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.

2 hours ago, subee said:

No one has suggested that NP's need to go to med school but we can't keep foisting inexperienced, poorly educated people out on the market.  People will start hiring PA's because the upfront culling process eliminates the weaker students.  And those employers will be looking at the difference in clinical education.  They want more bang for their buck like everyone else.

Perhaps but that is any specialty in any discipline. There are hospitals and LTCs that will hire new nurse grads, put them through their 'boot camp' and send them on their way. Are they poorly educated? I don't think so just inexperienced. But this was the same thinking for MDs and we how that happened. They are in school for a decade and still have to pay through the nose for . So, where is the line drawn?

3 hours ago, subee said:

The Board does NOT determine how CRNA's are credentialed.  Can't work unless you are credentialed by AANA.

I was talking about NPs. .. . 

3 hours ago, subee said:

The Council of Accreditation determines the minimum clinical hours required to graduate.  After the classroom prerequisites, it is all anesthesia 5 days a week (plus call) until you graduate.  Of course, we need many times more NP's than than CRNA's so that model couldn't produce unless the government gets serious and provides interest free loans to experienced RN's to get them through school.  The way we pay physicians will never encourage medical students to choose primary care so we need to get the mid levels for stepping up to the plate.

Yes, I know. I just used this as example. I didn't have time to dig through the COA document to look for the specific guidance.  The whole point of the mid-levels was so that the MDs can concentrate on patient care worthy of their long schooling. That does not make one better than the other, it just made sense from a financial perspective.

https://www.coacrna.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Guidelines-for-Counting-Clinical-Experiences-Jan-2021.pdf

3 hours ago, subee said:

But minimum hours could affect credentialing.  A license is just the beginning to getting graduate training.

Each credential has its own standards, however, the a lot of the posters here are pointing finger at the schools for setting the 500 minimum clinical hour and its not the school, its the board that sets that.

3 hours ago, FiremedicMike said:

I’m not sure why you’re dragging me into your never ending “you’ve not been in my shoes so you don’t get an opinion” crusade that spans multiple threads, but I was merely responding to someone who chose to focus on online coursework as being the principal problem.

As a general point, I don't really give my opinion unless I have been there and done that. That is a pretty good policy. Same thing with military experience which I also have. As for the crusade, yeah crusades are generally needed when people come here with ZERO experience, delusional thoughts and preconceived notions that are abjectly and utterly wrong. Yet people will still defend them. It is a weird coping and or deflection mechanism for their life choices. It is okay to admit that an entire education system is broken. I understand why you are defensive, it is a natural human reaction when someone calls out the flaws in a life choice you are about to make.

I have an entirely online degree (humanities). Online has its uses and will be more of a thing in the future. Yes, med schools did and still use some online modalities, but I personally know ADCOMS/faculty in the MD/DO arena who are almost all for in-person primarily. Nearly all are back to mostly in-person classes. There are NP programs out there with ZERO campus visits and ALL online classes. That is a problem.

3 hours ago, Numenor said:

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.

 

No, I did not say that, imply that or anything close to it. I stated that minimum standards are set by nursing boards as demonstrated here:

image.thumb.png.07bfeed7d4c946c84a5a4e21663af4d9.png

And the licensing boards determine what is easy is since it is subjective term. Anything task is easy if you know how to do it or have a natural knack for it. Take a math savant, they have natural affinity for completing what can be considered complex math with little to no effort -proper training and experience is not necessary to determine what is easy in this situation. 

8 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

Each credential has its own standards, however, the a lot of the posters here are pointing finger at the schools for setting the 500 minimum clinical hour and its not the school, its the board that sets that.

Schools also can set higher standards for hours and enforce more campus visits, preceptor arrangements, preceptor oversight, sim labs etc but they don't. Weird.

3 hours ago, Numenor said:

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

Then why bother responding? Find your previous post and copy and paste if you feel that strongly about it otherwise read and keep going. . . .

Just now, Numenor said:

Schools also can set higher standards for hours and enforce more campus visits, preceptor arrangements, preceptor oversight, sim labs etc but they don't. Weird.

Which they absolutely do, however, when you look at the data, those graduates no better than ones that went through the minimums. There are a number of similar studies in the MD space when the question was asked does it make a difference which medical school one attends.

9 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

No, I did not say that, imply that or anything close to it. I stated that minimum standards are set by nursing boards as demonstrated here:

image.thumb.png.07bfeed7d4c946c84a5a4e21663af4d9.png

And the licensing boards determine what is easy is since it is subjective term. Anything task is easy if you know how to do it or have a natural knack for it. Take a math savant, they have natural affinity for completing what can be considered complex math with little to no effort -proper training and experience is not necessary to determine what is easy in this situation. 

Using substandard licensing board and credentialing requirements as low-tier meat shields is not an argument. This is a result of good lobbying not competence.

Schools need and can do better.

Some steps:

1.Not every nurse can be or should be a NP

2. Online is viable to some extent but should only be offered to local students for SOME classes.

3. NP programs need to have full accountability of preceptors and their quality. Students should NOT find or acquire their own.

4. NP admissions need a complete overhaul.  A BSN and a check shouldn't be the only requirements.

5. NP hours need expansion to at least 1500-2000

6. More NP residencies after graduation need to be created with govt assistance just like GME.

7. Nursing lobby bodies need to cool it on Independence

8. Science-based clinical classes and gross anatomy courses need to be introduced. Not just the lazy 3 Ps.

Here you go since you are just being obtuse at this point.

14 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

Then why bother responding? Find your previous post and copy and paste if you feel that strongly about it otherwise read and keep going. . . .

Which they absolutely do, however, when you look at the data, those graduates no better than ones that went through the minimums. There are a number of similar studies in the MD space when the question was asked does it make a difference which medical school one attends.

Meds schools and residencies are STANDARDIZED through GME/LCME with thousands of hours of requirements, required rotations, required curriculum and stringent residency standards. I am not surprised MDs feel little difference when it comes to this. NP schools vary wildly. 3ps and 500 hours, that is basically it. Oh and one "board" exam which is NCLEX tier difficulty. 

NOT even CLOSE to the same.

What studies? I would LOVE to see the methodology behind them. How would you quantify better? Have you ever trained alongside residents/med students and actually talked to them?

Specializes in CEN, Firefighter/Paramedic.
7 hours ago, Numenor said:

As a general point, I don't really give my opinion unless I have been there and done that. That is a pretty good policy. Same thing with military experience which I also have. As for the crusade, yeah crusades are generally needed when people come here with ZERO experience, delusional thoughts and preconceived notions that are abjectly and utterly wrong. Yet people will still defend them. It is a weird coping and or deflection mechanism for their life choices. It is okay to admit that an entire education system is broken. I understand why you are defensive, it is a natural human reaction when someone calls out the flaws in a life choice you are about to make.

I have an entirely online degree (humanities). Online has its uses and will be more of a thing in the future. Yes, med schools did and still use some online modalities, but I personally know ADCOMS/faculty in the MD/DO arena who are almost all for in-person primarily. Nearly all are back to mostly in-person classes. There are NP programs out there with ZERO campus visits and ALL online classes. That is a problem.

A whole lot of completely incorrect assumptions leading to inappropriate aggressive attacks. 

To clear it up for you (again) I was not commenting on for profit, low yield NP education, I was responding to a tangent about online education as a whole.  In fact, if you’d actually read any of the rest of what I’ve said in this thread, you’d know I care quite a bit about academic rigor.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
11 hours ago, nitenurse said:

You could if you were just doing colonoscopies. A lot of posters want to point the finger at the schools, however, its the boards of nursing that set the standards. So, if the board says 200 hours are enough to be an CRNA, then what?

What?  You think all colonoscopies are easy?  You must not be doing inpatient care in a tertiary facility.  These patients come to us very ill. Just shows that you have no idea what a CRNA does.  You do recognize that CRNA's are not required to have an MDA available in most circumstances?  Our nursing requires the presence of an MD but not an anesthesiologist.  I am not against anesthesiologists, but I do think we need a lot less of them except in academic centers.  And again, no nursing board can decide on the mininum number of hours a CRNA needs to be credentialed.  They CAN decide on the number of hours for undergrads earning an RN.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
8 hours ago, nitenurse said:

Each credential has its own standards, however, the a lot of the posters here are pointing finger at the schools for setting the 500 minimum clinical hour and its not the school, its the board that sets that.

And why is a board dictating what the educational standards are and not the profession itself?  I know you guys have more than one professional association and that is a problem.  I am enclosing one opinion pieces from the MD's point of view (we are just providing fodder for this kind of attack) and a page from a for-profit NP Program which requires just 17 hours a week clinical from the students.  Arghhh.  I can not attach the files.  Check out FNP program at US University and What's Going on with Nurse Practitioner Education? - Physicians for Patient Protection.

.