Is it true that a BSN will be mandatory soon?

Published

An instructor of mine (I'm in another state) stated that she recently went to a national educators conference and that they were saying that within the next several years in NY it would be mandatory to have your BSN. Does anyone know anything about this? Thanks

personally, I think all nurses should have a bachelors degree at some point. It makes you a more well rounded person. But I disagree that a BSN is necessary as other degrees and majors provide enough liberal arts education.

i am quite well rounded now-whole mind:banghead:, soul:saint:, heart :heartbeat, AND body :lol2: - i dont need a BSN to tell me that. ( before flaming see laughing face ) but serious;ly - i dont need a BSN to feel better.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
what does this have to do with the argument at hand (bedside nursing, where someone can be trained to do a complete and competent job at an adn level)? why would it matter how i felt about teaching qualifications?

My point is that requiring a bachelor's degree (or above) isn't related to the necessary training to be competent at a certain job. A high school physics or English teacher doesn't NEED a bachelor's degree to be able to teach their subject well. An engineer or lawyer doesn't NEED a bachelor's degree to create a foundation for their professional work. But a bachelor's degree today is similar to a HS diploma of the past. A person could be perfectly literate without a HS diploma and someone could be illerate with a HS diploma, but for the most part, a HS diploma usually reflects at least a minimal level of literacy. Similarly, having earned a bachelor's means that the graduate PROBABLY has decent critical thinking skills and a FAIRLY well-rounded education. That's why some think that requiring a bachelor's degree would raise the image of nurses. No one could assume that nurses chose nursing because they couldn't cut it in university level classes! I'm not saying I totally agree, just that that's part of the argument for BSN as entry-level.

there is a shortage of those "not-so-crazy" nursing jobs where the bsn's are so desperately needed. in fact, there is already a whopping surplus of bsn's to fill those positions. so you're talking about making the profession smaller, so it can be a more exclusive club?

I realize that the real nursing shortage is in regard to bedside jobs. That's my main problem with the push for BSN to entry. I think it would make it MORE difficult to fill bedside RN positions. I do think there is a push from within nursing academia to distance itself from the generic staff nurse, instead emphasizing advanced practice and health promotion roles (occupational health, public health, etc). And this push is to the detriment of nursing as a whole. If they continue to leave staff nurses behind, staff nurses will leave (and are leaving) them behind. And LPNs or MAs or some other "new" health professional role may fill in the gap.

why do we need such "standardization" (and whose version of it)? we already have a standardized licensing requirement. it is the nclex exam.
.

Personally, I don't think the NCLEX is a good measurement of a person's readiness to start clinical nursing. And I think nursing school tries to impart WAY too much information in too little time. I just don't think it's possible to prepare a nurse to be ready to work in all of the different nursing specialities out there, even just within the hospital setting. In just two short years, nursing students plough medical nursing, surgical nursing, geriatric nursing, maternal/baby nursing, pedicatric nursing, oncology nursing, psych nursing, etc as well as pharm, pathophys and medical treatments. They may or may not have an LTC or community health experience. So in the two years, they spend about 5-8 weeks on each type of nursing. No wonder they end up having to learn so much on the job!

There are so many jobs that require an RN license and yet don't require acute care bedside nursing skills: a school nurse, a DON in a TLC, a public health nurse, an adult day health center nurse, a Red Cross blood donation nurse, etc. Acute care experience would always help but aren't NECESSARY. Even clinical NP programs aren't all requiring acute care nursing experience.

Some will argue that nursing care is a lot more than bedside care, yet others will argue that acute, bedside is a necessary foundation. There are different KINDS of nursing, right? So I think we somehow need to better differentiate the different kinds of nurses out there and different educational standards might be one way. For example, if a nurse doesn't plan to work in acute care, perhaps then there's a different curriculum than for nurses that want to be trained and qualified to work in acute care. Just not-so-well-thought-out thoughts!!!!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
There are different KINDS of nursing, right? So I think we somehow need to better differentiate the different kinds of nurses out there and different educational standards might be one way. For example, if a nurse doesn't plan to work in acute care, perhaps then there's a different curriculum than for nurses that want to be trained and qualified to work in acute care. Just not-so-well-thought-out thoughts!!!!

Doctors specialize, maybe nurses should too! I doubt a podiatrist, a gynecologist and a cardiologist get the same training. At least I hope not!

:chuckle

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I am the first person in my family to go into health care. There are teachers, attorneys, and engineers mainly in my near and immediate family.

My teacher mom and aunt have teacher's aides, who completed like two years of schooling. My brothers and dad work with engineering technicians, with 2 years ed again. And, there's paralegals for attorneys. My point, I'm sure all of those educated with two years have extensive knowledge in order to do essentially the same things as my family members. Maybe their smarter/more effective than my family members, who knows. But, the way it works in every other profession is the existence of clear educational steps attained=relatively certain, unique titles.

Kind of ironic that nursing the one profession where there's a consistent struggle for respect and constant strife within the profession about who deserves what. Can't help but think it might be related to the fact that someone who has one-year of training, two years, four years, and beyond are all identified as nurse.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Kind of ironic that nursing the one profession where there's a consistent struggle for respect and constant strife within the profession about who deserves what. Can't help but think it might be related to the fact that someone who has one-year of training, two years, four years, and beyond are all identified as nurse.

Therein lies the problem. And even med assts and CNAs sometimes go by nurse (that's another thread).

But perhaps if we in this profession can't agree upon some kind of differentiation, others outside the profession (hospitals, insurance companies, whoever) will continue to do it for us.

:no:

Up Vote Up Vote ×

there will never, never be a nursing school that turns out anything except a person who is qualified to be a trainee for floor nursing. no matter what, this is a skill largely learned on the job. lpn, adn, or bsn. take your flavor.

i can't see what all the hulabaloo is about anyway. i make over 100k, and i feel plenty respected. i'm not at all threatened by lpn's doing the same job i do. in fact, there are lots of lpn's with years of experience who are better nurses than me. it's a fact, and to think otherwise is to be kidding myself.

this is a "problem" largely invented by a bunch of control freaks who feel they aren't respected enough. it's nothing short of silliness. regardless of our educational backgrounds, we all do essentially the same job. in my book, it's what someone accomplishes... not what they whine about.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

If LPN and RN nursing is essentially learned on the job, then why even have that difference in educational level and licensure? Does that extra year of RN training really justify the often large gap in earning potential? In many settings, LPN responsibilities are very close to that of RNs. Hanging blood, doing an initial assessment, and initiating care plans (some of the few things often limited to RNs only) aren't exactly rocket science and could be learned OTJ as much of the rest of nursing is, couldn't it? Isn't part of the friction between LPNs and RNs that it ISN'T clear exactly what more RNs formally studied or were trained in than LPNs? Saying RN's learn more "critical thinking" is vague and largely unquantifiable. And you must have knowledge to which to apply critical thinking as well. With a difference of just one year, RNs apparently not only LEARN a whole bunch more about nursing, pathophys, etc but they also become masters of critical thinking. RNs often do have more ultimate responsibility than LPNs, but does their training better prepare them for that? And if there's a such a large gap between LPN training and RN training, why are they allowed to take on such levels of responsibility in so many settings?

PS I realize many RN programs actually pan out to be three years long, but there are still some out there that can (theoretically) be done in two years.

Heck, accelerated programs cram all the nursing content into a year!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU.

This has probably been stated before, but it's the same argument as whether or not LPNs will be phased out soon. I think this would just make the nursing shortage even worse. I am an LPN currently and am still in school to finish my ADN. I think in many facilities (depending on which state you live in), there are very few differences between an LPN and an RN (besides pay) let alone an ADN and a BSN. What makes a BSN so much more prepared to care for patients on the floor than an ADN? I understand where areas such as teaching and research it is necessary to have the higher degree, so it should be specified in these instances that a BSN and MSN are required. But to mandate all nurses become BSN prepared would be furthering the problem of the shortage. Having a 4 year degree vs. a 2 year degree is not going to gain us more respect. Being competent and knowledgeable about our field will. As a profession, we need to support each other as nurses, no matter how long we went to school. We need to continue our education, whether that be reading up on the newest treatments, attending seminars, going back to school and going the next step, we should encourage each other to do that. We should encourage new nurses to do the same, and not worry about who's better, but how we can help our profession grow and be respected the way it should.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
If LPN and RN nursing is essentially learned on the job, then why even have that difference in educational level and licensure? Does that extra year of RN training really justify the often large gap in earning potential? In many settings, LPN responsibilities are very close to that of RNs. Hanging blood, doing an initial assessment, and initiating care plans (some of the few things often limited to RNs only) aren't exactly rocket science and could be learned OTJ as much of the rest of nursing is, couldn't it? Isn't part of the friction between LPNs and RNs that it ISN'T clear exactly what more RNs formally studied or were trained in than LPNs? Saying RN's learn more "critical thinking" is vague and largely unquantifiable. And you must have knowledge to which to apply critical thinking as well. With a difference of just one year, RNs apparently not only LEARN a whole bunch more about nursing, pathophys, etc but they also become masters of critical thinking. RNs often do have more ultimate responsibility than LPNs, but does their training better prepare them for that? And if there's a such a large gap between LPN training and RN training, why are they allowed to take on such levels of responsibility in so many settings?

PS I realize many RN programs actually pan out to be three years long, but there are still some out there that can (theoretically) be done in two years.

Heck, accelerated programs cram all the nursing content into a year!

you are making some very good points here. the difference between lpn and rn training, in my opinion, lies in the more complete study of anatomy and physiology, microbiology, chemistry, etc... things which could have an impact on job performance, at least out of the starting block.

i feel lpns are underpaid, especially after they become experienced.

let's not forget that there is no shortage of folks with nursing educations. there is a shortage of people who are willing to work on the floor in what is often a miserable and thankless job, dealing directly with all the grim realities and limitations of the healthcare system. that's why i'm making $42 an hour, and i can work all the $63 an hour overtime i want.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
you are making some very good points here. the difference between lpn and rn training, in my opinion, lies in the more complete study of anatomy and physiology, microbiology, chemistry, etc..

I had one ten week course in intro to micro, one ten week course in anatomy for allied health, one ten week course in nutrition, and one ten week course in intro to o chem as pre-reqs to my program. In addition to that, I had already taken a year of inorganic chem and general biology. I'd been a bio major to begin with so I'm not sure what all of the minimum requirements for the nursing school were because I already had taken so many classes (calculus, statistics, genetics, physics,etc). Compared to the courses I'd taken for biology, those 10 week intro courses seemed pretty basic.

I have no idea to what minimum level LPNs are instructed in these areas. Presumably they have SOME level of instruction in them. To what degree? Five weeks' worth of micro as opposed to 10 weeks? Are those the types of courses LPNs must take to bridge to an RN? If an LPN can eventually make up the difference by learning on the job and they are safe practitioners until they do, why is there a difference in licensure? Some RN programs require more sciences than others but the graduates still end up with the same job opportunities.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. Nursing education seems to have some inconsistencies. It interests me and I find discussions on the topic stimulating and thought-provoking.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

i think it's great to have discussions here. and there's nothing wrong with a good argument. otherwise, there would be no need for a discussion board.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
let's not forget that there is no shortage of folks with nursing educations. there is a shortage of people who are willing to work on the floor in what is often a miserable and thankless job, dealing directly with all the grim realities and limitations of the healthcare system. that's why i'm making $42 an hour, and i can work all the $63 an hour overtime i want.

what do you do? are you a floor nurse?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion