Im an entering level 4 (last semester) student at ECC City in Buffalo, NY, ........an RN program in upstate NY. I actually failed level 3 at the North campus, which is supposed to be the hardest by a mile, there were 30 of us of about 80 at the time
I noticed something about level 4 at my school and at both campuses, and how drastically smaller it is.....Talking to students who graduated at north level 4 went from 105 to around 50, and at city the class went from 75 to around 40.....
Was kind of wondering if other people's programs were similar in this aspect, because I think it seems like there is something up with this program if we start level 1 with 105 and graduate only 50-60 at the north campus and we start with about 75 at city and we only graduate around 40 according to the NYS department of education. ??
I never realized that my school was on the smaller side too. 32 students and 31 usually graduate with a 95% NCLEX first time pass rate. I guess some schools are just nurse factories who are just In it for the buck. Sad.
I think that oversimplifies it a bit. Some subscribe to the "weeding out" mentality and purposely create a curriculum that is difficult to succeed in and give little support to students. Some schools probably just need to be a lot more selective of who they let in to begin with. And, yes, some are just nurse factories. They take you're 60 thousand dollars and don't care what happens to you. My sister school tends to accept less competitive students because they have more spots - we have a points system and people low in points purposely apply there became they have a better chance.
Hmmm...we've lost 0 students due to academics (1 left because of legal trouble and 1 left for a job offer in her former field). We picked up 2 students from last year's class who got pushed back for either an academic or personal reason...I don't know. We started with 32 and it looks like we'll graduate (in JULY!) with 32. :)
In 1971, my diploma class at a world-reknown hospital started with about 100 students. We graduated with 66 students, including 2 from the previous class. I think only 3 or 4 didn't pass that 2-day exam!
So some things really haven't changed much, have they?!!!
@Stephalump Yeah, thats what the serious issue is right there accrediation, when you lose that many students at my school like that 110- to 50, thats an issue, and accrediation is an issue at my school, they're in jeporady of losing it as they've lost at least 4 full time faculty members in the last year, at one campus and 2 at another,
low retention + no faculty and declining NCLEX pass rates at ECC do not = accrediation
that was my primary concern for posting, plus I do want to see the people around me succeed as well.
Yeah, that's not ok. When 60% of a class is failing , there's a problem that needs to be fixed. People will still move, get pregnant, decide nursing isn't for them, and a million other things - and some people will do well in prereqs and entrance testing and struggle in nursing to the point of failing. But I think there's a point at which it becomes ridiculous and a school needs to evaluate what's going on. It's a waste of seats in a program, and honestly, a waste of tax payers money.
I hate that idea that weeding out and losing numbers means a program is harder, meaning better. The soon-to-be seniors in my BSN program only lost 2 this past year out of (I believe) 60. I don't know if it is because of grades or other stuff. My school also consistently gets the highest BSN NCLEX pass rate. That, in my opinion, is a sign of a great program, if we are basing it on statistics alone.
A great school is going to have a top-notch selection process for students and educators that go the extra mile to support their students and foster their success. Not throw them to the wolves in the hopes of weeding people out. Maybe that makes me hippy dippy, I don't know, but I'd rather be singing kumbaya under the apple tree feeling confident I have the tools for success than sitting at the edge of my chair on Xanax because I'm freaking out not knowing if I'll EVER know what the hell is going on.
Not saying nursing school should be easy, mind you, but some structure, organization, and support should be mandatory.
Wow, I really must be in a small program! I honestly had no idea it was THAT small. There are only 8 of us left (from 25). Our program always loses at least half by graduation.
This is typical for a nursing program. Most individuals don't realize the amount of dedication, or even realize what the job entails until he/she is in the nursing program.
Keep pushing ahead, and don't look at who has drifted throughout the course. Whatever program of study you take up in college, you will always lose some students in the process. There are varying factors that contribute to why a student may no longer be attending college.
I think because the nursing curriculum is so structured we notice it more as well. I can't think of many otger programs (especially at the associate's level) where classes MUST be taken in a specific order no matter what.
That said, we do lose a lot along the way, don't we? My bridge class (all current LPNs) lost 11 out of 24 during our transition semester. It was ridiculously fast paced (we basically reviewed the first two semesters of the RN program with just 5 lecture hours a week). Those who were on the borderline of passing have the option, based on facility judgement, to merge in with the 2nd semester RN students (those of us who made it through merge with 3rd semester). We move into slots from RN students who haven't made it. From talking with other students, it sounds like there's about a 50% attrition rate through the program...and they have all kinds of support systems in place to utilize.
I see a lot of people who get into programs not realizing how freaking difficult it is, and get the wake up call too late to do anything about it. And then there are those who just can't hack it for whatever reason, those whose lives get in the way, etc etc etc. All adds up to lower (and more noticeable) retention rates than other programs.
When I started my program, there were 22 of us in the PT portion. Four years later when we graduated, there were 4. Yes, FOUR. Now, a few slid into FT slots at the halfway point since spots opened up there due to failures, drops, etc. But the majority of those we lost were due to failing classes, kicked out or dropped on their own.
My school is now changing the way they admit new nursing students including a TEAS test and interview, rather than putting every eligible applicant onto a waiting list and admitting then as the openings appear. Trying to put quality students into the spots instead of anyone who can complete the application and write the deposit check.
I think schools adopt one of two policies relative to "weeding out" nursing students. The first one is as the OP (and others) describes - the school weeds out the less fit during the classes. I started out life as an engineering student at a school that made no bones about doing this. On the first day, we were told to look at the student to our right and left. The dean then said that 2 out of the 3 wouldn't be there after a few semesters. It was true. We lost some in freshman chem, some more due to physics, others because of calc and sure enough, come graduation time, there were only about a third of the students left.
My nursing school used the other philosophy, which is to "pre-weed" via the admissions process. Admission to the nursing program was based strictly on your scores on standardized tests, which the school had determined correlated well with success in the program. So a score in the top 5% virtually guaranteed admission. You had good odds if you were in the top 10% and then things dropped off rather dramatically. As a result, only 3 of the 35 in my class didn't make it to graduation. Mine was the evening/weekend section made up mostly of working adults, so not necessarily representative, but the graduation rates overall were actually pretty high, as were first-time NCLEX pass rates.
Is one way better - or worse - than the other? I don't really know.
Is one way better - or worse - than the other? I don't really know.
My mother went to nursing school back when anyone who was interested could get into a program. I'm in school in the competitive entry era.
She's of the opinion that loose entry requirements are a better idea - people who aren't necessarily amazing academically prior to nursing can still make great nurses, and the "let em in and weed em out" method gives everyone a chance.
I see nursing as a professional program that costs a heck of a lot of money to run. The state (read: the taxpayers) subsidizes quite a bit of our tuition on top of the burden of financial aid, and I believe we need to be using those funds efficiently. I don't see a 30% graduation rate as "efficient."
Stephalump
2,723 Posts
I think that oversimplifies it a bit. Some subscribe to the "weeding out" mentality and purposely create a curriculum that is difficult to succeed in and give little support to students. Some schools probably just need to be a lot more selective of who they let in to begin with. And, yes, some are just nurse factories. They take you're 60 thousand dollars and don't care what happens to you. My sister school tends to accept less competitive students because they have more spots - we have a points system and people low in points purposely apply there became they have a better chance.