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 Dialysis.
8 hours ago, nitenurse said:

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.

No, but I'm not assembling them and selling them as my creation either. I'm an end user who's only expectation is to talk/text/data use as phone allows. I expect any medical professional to know their science, and know it well. I've had a few, some NPs, some Drs, make some very dumb decisions on my behalf. Without my knowledge, it would've been a disaster. All I could get out of them afterwards was a glib "how'd you know that?" It scares me for those who didn't have experience and knowledge to fall back on

14 hours ago, Tegridy said:

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. 

Kinda. I have a PhD and its a research degree. You have laser-like focus on a very specific subject (but it has to be broad enough to find information on it) and all of your attention is dedicated to that end. So, if my dissertation is on mitochondria then I would know all of the ins and outs of the mitochondria but have cursory knowledge of say the phosolipid bilayer or gogli apparatus and its inner workings (as stand alone cell elements, not how they relate to mitochondria). That's why I thought it was curious the poster appeared to lash out at for profit NP schools -they are accredited by the same accrediting bodies that are responsible for state universities and non for profit institutions. 

14 hours ago, Tegridy said:

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

I agree. However, everybody is so terrified of litigation, they act with overabundance of caution even if its a detriment to patient care.

10 hours ago, Hoosier_RN said:

No, but I'm not assembling them and selling them as my creation either. I'm an end user who's only expectation is to talk/text/data use as phone allows. I expect any medical professional to know their science, and know it well. I've had a few, some NPs, some Drs, make some very dumb decisions on my behalf. Without my knowledge, it would've been a disaster. All I could get out of them afterwards was a glib "how'd you know that?" It scares me for those who didn't have experience and knowledge to fall back on

Exactly. You can't be an expert in everything. The sciences won't get you there. If you worked in a lab or went into research, then they would be useful. But knowing the specific heat capacity of mercury won't help diagnose hyperkalemia. Again, the sciences are not used in day-to-day patient care as you can attest from your own experience. And through your own admission, this has happened a few times with NPs and MDs so its not an isolated incident. Are for profit schools and the perceived lack of academic rigor the blame? pffftttt hardly

13 hours ago, MentalKlarity said:

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.

hmmmm I believe that was the exact design. NP programs are for patients that do not require a high level care. Patients that require a few stiches from cutting themselves when slicing tomatoes or they stepped on a rust nail and need a tetorifice shot. So, 500 hours is more than adequate. 

2 hours ago, nitenurse said:

hmmmm I believe that was the exact design. NP programs are for patients that do not require a high level care. Patients that require a few stiches from cutting themselves when slicing tomatoes or they stepped on a rust nail and need a tetorifice shot. So, 500 hours is more than adequate. 

Yeah explain that to the lobbying bodies pushing for more independence and even less standards in schools…

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

Exactly. You can't be an expert in everything. The sciences won't get you there. If you worked in a lab or went into research, then they would be useful. But knowing the specific heat capacity of mercury won't help diagnose hyperkalemia. Again, the sciences are not used in day-to-day patient care as you can attest from your own experience. And through your own admission, this has happened a few times with NPs and MDs so its not an isolated incident. Are for profit schools and the perceived lack of academic rigor the blame? pffftttt hardly

False argument.  No one has proposed what you keep representing as basic knowledge of Chemistry as applies to humans.  Also,  I have never believed that because a school is accredited that means it is worth the tuition.  Obviously, there are deficiencies in their thinking if they are giving a thumbs up for defective programs.  If you don't need science because your patients " don't need "high level care",  you must have a very undemanding job; certain consequential decision making working with sick people.  500 hours is adequate for a toy NP.

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.

IDK it is a bit odd that some in nursing think 500 is enough hours but those “green first year residents” can’t do anything right according to the nursing mantra, even though they have well over 500 hours before even the real training begins. 500 is not even close to enough, its just a show of overconfidence to say that it is…

6 hours ago, subee said:

False argument.  No one has proposed what you keep representing as basic knowledge of Chemistry as applies to humans.  Also,  I have never believed that because a school is accredited that means it is worth the tuition.  Obviously, there are deficiencies in their thinking if they are giving a thumbs up for defective programs.  If you don't need science because your patients " don't need "high level care",  you must have a very undemanding job; certain consequential decision making working with sick people.  500 hours is adequate for a toy NP.

I don't believe understand a number of your statements on this one: "No one has proposed what you keep representing as basic knowledge of Chemistry as applies to humans."  -what does this mean? this discussion thread pertains to NPs and not veterinary science so, if we're not talking about humans, then who is the target demographic and how would science apply from a mid-level practitioner perspective?  "Also,  I have never believed that because a school is accredited that means it is worth the tuition." -again, context? If you are attacking the system of accreditation as a whole, then that undermines your initial point -if the whole system is shoddy then it would not matter how much science or clinical hours an MD or NP possessed or completed since the tuition and accrediting body are worthless. . ..

"500 hours is adequate for a toy NP." So, outside of being critical, this is where you propose how many hours are adequate and detail the level of care that would commensurate with that clinical experience. 

 

7 hours ago, Numenor said:

Yeah explain that to the lobbying bodies pushing for more independence and even less standards in schools…

More independence, yes -arizona was the most recent state to allow independent NP practice without an MD babysitter and I have not seen any efforts to relax standards in schools -nursing or otherwise. .. . 

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

More independence, yes -arizona was the most recent state to allow independent NP practice without an MD babysitter and I have not seen any efforts to relax standards in schools -nursing or otherwise. .. . 

That's the entire point if this thread...low standards.  It's frightening that someone with no nursing experience and a degree from a Crackerjack  box is going to practice independently.  I don't know if Arizona has any practice hour requirement for the privilege of independence.  That would make this less frightening.  

Specializes in Advanced Practice, Critical Care.

The 500 hours of preceptorship has nothing to do with competence, confidence or fitness to practice, independently or otherwise. It is the number of hours required to sit for a national certification exam (ANCC or AANP). Most NPs need the certification to get a job so the practice is able to bill MediCare and other insurance. The bottom line is money.

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.

Its funny how those who have not done are the most eager to say other people's jobs are easy and don't require some level of expertise. Does not make sense how people who do a 160 hour rotation in, for example, pediatrics, then adult, then OB, can get certified to to see people across the life span. I mean I did like 200 hours of anesthesiology in residency. Can I do anesthesia? LOL no, not enough time.