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.
2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

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.

CTS plus experience equals a better product than one or the other.

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.
7 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

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.

They may have had more raw knowledge. Experience doesn’t always mean being good at something (driving for example)

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
5 hours ago, Tegridy said:

They may have had more raw knowledge. Experience doesn’t always mean being good at something (driving for example)

Critical thinking is also not the same as executing a task or demonstrating an acquired skill.  They had the ability to think critically or logically through a fact pattern and arrive at a sound conclusion.  They are good at thinking. 

4 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Critical thinking is also not the same as executing a task or demonstrating an acquired skill.  They had the ability to think critically or logically through a fact pattern and arrive at a sound conclusion.  They are good at thinking. 

Yes, but said critical thinking is pointless without background knowledge and experience. I can't critically think my way through computer coding or replacing a Tesla motor.

I think we have deviated beyond what the original point was. 

Specializes in Advanced Practice, Critical Care.
9 hours ago, Numenor said:

I think we have deviated beyond what the original point was.  

Agree! The thread was about for profit schools and their impact.

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.
1 hour ago, DrNurseCNS said:

Agree! The thread was about for profit schools and their impact.

Sorry LOL. 
 

In general for profit wouldn’t be as bad if free government money wasn’t tossed everywhere. May be better to let places charge what they want based on future job income. Go to a top places with top job prospects = worth higher price

 

then the current for-profits would likely drown 

On 10/10/2022 at 11:34 PM, Numenor said:

Yes, but said critical thinking is pointless without background knowledge and experience. I can't critically think my way through computer coding or replacing a Tesla motor.

I think we have deviated beyond what the original point was. 

All critical thinking is the ability to solve a problem that is in front of you and that can be done with or without training or instruction -essentially its just figuring things out. Some people have a natural knack for it whereas others look for classroom instruction. To that end, you can critically think your way through items that are foreign to you; have you ever completed a crossword or put a puzzle together or use a cellular phone for the first time? Did you need classes to teach you how?

And to your other statement, I concur deviation has occurred, however, these things happen through discourse.

On 10/9/2022 at 7:38 PM, Tegridy said:

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. 

They can in the military. I believe the civilian world will get there soon enough; the first steps have already started with states expanding NP's scope of practice and allowing them to practice without a MD babysitter.

Most careers may be based on sciences but those sciences are not need to use or benefit from the product of those efforts. Do you know how the inside of cell phone works? That's based on science but I bet you get by just fine. I mean it's all pre-programmed anyway.

On 10/9/2022 at 7:45 PM, Numenor said:

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.

That's an interesting take; I always looked at it as a hybrid of the two but a solid medicine argument can be made. However, I think the design of NPs are to supplement MDs not replace them. So, the original poster believes that for-profit programs not rigorous enough -they're not supposed to be overly rigorous. The intended patient population do not require highly specialized training -if they do, then referral or 911.

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.
4 hours ago, nitenurse said:

They can in the military. I believe the civilian world will get there soon enough; the first steps have already started with states expanding NP's scope of practice and allowing them to practice without a MD babysitter.

Most careers may be based on sciences but those sciences are not need to use or benefit from the product of those efforts. Do you know how the inside of cell phone works? That's based on science but I bet you get by just fine. I mean it's all pre-programmed anyway.

I mean even in med school it’s a brief overview of the sciences compared to for say specialized PhD programs. I would say a PhD in for say biochem would equate to knowing the inner workings of a cell phone and med school the ability to adequately use most functions of it. Anything less is fumbling to turn it on. 

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.
4 hours ago, nitenurse said:

That's an interesting take; I always looked at it as a hybrid of the two but a solid medicine argument can be made. However, I think the design of NPs are to supplement MDs not replace them. So, the original poster believes that for-profit programs not rigorous enough -they're not supposed to be overly rigorous. The intended patient population do not require highly specialized training -if they do, then referral or 911.

They should at least be thorough enough to know when and when not to refer. 

Specializes in Psychiatry.
5 hours ago, nitenurse said:

That's an interesting take; I always looked at it as a hybrid of the two but a solid medicine argument can be made. However, I think the design of NPs are to supplement MDs not replace them. So, the original poster believes that for-profit programs not rigorous enough -they're not supposed to be overly rigorous. The intended patient population do not require highly specialized training -if they do, then referral or 911.

Um - NP education was never meant to replace medical school, this is correct....but let's not kid ourselves that they ever intended it to be 500 clinical hours at schools that accept anyone with a pulse even if they are complete idiots and unleash them on unsuspecting patients.