Excelsior and California

RN34TX · Oct 22, 2005

Thank you for that post.

I have been wanting to hear from people trying to get jobs in CA after all of this happened.

It's hard to figure out how widespread or common any of it is when you're not actually there.

I never know if someone is just going by what they've heard or what one hospital is doing and then turn around and write posts that it's going on "everywhere".

A nurse recruiter from TX once wrote a post here that EC was not considered a valid degree and that hospitals in TX didn't hire them but I got an offer from every hospital I interviewed at and was offered an interview at every place I applied at so obviously her statements were over exaggerated if not completely inaccurate.

Hope other recent EC RN's in CA will share their experiences.

pinefarmgirl · Nov 21, 2005

Hi Pedinurse- I'm just curious; you don't mention what happened when you went to BON to get your California license? I am wondering if I get EC degree and RN license in another state, after working for awhile, will they deny your license?

Sheri257 · Nov 21, 2005

I am wondering if I get EC degree and RN license in another state, after working for awhile, will they deny your license?

If you enrolled after December 6, 2003, then they will deny your license. It doesn't make any difference if you work in another state or not.

:coollook:

Sheri257 · Nov 21, 2005

It's hard to figure out how widespread or common any of it is when you're not actually there.
I never know if someone is just going by what they've heard or what one hospital is doing and then turn around and write posts that it's going on "everywhere".

If you're an experienced acute care LVN, you probably won't have any trouble getting hired. If you're fresh out of LVN school and don't have any experience, or you're an LTC LVN, or you're not an LVN at all ... then I think you might have some problems getting hired in California with the EC degree.

Of course, there's always exceptions but that's usually how it breaks down ... at least according to the six recruiters I've talked to on the subject.

:coollook:

pedinurse05 · Nov 21, 2005

Hi Pedinurse- I'm just curious; you don't mention what happened when you went to BON to get your California license? I am wondering if I get EC degree and RN license in another state, after working for awhile, will they deny your license?

I had no problems when I applied for licensure because I enrolled in the EC program before the deadline of December 6, 2003. I have had several job offers and no one has even brought up anything about where I went to school--not once. I have taken a job in a large level one trauma children's hospital. The job situation here in California relating to Excelsior--take it with a grain of salt. I see others posting it will be hard to find a job--simply not the case in my situation. In orientation I sat next to a traditional nursing school grad who had recently passed the NCLEX on the 3rd attempt. I passed 1st time with 75 questions. At my other job I was the only new grad to pass PBDS (a computer based critical thinking program--do a search on this site to get some info about it) on the first try. Excelsior is what you make it to be. I wanted to learn and not just to pass the exams. I had 10 years of LVN experience. The program worked well in my situation. It may hold some truth about difficult job hunting if you have no LVN experience and graduate from EC--this was not my situation, so I can't report on any experience related to that.

Missy

Jo Dirt · Nov 25, 2005

If you enrolled after December 6, 2003, then they will deny your license. It doesn't make any difference if you work in another state or not.

I talked with a licensing analyst from California and was told that while they do not accept EC grads anymore as a rule, they look at each applicant and while it may be a pain in the neck it is still possible to become licensed if you enrolled after the cut off date. You would have to contact the board directly to get a full explanation.

Sheri257 · Nov 25, 2005

I talked with a licensing analyst from California and was told that while they do not accept EC grads anymore as a rule, they look at each applicant and while it may be a pain in the neck it is still possible to become licensed if you enrolled after the cut off date. You would have to contact the board directly to get a full explanation.

Well ... we've talked about this before. If you want to believe the word of one analyst then, that's your choice but, the board's posted policy on this issue is pretty clear.

I don't know why they would go to the trouble of having all of those meetings, making the annoucement about their changed policy, not to mention allocating a lot of money to defend it in court ... if they were not going to follow it.

:coollook:

RN34TX · Nov 25, 2005

Well ... we've talked about this before. If you want to believe the word of one analyst then, that's your choice but, the board's posted policy on this issue is pretty clear.
I don't know why they would go to the trouble of having all of those meetings, making the annoucement about their changed policy, not to mention allocating a lot of money to defend it in court ... if they were not going to follow it.

Well that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not going to follow it.

By someone at the BNE saying that it might be a pain to do, but it still possible to get licensed after the enrollment cut-off date, might basically be saying that if someone actually found a school that put them through all of the required clinical rotations after getting an EC degree, could get licensed in CA.

They'd still be following their own policy if that were the case.

The vague information regarding these "possible" exceptions given by CA BNE members to people who call the BNE doesn't help the situation.

If in fact it is possible to get licensed as a post Dec. 2003 enrollee, the stipulations and requirements of such possible licensure should also be included in the BNE website info on this issue instead of telling people by phone that it is possible if one jumps through various hoops but is still not clear as to what those hoops are.

Sheri257 · Nov 26, 2005

The vague information regarding these "possible" exceptions given by CA BNE members to people who call the BNE doesn't help the situation. If in fact it is possible to get licensed as a post Dec. 2003 enrollee, the stipulations and requirements of such possible licensure should also be included in the BNE website info on this issue instead of telling people by phone that it is possible if one jumps through various hoops but is still not clear as to what those hoops are.

Who knows exactly what's actually being said when people call the board. While there could be problem with misinformation, it could also be a case of people hearing what they want to hear, versus what's actually said. In the last two years, there's been more than one thread where various people call the board with this same question, but each person posts a completely different version of what they've been told. In the end, it's nothing more than rumor.

Since this topic keeps coming up, it's pretty obvious that people are desperately looking for a way to get licensed in California. You can't discount the possibility that some of this may be wishful thinking, rather than the way things really are, because people want things to be different.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what the board officially puts in writing but ... nobody seems to want to hear that because they're still in denial. If people want to rely on message boards where the board supposedly said this or that ... well ... that's kind of crazy. Especially when it contradicts the official published policy.

Maybe somebody should write a letter and post the official board response in this forum. Maybe it would settle the issue once and for all or ... maybe not.

:coollook:

pedinurse05 · Nov 26, 2005

Who knows exactly what's actually being said when people call the board. While there could be problem with misinformation, it could also be a case of people hearing what they want to hear, versus what's actually said. In the last two years, there's been more than one thread where various people call the board with this same question, but each person posts a completely different version of what they've been told. In the end, it's nothing more than rumor.
Since this topic keeps coming up, it's pretty obvious that people are desperately looking for a way to get licensed in California. You can't discount the possibility that some of this may be wishful thinking, rather than the way things really are, because people want things to be different.
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what the board officially puts in writing but ... nobody seems to want to hear that because they're still in denial. If people want to rely on message boards where the board supposedly said this or that ... well ... that's kind of crazy. Especially when it contradicts the official published policy.
Maybe somebody should write a letter and post the official board response in this forum. Maybe it would settle the issue once and for all or ... maybe not.

When I called the board in August they said there was no exceptions to the ruling. One had to be enrolled by the December 06, 2003 date--and this must reflect on the transcripts. Fortunately, I made that date and have had no problems obtaining licensure and finding a nice job. I, however, did not speak with a licensing analyst...they may know things the people answering the phones don't. If they have ways to get licensed after the deadline date they should post in on their web page. I didn't see anything on there. I really think they are set with this decision but could see a possible exception if one did so many clinical hours with supervision. Who knows...but again, I think they are pretty firm in this ruling.

Missy

Sheri257 · Nov 26, 2005

When I called the board in August they said there was no exceptions to the ruling. One had to be enrolled by the December 06, 2003 date--and this must reflect on the transcripts. Fortunately, I made that date and have had no problems obtaining licensure and finding a nice job.

This is my point exactly. People who made the cutoff date ... and, therefore, have no problem getting licensed, almost always report that there are no exceptions to the policy when they have called the board.

But people who didn't make the cutoff date almost always claim that the board is willing to make some kind of exception. Or ... there's some other way to get around it because ... I suspect ... that's what they want to hear. They want to believe that the board will license them, even if that's not the case.

If you read the board announcement, and all of the board minutes on this issue, the only way to get licensed is to attend a program that meets all the requirements including theory concurrent with clinical.

Going through additional clinicals after the fact is not going to meet the concurrent with theory requirement, unless you go through a traditional program. But some people just don't want to accept that fact.

I don't blame people for wanting things to be different. It's got to be very frustrating to have spent a lot of time and money on a degree that won't get you licensed in a major state like California.

But wishful thinking and false hope doesn't help anybody either.

:coollook: