else is going to stop me from putting the truth of this study out there. So you can insult me all you want. And I won't stop until I stir more nurses into action. I met with a reporter a coupe of years ago and can do more this time. There are thousands of real working nurses that agree. These are some of the facts I'm putting out there; and I invite anyone to read the study for themselves.

. The authors simply took the template they had for a previous study on nurse to patient ratios and mortality rates and by their own admission, manipulated the data no less than 133 times supposedly without bias to make it fit the mold for the BSN study. The authors also admitted to excluding hospitals that didn't fit their data set. The criteria for the inclusion of certain data for the study was based solely on the discretion of the "so-called" 'experts' creating the study. And all those 'experts' were backed by those with pro-BSN agendas such as the AACN (American Assoc. of Colleges of Nursing). But they insist that you have to trust their 'independent verification' that the results weren't biased. They took all this manipulated data and ran a logistics regression model to see what MIGHT happen if they was a 10% increase in BSN RNS.

Now if you disagree with those facts which are in the study itself, well that's too bad.

avengingspirit1 · Apr 13, 2018

I vowed to myself to stay out of this argument, but as of now I've failed....:-/ I'll just make the hopefully benign observation that market forces have largely obviated the need for schools to push hard on the BSN, as hospitals in large urban areas have such a large pool of applicants these days it makes sense for them to hire the highest-degreed individual, especially if they aren't going to pay them much more than they would an associate-degree nurse.
Most of us offering advice to prospective nursing students suggest getting the BSN for strictly practical reasons, whatever we think of the validity of Aiken's 2003 study.
It seems we had "patient outcomes" threads every two weeks for years, but now I hardly see any.

I agree with you. And employers have the right to choose whatever candidates they want. There is no shortage of nurses right now. That may change as more baby-boomer nurses retire. I just don't believe that any nurse with 20+ years of experience and specialty certifications should be forced to go back and get a BSN within a certain time frame or risk termination. But that is between the nurses and their employers.

allnurses Guide · Apr 14, 2018

And I won't stop until I stir more nurses into action. I met with a reporter a coupe of years ago and can do more this time. There are thousands of real working nurses that agree. These are some of the facts I'm putting out there; and I invite anyone to read the study for themselves.

Do you think you are really "stirring" any nurses into action? Where is the link to the news story from your meeting with the reporter a couple years ago?

You say you are putting the "facts" out there. What are those facts? Cite them here, as you have been asked to do numerous times before.

The authors simply took the template they had for a previous study on nurse to patient ratios and mortality rates and by their own admission, manipulated the data no less than 133 times supposedly without bias to make it fit the mold for the BSN study.

The 2011 Aiken study which I assume you are talking about used pre-existing raw data from a prior nursing survey; they used this data in a novel way. This is very common in research and it in no way implies the study is invalid. Again, consider the thousands of studies that use NHANES data.

Cite the paper where the authors say they manipulated the data 133 times. Cite the quote right here.

The authors also admitted to excluding hospitals that didn't fit their data set. The criteria for the inclusion of certain data for the study was based solely on the discretion of the "so-called" 'experts' creating the study.

Here is the actual exclusion criterion:

"The hospitals included in our sample represent 86% of all general acute hospitals in the four states and account for over 90% of all adult general, vascular, and orthopedic surgical patient discharges in those states. Hospitals not analyzed are primarily small hospitals with fewer than 10 nurse respondents, which we regard as too few to provide reliable estimates of the hospital-level nursing characteristics of interest." - Aiken et al. (2011)

And all those 'experts' were backed by those with pro-BSN agendas such as the AACN (American Assoc. of Colleges of Nursing).

Here is the actual funding information:

"Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health (R01NR04513, Linda H. Aiken, PI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the College of Nursing, University of Florida. "

But they insist that you have to trust their 'independent verification' that the results weren't biased.

Show us where the bias is; cite the study where you feel that it is biased.

They took all this manipulated data and ran a logistics regression model to see what MIGHT happen if they was a 10% increase in BSN RNS.

You understand what a logistic regression is right?

Now if you disagree with those facts which are in the study itself, well that's too bad.

There are no "facts" here.

avengingspirit1 · Apr 15, 2018

Do you think you are really "stirring" any nurses into action? Where is the link to the news story from your meeting with the reporter a couple years ago?
You say you are putting the "facts" out there. What are those facts? Cite them here, as you have been asked to do numerous times before.
The 2011 Aiken study which I assume you are talking about used pre-existing raw data from a prior nursing survey; they used this data in a novel way. This is very common in research and it in no way implies the study is invalid. Again, consider the thousands of studies that use NHANES data.
Cite the paper where the authors say they manipulated the data 133 times. Cite the quote right here.
Here is the actual exclusion criterion:
"The hospitals included in our sample represent 86% of all general acute hospitals in the four states and account for over 90% of all adult general, vascular, and orthopedic surgical patient discharges in those states. Hospitals not analyzed are primarily small hospitals with fewer than 10 nurse respondents, which we regard as too few to provide reliable estimates of the hospital-level nursing characteristics of interest." - Aiken et al. (2011)
Here is the actual funding information:
"Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health (R01NR04513, Linda H. Aiken, PI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the College of Nursing, University of Florida. "
Show us where the bias is; cite the study where you feel that it is biased.
You understand what a logistic regression is right?
There are no "facts" here.

The facts are in the study itself; but you have to know have to sift through all the corporate-speak. Something you don't seem to be able to do. It requires thinking outside the box, which is how most problems in the real world get solved. And by the way I said "backed" not funded. There is a difference which involves simple reading comprehension. Get away from the corporate-speak, learn to think for yourself, then post post me back. And yes, I've seen many other sites and blogs and plenty of nurses are angry. And I will keep pushing till there's more spotlight on this specific topic. There has been much recent news about the expense and nonsense going on at four year schools. Move away from sheltered thought and read about it.

allnurses Guide · Apr 15, 2018

The facts are in the study itself; but you have to know have to sift through all the corporate-speak. Something you don't seem to be able to do. It requires thinking outside the box, which is how most problems in the real world get solved. And by the way I said "backed" not funded. There is a difference which involves simple reading comprehension. Get away from the corporate-speak, learn to think for yourself, then post post me back. And yes, I've seen many other sites and blogs and plenty of nurses are angry. And I will keep pushing till there's more spotlight on this specific topic. There has been much recent news about the expense and nonsense going on at four year schools. Move away from sheltered thought and read about it.

Cite sources.

TiffyRN, BSN, PhD · Apr 16, 2018

I'm still waiting on the "breaking news" we have been promised for years exposing the conspiracy of nursing academia. I swear I'll send you a Starbucks gift card if it ever comes out and they will verify that "avenging spirit" was their deep throat.

allnurses Guide · Apr 17, 2018

I'm still waiting on the "breaking news" we have been promised for years exposing the conspiracy of nursing academia. I swear I'll send you a Starbucks gift card if it ever comes out and they will verify that "avenging spirit" was their deep throat.

Now it's time to sit back and wait for the attack. :)