MSN+PhD or DNP only?

Published

Which is more advantageous for a wannabe FNP that wants to keep the door open to teach someday? MSN for FNP and then work on PhD, or pursue the DNP directly after the BSN?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Depends on what and where you want to teach. If your into teaching clinically then a DNP is good. Some universities will only give tenure to PhDs. Also, DNPs will become more common because they take less time to get for clinicians. A PhD would make you more competitive in university settings. Both are great degrees. Ask people who work at a university where you might work.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.

BCRNA gave a great answer. It really does depend on what type of career you want to have. If you want to teach undergraduates, teach clinical courses, teach in a DNP program, etc. a DNP will probably be fine for most schools. However, there may be few limitations in academia to those without PhD's, particularly at some universities. Teaching PhD level courses, chairing departments, getting tenure, reaching Full Professor status, etc. are the types of things I am talking about -- the opportunities for a which a PhD would be the preferred education.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in FNP, ONP.

I think it will vary by school. At Duke the only thing a DNP vs PhD would prevent you from achieving is perhaps being the Dean. There is at least one department head who is a DNP, with more to come. Tenure track is available to DNP faculty and DNPs teach PhD level courses. They are seen as equivalent degrees at Duke. As of right now, that isn't true everywhere, but my guess it it will be in 10 years. I think it will be especially true in regards to teaching clinical courses since the DNP is the terminal clinical degree.

What is really comes down to is if you want to do original research or not. It you do, go the PhD route.

good luck!

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Thank you to everyone who replied. Lots for me to think about.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Do you intend to be a practice-based person, or a research-based person?

I know several research-based faculty who have let their NP licensures lapse because they are not able to clock the NP practice hours needed to maintain the NP certification. For ANCC certified NPs, this means having at least 1000 hours as a NP in your clinical subspecialty in the past 5 years. This amounts to an average of 5 full-time weeks per year as a NP. For the research-based faculty member who is also teaching full-time, working in those practice hours on one's vacation just to maintain certification can be an added stress.

So to follow-up on the above comments, I encourage you to think of the longer-term plan. Then select the best pathway for your particular goals.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.

I'm aware of a combined PhD/DNP that is offered at Barnes-Jewish College in St. Louis. Four years full time with both degrees granted in the end (which would of course, require a dissertation to meet the PhD requirement). Not sure how this combined degree would be received in other places. Also not sure how the school's reputation compares to powerhouses in nursing academia.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Arizona state or University of Arizona offers a dual phd/dnp as well

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Reproductive & Public Health.

I plan on getting my PhD in epidemiology once I finish CNM school and pay off all my damn student loans. I chose this track instead of DNP because I am still not sold on the solidity and standardization of the DNP degree (not digging on DNPs here, trust me.). Also, I have always had a passion for public health and hope to do international work and health care policy, and I believe a PhD will give me a solid background in research, and really- the public health focus is what I want most. I think the PhD route is more compatible with my long term goals.

So, I think it really depends on what you want out of your education and your career.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion