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.
16 hours ago, Tegridy said:Critical thinking isn’t really a generalizable skill though. One has to have some basic set of memorized knowledge to base decisions on. Critical thinking is probably the most over used word I’ve seen and people seem to think this arcane “ability” is a replacement for knowledge.
Word. CRitiCaL tHiNkiNG means nothing when there is no baseline knowledge to work off of. People think it is some esoteric skill that can be applied to anything, whether it be medicine, machining, engineering etc etc.
3 hours ago, Numenor said:Word. CRitiCaL tHiNkiNG means nothing when there is no baseline knowledge to work off of. People think it is some esoteric skill that can be applied to anything, whether it be medicine, machining, engineering etc etc.
I'm not certain that I agree with this. Critical thinking is more of a process of interpreting and analyzing information to reach a logical conclusion, right?
12 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:I'm not certain that I agree with this. Critical thinking is more of a process of interpreting and analyzing information to reach a logical conclusion, right?
Yes, but you can’t critically think in medicine unless you have a baseline knowledge foundation. They go hand in hand. Critical thinking helps to manipulate learned knowledge around difficult problems.
19 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:I'm not certain that I agree with this. Critical thinking is more of a process of interpreting and analyzing information to reach a logical conclusion, right?
The way critical thinking is thrown around on this forum makes it sound as those who possess it can logically reason through processes they have no understanding of. Skills in one area are poorly transferred to another. Experts in one field are no more likely to be “good” at some unfamiliar process than a random high school kid.
3 hours ago, Numenor said:Word. CRitiCaL tHiNkiNG means nothing when there is no baseline knowledge to work off of. People think it is some esoteric skill that can be applied to anything, whether it be medicine, machining, engineering etc etc.
Exactly LOL. It’s some meaningless term used in nursing that has no basis in fact. Like some people have been blessed with some ability to comprehend difficult situations and appropriately act without prior knowledge in that field.
21 hours ago, Tegridy said:It is needed to understand orgo and then biochem and biochem has some use. More so in some fields not so much in others. I don’t remember all the pathways but they always seem to be coming out with new drugs that target certain things which may not be understood by those who never studied biochem specifically medical bio Chem.
hmmm possibly but that's what fact sheets are for. having an intimate understanding of how medications work on the molecular level would go over the patient's head number 1 and number 2 how many actually care? its usually: o.k here are your detailed discharge instructions. . .. ' and the end of the spiel, all the patient says is: o.k I have to two of these everyday for a week, got it? -if the patient is looking for that granular level of understanding, they are being referred to the pharmacist (ideally) or the provider.
21 hours ago, Tegridy said:Critical thinking isn’t really a generalizable skill though. One has to have some basic set of memorized knowledge to base decisions on. Critical thinking is probably the most over used word I’ve seen and people seem to think this arcane “ability” is a replacement for knowledge.
I agree to certain extent. critical thinking is taking all of the available information and drawing a logical conclusion -even its by trial and error. For example, when you learned how to ride a bike to did you take bike riding training? Did you memorize Newtonian mechanics of celestial bodies in motion with regards to the effect of gravity on mass? How to pop a wheelie? I'd fancy a guess and say probably not. Since it was never done before, there was no basic set of memorized knowledge to base decisions on with regards on how to pedal, balance or stopping.
16 hours ago, Numenor said:Whatever the argument is against hard sciences is a non factor in the end. NP schools are still underwhelming and a borderline Ponzi scheme.
1. clinical hours are a joke
2. clinical based classes are woefully inadequate
3. admission standards are laughable
4. making students find their own clinical instructors is embarrassing
5. the board exam is snooze worthy.
Lack of hard sciences is just one piece of a garbage pie.
I agree to an extent, however, the more difficult the task does not automatically mean the greater the achievement and hard sciences do not have a place in the day-to-day patient care of nursing. That's like when my high school algebra teacher told the class that we wouldn't have a calculator with us everywhere we went so mastering algebra was a necessary skill. .. . . welp, we see how that turned out?
26 minutes ago, nitenurse said:I agree to certain extent. critical thinking is taking all of the available information and drawing a logical conclusion -even its by trial and error. For example, when you learned how to ride a bike to did you take bike riding training? Did you memorize Newtonian mechanics of celestial bodies in motion with regards to the effect of gravity on mass? How to pop a wheelie? I'd fancy a guess and say probably not. Since it was never done before, there was no basic set of memorized knowledge to base decisions on with regards on how to pedal, balance or stopping.
Balance is an innate ability that only requires a bit of honing to be able to perform. The practice of medicine is not, nor are most careers based on the sciences.
By this logic why not let CNAs start IVs or pass meds or titrate levophed? I mean it’s all precalculated anyway.
22 minutes ago, nitenurse said:I agree to an extent, however, the more difficult the task does not automatically mean the greater the achievement and hard sciences do not have a place in the day-to-day patient care of nursing. That's like when my high school algebra teacher told the class that we wouldn't have a calculator with us everywhere we went so mastering algebra was a necessary skill. .. . . welp, we see how that turned out?
Someone with 500 clinical hours who found their preceptor via a cash-for-service website or a friend has no business being a provider. That's an objective reality.
Advanced practice nursing isn't nursing, it is medicine. Let's not fool ourselves here.
12 hours ago, Tegridy said:The way critical thinking is thrown around on this forum makes it sound as those who possess it can logically reason through processes they have no understanding of. Skills in one area are poorly transferred to another. Experts in one field are no more likely to be “good” at some unfamiliar process than a random high school kid.
Transferring skill sets is a different matter from critical thinking. Persons skilled in critical thinking, however, are better suited to a quick adaptation of applicable skills in a new environment. IMV
I've worked with nursing students who have demonstrated better critical thinking skills than some other experienced RNs.
Guest1144461
590 Posts
Whatever the argument is against hard sciences is a non factor in the end. NP schools are still underwhelming and a borderline Ponzi scheme.
1. clinical hours are a joke
2. clinical based classes are woefully inadequate
3. admission standards are laughable
4. making students find their own clinical instructors is embarrassing
5. the board exam is snooze worthy.
Lack of hard sciences is just one piece of a garbage pie.