For-Profit, Nonselective NP Schools are Hurting Our Reputation and Credibility

For-profit, nonselective NP programs are becoming more and more popular, and I wanted to share my thoughts and what I have learned from my experience and the experience of others.

Updated:  

The difference between nurse practitioner (NP) programs has become a topic of interest, and for good reason.  I am going to highlight some of the significant differences between the NP Program that I attended and the program attended by three friends. To provide some background information, the program I completed is a highly rated NP Program from a nonprofit, selective university. My NP Program holds a high ranking on US News & World Report and is considered one of the best in the state. Three of my friends attended one of the largest, for-profit, nonselective nursing universities in the United States.

Within the first year of each of us starting our NP Program, it became apparent that the grading standards and effort required of each of us varied significantly. These variations and inconsistencies grew as we navigated towards graduation. During the more difficult semesters in my own DNP program, I was putting in 100 or more hours for each proctored exam to earn the 85% minimum passing grade. I became frustrated with how easily my friends seemed to pass the classes in their programs, while my program seemed to require endless hours of nonstop studying, isolation, and sacrifice.

My friends and I frequently shared advice on studying methods, time management, and textbook resources. It wasn't until I was asked to read over a friend's research paper for a health policy course that I had to question the integrity of these for-profit, nonselective NP programs. My friend's paper was written at a remedial level of English, with multiple grammatical and punctuation errors. I was stunned. This was the work of a second-year GRADUATE nursing student. I returned my friend's paper with a list of recommended edits and revisions. She thanked me but dismissed my comments, stating that her school did not require "any of those things" and that she had received near-perfect scores on her previous papers. The edits I recommended included the proper use of 'their' and 'there,’ corrections for run-on and fragmented sentences, comma placement, misspelled words, and APA citations. She ultimately decided not to apply my corrections and submitted her paper as it was. I was shocked when she received yet another 'A' to add to her academic repertoire. Meanwhile, my professors returned papers ungraded if there was an extra space at the end of a paragraph. What was happening?

For-profit, nonselective NP programs have become popular, albeit expensive, avenues to obtain a nurse practitioner degree. Admission requirements are minimal. There are no admissions essays. No letters of recommendation are needed. The minimum GPA requirement is lower than that of a selective program, and there are exceptions available if a student does not meet the minimum GPA.

The coursework in for-profit, nonselective NP programs is also different. While turning in a poorly written paper in a nonprofit, selective NP course will get the student a quick referral to the writing lab with a mandatory re-write, the same poorly written paper in a nonselective NP course may earn the student an 'A.’ This would be less concerning if the instructors provided detailed feedback about the mistakes made and how to correct them. From what I have witnessed, these students either continue to make the same writing errors or rely on the 'copy' and 'paste' functions to complete their notes after they transition to clinical practice.

The exams in a for-profit, nonselective NP Program do not carry the same weighted grades as they do in selective NP programs. For example, a student can fail every proctored exam with a score as low as zero in a nonselective program and still pass the class with an 80%. In contrast, courses in a selective NP Program consist of exam scores only. NP courses in for-profit, nonselective programs are graded using an 80/20 ratio of assignments and exams, with exams making up only 20% of the total grade. It is not uncommon for students in these nonselective NP programs to fail (receive a score less than 80%) half or more of their exams and still go on to graduate.

What is surprising to me is that many intelligent and competent nurses intentionally choose for-profit, nonselective NP programs from a pool of higher quality, lower-cost programs. What is the appeal? Is it the simplicity of the admissions process? Are they intimidated by the competitive programs? Do they think the program will be too difficult?

An internet search for NP programs will produce several heavily advertised for-profit, nonselective programs. These schools allocate more money to marketing and recruitment efforts than they do to hiring and retaining well-qualified, experienced faculty. I find this highly concerning. The quality of the faculty may be the reason that some students are graduating from NP programs with subpar writing skills and enough clinical knowledge to pass the board exam but not much else. It is no wonder why most for-profit, nonselective schools provide high-priced, intense board review prep courses to all their NP students after graduation. Passing rates would surely decline without this provision.

Recruiters and employers seldomly know the difference in quality between NP programs, which I found highly frustrating. This could be good or bad, depending on the individual's education, skills, and abilities. This idea that all nurse practitioners are held to the same standard is both inaccurate and harmful. What that standard IS remains the concern. It is especially disappointing to share my degree - a degree that I hold in high esteem - with others who have poor reading and writing abilities.

Several articles have been published in the last two years questioning the quality of NP education. The perceived level of difficulty in nurse practitioner programs has been under fire, as physicians have been skeptical of the NP student's ability to be employed full-time while attending a full-time program. This criticism hurts us all, as it implies that NP programs have become too easy. While I take offense to this, I cannot say that this is entirely off-base. I attended a nonprofit, selective NP Program. My program was not easy in any aspect. No students were permitted to fail an exam without failing the class. My professors rarely awarded grades of 100% to ANY student on ANY assignment. Papers with grammar and punctuation errors were not accepted, let alone graded. There were approximately 36 students in my graduating class. In contrast, my friends were among a graduating class of more than 600.

I understand that nurse practitioners do not have to be high-performing academic scholars to be good providers. However, for-profit, nonselective schools may negatively impact our profession in the future. The reality is that nonselective NP programs are graduating far more nurse practitioners than selective programs. That is not surprising when you consider that nonprofit NP programs are competitive and have a low acceptance rate, while most for-profit NP programs have 90-100% acceptance rates. The for-profit, nonselective NP programs are not just attracting nurses with lower GPAs. Despite the comparatively higher cost of attendance, these programs attract nurses with high GPAs, as well. When the entry-level pay for nurse practitioners does not factor in the student's program, there is little incentive to attend a selective school that is historically more difficult and will require more effort. This negates the work of those of us graduating from reputable programs. This can and does affect NP entry-level salaries and negotiating power. This can damage the credibility of new nurse practitioners. This directly affects our campaign to obtain full practice authority in all states. This trend is something we need to put to an end.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
25 minutes ago, Tegridy said:

Essentially if NP education keeps sliding I may just do med mal. 

The very first NP I met was around 1981.  He was military and superb.  That was before "distance" education.  So. maybe unfairly, I expect everyone to measure up to him.  

9 hours ago, FiremedicMike said:

Even before covid, many MD/DO programs had lectures that weren't mandatory, thus weren't attended at all.  There are a very large chunk of medical students who listen to their lectures on 2x speed while doing other things, if they listen to them at all.

Online vs in-person shouldn't be the argument, the strength of the material is what's important.  Everyone posting here has been through college, many of us have multiple degrees.  We've all had online or blended classes that were top tier and in-person classes that were garbage.  

It is possible to have excellent online coursework, it's just difficult and so many educators are just plain lazy or incompetent on how to create quality online content.

 

Listen to people who have done this. You guys are missing the forest through the trees. NP education, admissions and boards are objectively inadequate.

This isn’t an online education debate. The bar for being a medical provider is much much higher.

All those med students will have 3 board exams minimum and thousands and thousands of clinical hours with constant evaluation. NPs do not.

 

Specializes in Dialysis.
38 minutes ago, subee said:

The very first NP I met was around 1981.  He was military and superb.  That was before "distance" education.  So. maybe unfairly, I expect everyone to measure up to him.  

I expect the same excellence from my providers, everyone should

1 hour ago, Numenor said:

Listen to people who have done this. You guys are missing the forest through the trees. NP education, admissions and boards are objectively inadequate.

This isn’t an online education debate. The bar for being a medical provider is much much higher.

All those med students will have 3 board exams minimum and thousands and thousands of clinical hours with constant evaluation. NPs do not.

 

They don't need to. They do not diagnose and treat the same elements. I agree people are missing the forest through the trees; NPs are mid-level practitioners that are not designed or trained to handle the heavy level trauma and other advanced ailments that MDs do, hence the thousands of clinical hours with constant evaluation that they receive whereas NPs do not.

4 hours ago, subee said:

At LEAST half of the hours required of the original advanced practice nurses..the CRNA's who have, until recent years have let the standards slide BUT not because they have decreased the amount of clinical hours required.  A practice cannot be considered advanced with such abysmal clinical requirements; especially so for people who enter without any nursing experience., that which can't be taught.  That intuition that tells you this patient is approaching a crisis.  When a young, healthy s/p cholecystectomy keeps coming back with complaints but isn't crashing just yet (as young, healthy patients are want to do) because that former office worker can't intuit that something is wrong here because they've never seen a sick person before.  That exact scenario happened in Albany a few decades ago.  That young, healthy patient died because a NP didn't have enough experience to see it coming.  There's so much wrong with so many of our irresponsible NP programs.

Remember Heather O'Rourke -the child from the Poltergeist? She went to the doctor with complaints of abdominal pain. The MD brushed it off and stated it was a stomach bug from well water. She was dead is less than a year due to intestinal stenosis. She too was young and relatively healthy right until she died. Mis-diagnoses can happen to any provider MD, NP or otherwise. This is why cost as much as it does. So, there a lot of opinions stating that NP requirements should be higher but not a single person has posted what they should look like. .. . .

11 hours ago, FiremedicMike said:

Ah but you bring up an excellent point..

Your average bicycle rider doesn't care about the physics of anything.  The details of how many foot-lbs of torque are required to do this or that (don't ask me to explain, I hated physics).  The bikemakers, on the other hand, should know all of the useless details so that they can innovate and make new bicycles that are more efficient and higher quality.

People practicing at the provider level need to be the bicycle makers.  They need to know the fine details.  Their critical thinking should incorporate subconscious knowledge of the little things, otherwise they're just bicycle riders, recognizing patterns and following flow-sheets, doing the same old things that have always been done.

That position would make sense if all bikes were the same with differentiation for age or gender. Tricycle manufacturers make their product for a specific population. The folks that make bikes for kids, make them for children so forth and so on. NPs have a specific population that they are trained to see, however, the consensus is although they don't paid like MDs they need to be trained like one.

23 hours ago, Tegridy said:

Family NP is dedicated to one  discipline? Peds to geriatrics?

Yep, when you submit your paperwork to the board of nursing, your program and treatment population has to be in alignment. You can't do 500 hours in pediatrics and tell them you want to do adult gerontology. And those requirements are state-specific:

image.thumb.png.114fea0f20b10f9535ad44f95b9dae0a.png

22 hours ago, Numenor said:

I hit 160 hours in 2 weeks of fellowship....that's 1/3 of a FNP program...

I think I have outlined better standards ad nauseum in my previous posts on various threads. Frankly, anything is better than the trash pile we have now.

A lot of folks are saying that but not saying what better looks like

6 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

A lot of folks are saying that but not saying what better looks like

I have literally posted ways to improve 100 times and I am tired of doing it over and over. Read my post history.  

22 hours ago, JKL33 said:

 

Can you clarify?

NPs are clearly being hired into roles once restricted to MD/DO, but MD space has a lot more to worry about and their brains are full of way more information and the NP is dedicated to one "discipline" (which one is that, by the way)?

And that all sounds hunky dory?

I'd say so. A lot of folks are comparing MD training to NP training and those two are apples and oranges. NP only has one population focus whereas MD is the spectrum. An MD will spend 160 hours on a specific population the first year of medical school and never re-visit because they are rotating the next treatment group. The requirements (the 500 minimum hours a lot posters are complaining about) are state-specific and they are dictated by the respective boards of nursing, not the schools:

image.thumb.png.92f73188ba406233d66123e8906a25b7.png

On 10/14/2022 at 9:23 AM, DrNurseCNS said:

My point is that 500 hours of clinical preceptorship is an arbitrary number that schools use so that their graduates are eligible to sit for the national certifying exam. It's not about whether it's an adequate or inadequate number of hours, it's the minimum required number.  It's just a fact. Many schools (including mine) require more hours from their graduates, but the MINIMUM is 500.

Preceptors and preceptorships are just like schools. There is a lot of variability in the quality.

Actually its not that number comes from the states' respective boards of nursing:image.thumb.png.402545c41d500cd5e66b05fe73d83f83.png

you can more than the minimum but that would have no bearing on licensing.

39 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

They don't need to. They do not diagnose and treat the same elements. I agree people are missing the forest through the trees; NPs are mid-level practitioners that are not designed or trained to handle the heavy level trauma and other advanced ailments that MDs do, hence the thousands of clinical hours with constant evaluation that they receive whereas NPs do not.

This is not correct. If you think NPs are all working with supervising physicians and getting softball cases all day you are wrong. 

There is no credentialing legalese directing or supporting anything you are saying.

Also who determines an easy case? You know how many easy cases I have seen turn into train wrecks? A lot. You realize you need proper training and experience to determine easy from not easy.