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.

On 10/15/2022 at 8:55 PM, nitenurse said:

They don't need to. 1. They do not diagnose and treat the same elements. I agree people are missing the forest through the trees; 2. 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.

(Numbering for clarity)

1. That is only very partially true. There are plenty of NPs who are indeed seeing patients that MDs in their same population focus would see, and referring what MDs in their specialty would refer. Generally speaking. We are seeing undifferentiated complaints and working through them. We are providing chronic care to very sick people. Sometimes our "easier" patients even have really bad stuff happen and they're still our patients. No one swoops in and says it's over our head. New patient requests can go to any provider.  There's no one requesting records ahead of time and saying, "yep, this patient will be appropriate for an NP."

2. Again only partially sort of true. Current practice may not be what was originally intended - what happened is the intention was changed but the education and training didn't keep up. In fact many feel it has gone downhill. I assume you are also aware that many patients referred by MDs to specialists now see APPs when they get to the specialist--the one who supposedly has more education and training to handle bigger problems?

I still don't know why you're saying there is a single population focus. What is the single population focus of a family nurse practitioner? And more to the point, what is the difference in the population seen by a family med MD and an FNP that justifies the discrepancy in educational preparation and training?

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.
18 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

(Numbering for clarity)

1. That is only very partially true. There are plenty of NPs who are indeed seeing patients that MDs in their same population focus would see, and referring what MDs in their specialty would refer. Generally speaking. We are seeing undifferentiated complaints and working through them. We are providing chronic care to very sick people. Sometimes our "easier" patients even have really bad stuff happen and they're still our patients. No one swoops in and says it's over our head. New patient requests can go to any provider.  There's no one requesting records ahead of time and saying, "yep, this patient will be appropriate for an NP."

2. Again only partially sort of true. Current practice may not be what was originally intended - what happened is the intention was changed but the education and training didn't keep up. In fact many feel it has gone downhill. I assume you are also aware that many patients referred by MDs to specialists now see APPs when they get to the specialist--the one who supposedly has more education and training to handle bigger problems?

I still don't know why you're saying there is a single population focus. What is the single population focus of a family nurse practitioner? And more to the point, what is the difference in the population seen by a family med MD and an FNP that justifies the discrepancy in educational preparation and training?

I never understood the FNP role. The provider specialty should be as narrow as it can get but broad enough to manage the undifferentiated patient. Even family medicine doesn’t make sense. It’s better to separate out adult and pediatric medicine. ED is the only specialty that has the inability to completely do that though there are peds EDs also. Family medicine docs miss out on most of the Sub specialty training IM gets since they spend their time doing peds, OB, and nursery type stuff. It’s just not the same. Kids are wayyyyy too different from adults. I’m a bit biased but it makes a difference when internal spends 12 months at least doing subspecialty medicine versus pediatric and ob stuff. 

35 minutes ago, Tegridy said:

I never understood the FNP role. The provider specialty should be as narrow as it can get but broad enough to manage the undifferentiated patient. Even family medicine doesn’t make sense. It’s better to separate out adult and pediatric medicine. ED is the only specialty that has the inability to completely do that though there are peds EDs also. Family medicine docs miss out on most of the Sub specialty training IM gets since they spend their time doing peds, OB, and nursery type stuff. It’s just not the same. Kids are wayyyyy too different from adults. I’m a bit biased but it makes a difference when internal spends 12 months at least doing subspecialty medicine versus pediatric and ob stuff. 

I agree. I have worked with IM and FM residents. The differences during inpatient rotations are stark.

2 hours ago, JKL33 said:

(Numbering for clarity)

1. That is only very partially true. There are plenty of NPs who are indeed seeing patients that MDs in their same population focus would see, and referring what MDs in their specialty would refer. Generally speaking. We are seeing undifferentiated complaints and working through them. We are providing chronic care to very sick people. Sometimes our "easier" patients even have really bad stuff happen and they're still our patients. No one swoops in and says it's over our head. New patient requests can go to any provider.  There's no one requesting records ahead of time and saying, "yep, this patient will be appropriate for an NP."

2. Again only partially sort of true. Current practice may not be what was originally intended - what happened is the intention was changed but the education and training didn't keep up. In fact many feel it has gone downhill. I assume you are also aware that many patients referred by MDs to specialists now see APPs when they get to the specialist--the one who supposedly has more education and training to handle bigger problems?

I still don't know why you're saying there is a single population focus. What is the single population focus of a family nurse practitioner? And more to the point, what is the difference in the population seen by a family med MD and an FNP that justifies the discrepancy in educational preparation and training?

1. Seeing them and treating them are two different things. They see them to refer them so I don't count that as an actionable item since nothing diagnostically significant was performed. The exception would be the ER.

2. Yes, I sure do. I believe the thinking was save the actually sick people (I.e rare conditions, cancers, etc.) for the individuals with all of those years of schooling. Again, for the type of population that fits within the scope of practice for the NP, I don't see how adding more schooling and training will improve outcomes in any measurable form.

7 hours ago, Numenor said:

I also work on a committee to hire NPs/APPs. We can’t fill positions because most of the resumes we get are bloated BS or woefully inadequate. Most of the NPs can’t even answer our basic clinical questions during an interview. 
 

It is embarrassing.

There is quite a bit missing from that broad critique. Are these new graduates? What is the population focus? Bloated with what? certifications? If a NP/AAP doesn't fit the bill as you claim, then why not just hire an MD to fill the void since clearly an NP wouldn't cut it.

It sounds like a square peg in a round hole if your committee keeps trying to fill a position with no success -that should be the embarrassing part.

9 hours ago, Numenor said:

Serious question. Are you an NP? Do you currently work as one? Comparing a new grad nurse to an NP is a completely out of of touch case of apples and oranges.

You can’t “boot camp” a NP over a couple months like a new RN. 
 

Also noted that you asked for examples of improvement which I posted and you didn’t respond. You dodge the answers and rely on the mid level/minimum standards theorem which is not applicable to how medical practice actually works. Furthermore an easy case isn’t always a easy case. Medicine isn’t always a fast track ER. Even standing by the “mid level” stance, 500 hours with a bloated/anemic curriculum isn’t even enough to justify that title. A title which isn’t even really used anymore if we want to get specific. It’s APP.

Its weird how people who have never done the job defend it with the most bizarre justifications.

 

Sure am and have been for years; I started in a level 1 trauma center ER and went from there.  And I'm not following the rest of your statement. I asked questions that were and still not have been answered, however, you stated I dodged answers. . ..to what? my own questions? And the rest of your post, I really don't know what you're going with that so it may be weird how people who haver never done the job defend it with the most bizarre justifications, however, I am not one of them. 

47 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

1. Seeing them and treating them are two different things. They see them to refer them so I don't count that as an actionable item since nothing diagnostically significant was performed. The exception would be the ER.

What, seriously, are you talking about.

You're just shooting back with things that don't make any sense. What in the world do you mean "they see them to refer them?"

Is that your contention, that NP education is okay because they don't perform anything that is diagnostically significant and don't "treat" anyone, unless they work in the ER?

If so I think we're being trolled.

Specializes in Dialysis.
5 hours ago, JKL33 said:

What, seriously, are you talking about.

You're just shooting back with things that don't make any sense. What in the world do you mean "they see them to refer them?"

Is that your contention, that NP education is okay because they don't perform anything that is diagnostically significant and don't "treat" anyone, unless they work in the ER?

If so I think we're being trolled.

Yes, trolled or the poster is lacking intelligence and common sense. I suspect troll though...

I'm not a NP (no desire to be one) and am put off by this posters comments

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

This has been an excellent discussion.  Lots of good thinking points. 

15 hours ago, nitenurse said:

There is quite a bit missing from that broad critique. Are these new graduates? What is the population focus? Bloated with what? certifications? If a NP/AAP doesn't fit the bill as you claim, then why not just hire an MD to fill the void since clearly an NP wouldn't cut it.

It sounds like a square peg in a round hole if your committee keeps trying to fill a position with no success -that should be the embarrassing part.

Pretty broad blush claim you got there. Especially coming from someone who seems to have zero experience in the arena.

ACNP only, new and “experienced”. But experience means nothing when their jobs were algorithmic or low level scut work. Bloated as in they borderline lied about their positions and duties when pressed. Have you never seen an inflated resume? MDs would be ideal but APPs are 50% of the cost for the same work in our roles.
 

What is actually also embarrassing is you continue to defend the NP education system which is clearly inadequate.

15 hours ago, nitenurse said:

Sure am and have been for years; I started in a level 1 trauma center ER and went from there.  And I'm not following the rest of your statement. I asked questions that were and still not have been answered, however, you stated I dodged answers. . ..to what? my own questions? And the rest of your post, I really don't know what you're going with that so it may be weird how people who haver never done the job defend it with the most bizarre justifications, however, I am not one of them. 

Yeah I doubt it, or you are just living in denial. We can be whatever we want on the net.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
On 10/16/2022 at 11:52 PM, nitenurse said:

There is quite a bit missing from that broad critique. Are these new graduates? What is the population focus? Bloated with what? certifications? If a NP/AAP doesn't fit the bill as you claim, then why not just hire an MD to fill the void since clearly an NP wouldn't cut it.

It sounds like a square peg in a round hole if your committee keeps trying to fill a position with no success -that should be the embarrassing part.

Are you aware there is an MD shortage?  Rural areas depend on the family practice guys and NP's.  Do you know many people live in rural areas because they can't afford to go anywhere else?  Even urban hospitals in undesirable areas have difficulty attracting medical staffs.....and Covid has made it all worst.  Wake up.

On 10/7/2022 at 2:23 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

Sounds like there's a movement toward mediocrity. Is that what our American system promotes in order to maintain healthy profit margins?

Some posters are actively calling for a movement toward mediocrity and it’s a fairly disgusting exhibition of the state of our career field. Doctors never say “we need more doctors, clearly our standards are too high”. They don’t move to shorten meds school or get rid of fundamental building blocks. They look for practical methods that help their field like fixing residency programs or finding business or loan focused methods to attract physicians. If anyone even insinuates we do too much to get to where we are as a profession, then god help your patients because you’re a disgrace at your chosen field. We are literally the bottom of the barrel in education and clinical expectations.