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 Emergency, Cardiac, PAT/SPU, Urgent Care.
subee said:

When we do hold our profession up to high standards, you will have a point.  That is the thrust of this thread....the lack of standards.  And it's fair game if an MD points that out to us.  We have left outselves open to legitimate criticism.  

As long as the criticism is constructive, I'm all for it. Speaking negatively about a profession in general is just extremely condescending. It has no place here. 

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
Spacklehead said:

As long as the criticism is constructive, I'm all for it. Speaking negatively about a profession in general is just extremely condescending. It has no place here. 

Can you give me an example of that?  I'm not sure to whom you are referring and I don't remember anyone criticizing the entire profession.  I thought we were discussing the for-profit programs here.

Specializes in Emergency, Cardiac, PAT/SPU, Urgent Care.
subee said:

Can you give me an example of that?  I'm not sure to whom you are referring and I don't remember anyone criticizing the entire profession.  I thought we were discussing the for-profit programs here.

Just go back to the last page and you will see it. Just look through several other NP threads and you will see it. Same game, different players year after year. It's petty and it gets old. 

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.
Spacklehead said:

Just go back to the last page and you will see it. Just look through several other NP threads and you will see it. Same game, different players year after year. It's petty and it gets old. 

I mean the standards haven't changed so why would someone stop voicing concerns?

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
Spacklehead said:

Just go back to the last page and you will see it. Just look through several other NP threads and you will see it. Same game, different players year after year. It's petty and it gets old. 

Does this mean that you are OK with the plethora of online, for-profit models that have appeared in the last decade or so?  IMHO, our profession deserves some condemnation for allowing this to happen.  This is no way disparages NP's as a whole.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
Tegridy said:

Yeah im not sure why they got triggered from the posts. A review of my posts include critique of medical education also as it has its flaws. Some of which they are fixing by nixing the heavy burden of basic sciences and putting in earlier patient exposure. By nixing I do not mean doing away with, but they are lightening up on biochem to keep it more clinically relevant. Same with histo and a few other classes. I could have done without much of the biochem specifics we had to memorize and forget. 

 

I mean you cant expect us to completely take APP education seriously when the social media nurses all get hot over "new interns starting July first watch out" but are perfectly fine with an APP w 500 hours of oftentimes shadowing having more freedom than the said intern. Hence why there is a lot of eye rolling going on from our side.

We can't control our fluffy headed practitioners' awful posting better than you MD's can control your criminal grifters.  It's just what's out there in society. We just keep on devolving.........

Specializes in Emergency, Cardiac, PAT/SPU, Urgent Care.
subee said:
subee said:

Does this mean that you are OK with the plethora of online, for-profit models that have appeared in the last decade or so?  IMHO, our profession deserves some condemnation for allowing this to happen.  This is no way disparages NP's as a whole.

If you've read my posts now and over the years you'd know the answer to that. 

Specializes in Emergency, Cardiac, PAT/SPU, Urgent Care.
Tegridy said:

I mean the standards haven't changed so why would someone stop voicing concerns?

You can definitely voice your concerns but there is a much more tactful and classy way to do it.

subee said:

We can't control our fluffy headed practitioners' awful posting better than you MD's can control your criminal grifters.  It's just what's out there in society. We just keep on devolving.........

……and there it is.

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.
subee said:

We can't control our fluffy headed practitioners' awful posting better than you MD's can control your criminal grifters.  It's just what's out there in society. We just keep on devolving.........

yep grifters will always exist when power allows. At least we arent quite to the politician level ?

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.

Well let's start by petitioning for a mandatory year of residency or fellowship or OJT that has to be submitted to XYZ state board of nurse practitioner'ing

Tegridy said:

Well let's start by petitioning for a mandatory year of residency or fellowship or OJT that has to be submitted to XYZ state board of nurse practitioner'ing

first off you lost your petitioning credibility when your stopped being a nurse and decided to become a doctor.  We thankfully govern ourselves in most  states. 

We can't get our governing bodies to mandate guaranteed clinical rotations. At the moment, FNP based residencies  (the largest block of NPs) are essentially extended ramp ups for low pay.  Mandated residencies are a pipe dream.  Change the curriculum to a masters as a general NP (similar to a PA!) and a serious DNP in the specialty of choice with realistic clinical hours where you mimic a residency and maybe we would be breaching education equivalencies. But in reality, many doctors will continue to (and probably former NPs)  treat NPs as less than simply for the fact they didn't go to med school or take their exams. 

But even to your suggestion, every state that allows independent practice requires a certain amount of "ojt". Typically upwards of 2500-5000 hours supervised before hand. So we are already doing things iaw your preferred playbook. Yet here you are still telling us how we should do things when you didn't have the mental fortitude to actually advance your and our profession.  What purpose do you serve here again? Because the doctor version of mansplaining isn't exactly wanted or appreciated in these forums. 

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.
djmatte said:

first off you lost your petitioning credibility when your stopped being a nurse and decided to become a doctor.  We thankfully govern ourselves in most  states. 

We can't get our governing bodies to mandate guaranteed clinical rotations. At the moment, FNP based residencies  (the largest block of NPs) are essentially extended ramp ups for low pay.  Mandated residencies are a pipe dream.  Change the curriculum to a masters as a general NP (similar to a PA!) and a serious DNP in the specialty of choice with realistic clinical hours where you mimic a residency and maybe we would be breaching education equivalencies. But in reality, many doctors will continue to (and probably former NPs)  treat NPs as less than simply for the fact they didn't go to med school or take their exams. 

But even to your suggestion, every state that allows independent practice requires a certain amount of "ojt". Typically upwards of 2500-5000 hours supervised before hand. So we are already doing things iaw your preferred playbook. Yet here you are still telling us how we should do things when you didn't have the mental fortitude to actually advance your and our profession.  What purpose do you serve here again? Because the doctor version of mansplaining isn't exactly wanted or appreciated in these forums. 

It isn't a national requirement as it should be. The rest of this post is just salt being tossed at someone's career choice. I would say since I already completed the curriculum and took the NP exam and can somewhat compare it to what medical training entails I have an opinion that has at least some merit. I sense a bit of inadequacy in this post, but to each their own. 500 hours to even get to the point of being able to RX meds is not enough. Much less than most trades.