Is it true that a BSN will be mandatory soon?

tferdaise · Sep 25, 2008

It doesn't, but that isn't the point to making a single entry point into nursing. Its not how smart you are, or have well you can critically think how having a previous undergrats. It would be the requirment to be a nurse. I know many people have an issue with that, and I'm not too sure why. Before someone says, "well what are you going to do, now allow the ADN not to practice." No, they would be grandfathered in and allowed to work. ALso I'm not discounting your previous degree either, I have a BA is Business Management, but for a profession that is splintered between CNA-LPN/LVN and RN, it only makes sense to have a single entry into nursing. I'm currently a LPN, have been for 4 yrs, before that a CNA/ER tech for 6 yrs. I use to hear some of the CNAs complain about the LPN and how they sit on thier butts and do nothing.. Which it might look like that to someone who doesn't have the first clue on what the LPNs job really is or the added responsiblities they have. Then you have the LPNs who say the same thing about the RNs or the RNs think the LPN should be thrown to the side of the street. To stop this all, would be have a single entry point into nursing, CNA and RN only. The LPNs would be grandfathered in and kept as LPNs or continue on to thier RN's, but in my area its VERY tough to go from the LPN to RN, since there are 2 school that have that program. But it could be done, if someone wants to do it. But this debate can and I'm sure will continue to go on. We each have our own thoughts and ideas, from reading some other postings it seems that not all BSN programs are the same.

Sorry, guess I'll be another one to make you laugh then.
How does the BSN being superior to ADN fit for those like myself who have a BA in another area and are now attending an ADN program?
The Folks I know in BSN programs are not any more equipped for critical thinking, and in fact I would go so far as to venture that my critical thinking skills are MORE developed then theirs because I spent 4 years doing nothing but Liberal arts prior to seguing into Nursing.
And as far as nursing componenetss, I have compared notes, syllabuses with my BSN friends and I have seen nothing to suggest that their BSN nursing content is superior to mine.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Sep 25, 2008

And as far as nursing componenetss, I have compared notes, syllabuses with my BSN friends and I have seen nothing to suggest that their BSN nursing content is superior to mine.

People shouldn't claim superiority because both ADN's and BSNs prepare entry level nurses, both of whom are registered nurse candidates taking the same NCLEX Exam. Many even take the same HESI before graduation. Most people who claim BSN's NURSING cirriculum is superior are mistaken in my opinion. I'm sure there are isolated cases where this might be true, but as a general rule the basic nursing courses are pretty much equal. Where I work I see all the students ADNs, BSNs both in clnical and as new grads. They pretty much equal in kowledge and skills when the graduate and come to work. The BSN students do take more courses and more nursing related courses such as the community health, leadership and reserach, but the basic nursing is pretty much the same.

Just my two cents.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Sep 25, 2008

*** My BSN program did not include an ethics class and the research class was a joke. While it was at the 300 level & online, any decent high school kid could have gotten an A in it. I spent an everage of 2 hours a week for that class including online time.
Your argument would be better if some oif these things you are talking about where even part of a BSN program. That may be in some but not others.

I didn't have to take ethics, but I have to say research was one of the most time consuming courses...I mean we had to do some serious research. Basically it a a review of literature in preparation to write a thesis and I nearly quit the program because it was so time consuming. I did take it online at an NLN accredited program. :)

Farmer Jane · Sep 26, 2008

For me, neither ethics nor stats are required. Research was a challenging course and I learned a lot. Community Health was a complete joke, and was Leadership & Management.

My experience is similar to Tweety's--ADN and BSN programs produce comparable nurses and have similar nursing content.

psychonaut · Sep 26, 2008

THere is no way you can tell me that a 400 level Ethics class is the same as a 200 level ethics class? Or, a 400 level Research class is the same as a 200 level research class. The higher level of thinking if what it takes to get a A in those class's as well as papers that the profressors are looking for.

For the statistics pre-req, my bsn program allowed either a 200-level psych course or a 300-level health sciences course. I actually took both, the psych course as part of my BA psych, and the hsc course as I needed a few extra upper division credits. I felt the psych course was a bit more intensive, although this may be due to the fact that it was my first exposure to college-level statistics.

As for the rest, I think it is important to compare courses within the same program. In other words, within the same major, an upper-division course should be more difficult/intensive then a lower-division course. What I (and others here) am claiming is that the nursing course I took at the 400-level is not necessarily any more difficult than the equivalent 200-level nursing course taught at the adn level. From what I've seen, for example, "maternal/ob" is taught pretty much the same at both the bsn and adn levels. Equal clinical hours, similar content covered, similar grading schemes used, etc. *This* is the big point we are making. If "bsn-level" nursing courses were truly taught at a more advanced level, that would be some justification for the bsn as mandated entry-to-nursing. Other than individual variances amongst programs, this doesn't seem to be the case across the board.

Personally, 1st-semester (100-level) physics was the most difficult course I've taken in my 12+ years of college work (this includes some upper-division chemistry courses), although calculus (also 100-level) comes a close second. This is comparing apples to oranges. The trick is to determine if there is any qualitative difference in equivalent *nursing* courses taught at the adn vs. the bsn level. I am unconvinced that there is any such difference.

traumahawk99 · Nov 5, 2008

For the statistics pre-req, my bsn program allowed either a 200-level psych course or a 300-level health sciences course. I actually took both, the psych course as part of my BA psych, and the hsc course as I needed a few extra upper division credits. I felt the psych course was a bit more intensive, although this may be due to the fact that it was my first exposure to college-level statistics.
As for the rest, I think it is important to compare courses within the same program. In other words, within the same major, an upper-division course should be more difficult/intensive then a lower-division course. What I (and others here) am claiming is that the nursing course I took at the 400-level is not necessarily any more difficult than the equivalent 200-level nursing course taught at the adn level. From what I've seen, for example, "maternal/ob" is taught pretty much the same at both the bsn and adn levels. Equal clinical hours, similar content covered, similar grading schemes used, etc. *This* is the big point we are making. If "bsn-level" nursing courses were truly taught at a more advanced level, that would be some justification for the bsn as mandated entry-to-nursing. Other than individual variances amongst programs, this doesn't seem to be the case across the board.
Personally, 1st-semester (100-level) physics was the most difficult course I've taken in my 12+ years of college work (this includes some upper-division chemistry courses), although calculus (also 100-level) comes a close second. This is comparing apples to oranges. The trick is to determine if there is any qualitative difference in equivalent *nursing* courses taught at the adn vs. the bsn level. I am unconvinced that there is any such difference.

absolutely the point i've been making all along. the attempts to hijack control of the profession by those teaching bsn programs are politically motived. bsn programs and adn programs turn a very comparable product... qualified trainees, nothing more and nothing less. becoming a seasoned nurse takes a couple of years experience no matter which way you do it.

traumahawk99 · Nov 5, 2008

Check out this link to MD Anderson...these are current jobs that are available for RN's. Make sure you scroll down to the "Educational Requirement"...they want either a BSN or a MSN...here's the link.
http://www.indeed.com/q-M.D.Anderson-Cancer-Center-jobs.html

this from the md anderson website

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION:

Required:

Graduation from an accredited school of professional nursing

Preferred:

Bachelor of Science in Nursing, Master of Science in Nursing

EXPERIENCE:

Required: Two to three years of working experience in an oncology physician practice

Preferred: Three to five years of relevant oncology nursing experience

LICENSURE/CERTIFICATION:

Required: Current professional nursing license (RN) by the state BNE for Texas

PHYSICAL DEMANDS:

Bending/stooping, kneeling, reaching, walking, standing for extended periods of time. May require lifting up to 30 pounds

-----------------------------------------------------

yes, and i just got hired in a texas hospital as a traveler for $38 an hour, $3,000 completion bonus at the end of 13 weeks, and $2,200 living allowance per month, unlimited overtime (well, they're giving me 72 hours a week, overtime is $57 an hour).

funny, they never said squat about my education. they didn't care that i have an adn or that it was from excelsior college either. they're concerned that i have an rn license, med surge/tele experience and acls certification.

i'm not going to bother applying to md anderson just to prove a point, but i'm sure they'd offer me a job. there is no bsn-only requirement here. just a preference stated, that really boils down to *nothing* when it comes to staffing. show up as an oncology certified nurse, and they'll fall all over you offering you a job.

what would you rather have... an adn who was oncology certified or a bsn newbie? let's get real. the people who staff hospitals actually do have enough sense to come in out of the rain.

again, i challenge anyone to show us a bsn only requirement.

ANPFNPGNP · Nov 5, 2008

this from the md anderson website
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUCATION:
Required:
Graduation from an accredited school of professional nursing
Preferred:
Bachelor of Science in Nursing, Master of Science in Nursing
EXPERIENCE:
Required: Two to three years of working experience in an oncology physician practice
Preferred: Three to five years of relevant oncology nursing experience
LICENSURE/CERTIFICATION:
Required: Current professional nursing license (RN) by the state BNE for Texas
PHYSICAL DEMANDS:
Bending/stooping, kneeling, reaching, walking, standing for extended periods of time. May require lifting up to 30 pounds
-----------------------------------------------------
yes, and i just got hired in a texas hospital as a traveler for $38 an hour, $3,000 completion bonus at the end of 13 weeks, and $2,200 living allowance per month, unlimited overtime (well, they're giving me 72 hours a week, overtime is $57 an hour).
funny, they never said squat about my education. they didn't care that i have an adn or that it was from excelsior college either. they're concerned that i have an rn license, med surge/tele experience and acls certification.
i'm not going to bother applying to md anderson just to prove a point, but i'm sure they'd offer me a job. there is no bsn-only requirement here. just a preference stated, that really boils down to *nothing* when it comes to staffing. show up as an oncology certified nurse, and they'll fall all over you offering you a job.
what would you rather have... an adn who was oncology certified or a bsn newbie? let's get real. the people who staff hospitals actually do have enough sense to come in out of the rain.
again, i challenge anyone to show us a bsn only requirement.

If the BSN was also certified in oncology, then who do you think they would hire? Don't kid yourself...education matters.

traumahawk99 · Nov 6, 2008

If the BSN was also certified in oncology, then who do you think they would hire? Don't kid yourself...education matters.

i honestly think they'd hire whoever the interviewing manager liked. the thread is about bsn being required. i don't see the requirement.

i've never had an interview where i wasn't offered a job. adn and all.

Farmer Jane · Nov 7, 2008

i honestly think they'd hire whoever the interviewing manager liked. the thread is about bsn being required. i don't see the requirement.
i've never had an interview where i wasn't offered a job. adn and all.

Me too.

LisaDNP · Nov 14, 2008

Did anyone read the article in American Nurse Today regarding this? It seems the ANA has developed a model bill crafted after bills by the New York and New Jersey Nursing Associations requiring RNs to have a BSN by 10 years after initial licensure. They do say that this requirement woudn't affect those already licensed as a RN. They also say this resolution would not "eliminate the existing and valued educational paths students take to enter the profession" (ADNs or Diploma).

From what I can tell, this hasn't passed yet, but NY and NJ are leading the way. For those in school now, have your professors discussed this with you? Opinions, please!

djc1981 · Nov 14, 2008

We've heard this song for decades now. The need is too much to move to make it a 4 yr degree right now. Just the ANA with another "pie in the sky" move that will never come to fruition.