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
I'm confused...I don't believe anyone has either inferred or explicitly stated that ASNs are not RNs. Some of us are merely stating that as a profession one element that needs to change in this field, to stop all of the fragmentation, is to have one entry point into this field.
Oh, okay, thanks. I thought that the post was stating that ASN's are not on par with BSN's. Thanks for setting me straight.
.I have seen this debate many times here at allnurses. I am a 2 year LPN. I have my associates of applied science degree. The difference between me and the ones who have thier diploma is the pre-reqs. They have taken all the core nursing classes that I have taken and were eligible to take the nclex.
So my question is what is the difference in classes between the BSN and the ASN? Does the BSN have more nursing core classes or is it they are required to take more pre-reqs?
In North Dakota they tried making it a requirement that all RN's have to have a BSN. It did not work and now they have gone back to accepting either qualification.
I dont think that requiring all BSN will make the field any better. But, I guess that is just my 2 cents.
I actually support the idea of a uniform, bachelor's degree entry into nursing, with some type of grandfathering for existing RNs. I think it would help tremendously to change the image of nursing and to change our stakeholding in the health care arena.
What continues to gall me is the lack of critical thought that seems to go into the perpetuation of "rumors" regarding this topic.
"My instructor told us that "THEY" are going to make everyone have a BSN by 2008/2010/2020/the next millenium/etc." is a regularly repeated thread starter here at allnurses.com. As a student, if you hear that in class, don't you ask yourself, where is the "official" word on this from my state board of nursing? Don't you ask yourself who is "they"?
I'm donning my flameproof suit here ... but I am disturbed by nursing students (some very near graduation) and occasionally even practicing professional nurses who don't seem to comprehend that nurses are licensed by the individual states/territories. Or that as such, the individual states/territories are free to (and do) vary somewhat in their requirements for licensure and even vary slightly in some nitty-gritty details of scope of practice. Over and over again we have threads here that debate whether or not it is "legal" to do such-and-such as an RN or LPN ... with a number of posters demonstrating by their posts that they do not clearly understand the difference between the scope of practice as defined by their state vs. the policies/procedures/practices of an individual facility.
How can we present a professional image when some of our members aren't clear about the profession itself? On that point, I agree wholeheartedly with Linda RN, BSN.
BSN by 2010: A California Initiative.Articles
Journal of Nursing Administration. 31(3):141-144, March 2001.
Barter, Marjorie EdD, RN; McFarland, Patricia Lenihan MSN, RN
Abstract:
The Association of California Nurse Leaders has developed an initiative to require the baccalaureate in nursing as the credential for entry into practice as a registered nurse by the year 2010 in the state of California. When nursing is compared to other health-care professions, such as pharmacy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy, it becomes obvious that educational requirements for nurses must be updated. Nursing leaders have developed a 10-year action plan to change the entry-level educational requirements for California nurses.
Thanks for the link. Without debating here the merits of the idea, please recognize that your instructor has, from what you've stated here, taken a journal article describing an "initiative" by the California Nurses' Association and presented it as a "fait accompli" scheduled to be implemented in 2010. The article was written in 2001. We are now 7-8 years into the 10-year action plan ... and I can find no reference to any legislation pending before the CA legislature that would get this action plan implemented by 2010.
Hmm. That's all I have to say about that.
I know this is probably a typo but the California Nurses' Association is NOT the same thing as the California Association of Nurse Leaders
I actually support the idea of a uniform, bachelor's degree entry into nursing, with some type of grandfathering for existing RNs. I think it would help tremendously to change the image of nursing and to change our stakeholding in the health care arena.What continues to gall me is the lack of critical thought that seems to go into the perpetuation of "rumors" regarding this topic.
"My instructor told us that "THEY" are going to make everyone have a BSN by 2008/2010/2020/the next millenium/etc." is a regularly repeated thread starter here at allnurses.com. As a student, if you hear that in class, don't you ask yourself, where is the "official" word on this from my state board of nursing? Don't you ask yourself who is "they"?
I'm donning my flameproof suit here ... but I am disturbed by nursing students (some very near graduation) and occasionally even practicing professional nurses who don't seem to comprehend that nurses are licensed by the individual states/territories. Or that as such, the individual states/territories are free to (and do) vary somewhat in their requirements for licensure and even vary slightly in some nitty-gritty details of scope of practice. Over and over again we have threads here that debate whether or not it is "legal" to do such-and-such as an RN or LPN ... with a number of posters demonstrating by their posts that they do not clearly understand the difference between the scope of practice as defined by their state vs. the policies/procedures/practices of an individual facility.
How can we present a professional image when some of our members aren't clear about the profession itself? On that point, I agree wholeheartedly with Linda RN, BSN.
I am just curious here, I am not flamming, but why do you think that a BSN should be the requirement? Do you think that it would better the profession or would it raise the pay scale? I am just not sure why some believe that an BSN requirement would make this profession better. Hard to wrap my "pea brain" around the idea.
I am just curious here, I am not flamming, but why do you think that a BSN should be the requirement? Do you think that it would better the profession or would it raise the pay scale? I am just not sure why some believe that an BSN requirement would make this profession better. Hard to wrap my "pea brain" around the idea.
Dear Pea Brain,
Perhaps a class in "Ancient Female Artistry" or "Igpa Atinlae" would enlighten your poor, yet well intentioned, soul.
Dutifully,
Fellow Pea Brain
i wish it were true because i get so tired of other professions and patients thinking that nurses are only technical workers. i am a professional and the general public need to be aware that all RN's are well educated people. the ADN program is NEVER 2 years anyway, so why not just take the 1 or extra semesters and make it a 4 year degree??
**All Heart RN**
260 Posts
I'm confused...I don't believe anyone has either inferred or explicitly stated that ASNs are not RNs. Some of us are merely stating that as a profession one element that needs to change in this field, to stop all of the fragmentation, is to have one entry point into this field.