A classmate of mine told me friday that she was told by "someone who is on the nursing teacher staff"... that soon only BSN's will be allowed--no more ADN Rn's.
This can't be true, can it??? We already have a nurse shortage, so if it would take 4 yrs. to "produce" new RN's, would'nt this make things much worse???
Also, isn't the only difference between ADN and BSN that BSN has more non-nursing classes completed?
I'm an LPN student and want to do the bridge to RN, but I really do not want a BSN---I need to work!
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that North Dakota has also overturned that requirement since it caused so many problems.
You are correct, lizz. North Dakota has overturned the requirement. ND is now a member of the nurse licensure compact. (Come on all the rest of you states out there...get with the program!!)
I cant see how that could possibly work for them if they still required the BSN - if the other states in the compact did not also require it (which they don't) it would defeat the purpose.
If it is anything like EVERY other piece of legislation ever presented. Even if they did require this they would be forced to grandfather in every ADN graduate currently practicing as well as all of those VERY experienced diploma nurses. Not likely to happen without some foresight and debate so I don't think anyone should worry, but someday maybe. Hell, if they keep increasing the pre-reqs for the ADN programs they may all turn into BSN programs anyway ROFL
Actually, part of the rumor was that RNs with associate degrees would have a specified amount of time in which to obtain their baccalaureate degrees. (I would assume the same for diploma nurses...) If they failed to do this within the alloted time, which I believe was supposed to be 10 years(?), they would be "demoted" to LPNs. I don't see that one happening. I'd move first as a matter of principle.
A classmate of mine told me friday that she was told by "someone who is on the nursing teacher staff"... that soon only BSN's will be allowed--no more ADN Rn's.
This can't be true, can it??? We already have a nurse shortage, so if it would take 4 yrs. to "produce" new RN's, would'nt this make things much worse???
Also, isn't the only difference between ADN and BSN that BSN has more non-nursing classes completed?
I'm an LPN student and want to do the bridge to RN, but I really do not want a BSN---I need to work!
Thanks for anyone clarifying this for me. :)
I graduated in the mid 70s and it was being tried very shortly after. Worried us at first but it soon becasme apparent that it is impossible to keep enought of those BSN nurses at the bedside.
Hospitals that have tried it have found they had to install revolving doors by the time clock!
In Canada I believe there is only a couple of provinces who will hire less than a BSN now. All schooling is BSN only, no more diploma. hope this helps!
Thanks for all the info. You know what gets me though---they want us all to get a BSN, but as far as I have been told by RN's, the pay is the same for ADN-BSN. Doesn't seem fair to me! 2 more yrs. of school X 40k of pay lost or cut due to going to school... and you are NOT paying me more to make up for the lost time/money???? Yeah, sure...
Hy everyone,
Yeah, sure...
TeenyBabyRN
127 Posts
You are correct, lizz. North Dakota has overturned the requirement. ND is now a member of the nurse licensure compact. (Come on all the rest of you states out there...get with the program!!)
I cant see how that could possibly work for them if they still required the BSN - if the other states in the compact did not also require it (which they don't) it would defeat the purpose.