No BSN required if 20 yrs or more experience!

[Emergent, RN]

I received a recruitment email from a hospital system I had once applied to. I'm not really looking, but out of curiosity looked at their job descriptions.

Formerly they required a BSN within 5 years. Now they give you 6 years, but it's waived if the applicant has 20 or more years RN experience.

Either it's a swing in the direction of common sense, or, more likely, a response to the current increased need for RNs in my region. But it warmed my old heart.

[Twinmom06, ASN, APN]

our local hospital system recently dropped the BSN requirement if you have 5 years nursing experience.

[guest769224]

Hospitals are feeling the pressure of needing more qualified RN's. Now suddenly the requirement for the all-mighty BSN is waived/changed.

Funny how that works.

[TruvyNurse]

I think this is fantastic!! A degree certainly isn't everything. Heck one of the best nurses I ever worked with was a diploma nurse!

[applewhitern, BSN, RN]

I have never understood why people think the "diploma" nurse is sub-standard. Those diploma RNs usually had 3 years of hospital-based education, including tons of hands-on skills hours. I initially obtained the ADN simply because I already had a degree. It took me 1 1/2 years from start to finish. When I went back to take classes for the BSN, I was dumbfounded as to what the big deal was. Those BSN classes were so easy, NOTHING compared to my ADN education! It seemed to be a waste of time and money, and contributed very little towards my nursing ability. We have BSN nurses now who have never placed an NG tube, started an IV, and other simple, basic skills, and did not have to take chemistry or research classes. Not trying to bash a BSN education, but just stating that I fail to see why it started being in such demand. Oh, I also had to do 180 hours extra clinical for the BSN, even though I was already an RN. From what I understand, if you take those classes online, you don't even have to do any extra clinicals, so just what, exactly, is the point of it?

[NuGuyNurse2b]

^ $$$

[CrunchRN, ADN, RN]

What region are you in Emergent?

[Davey Do]

Formerly they required a BSN within 5 years. Now they give you 6 years, but it's waived if the applicant has 20 or more years RN experience.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26721[/ATTACH]

[Emergent, RN]

What region are you in Emergent?

The email was from the Swedish hospital system in Western Washington, although I'm in a different part of the state.

[Jedrnurse, BSN, RN]

It's an interesting turn of events, the waiver of their previous BSN requirement if you have experience. Seems like common sense.

But please, please, PLEASE let this thread not be high-jacked to become another one of those overdone, tired screeds re: ADN v BSN v Diploma etc.

No matter what your opinion is on that matter, it's right up there with NETY for high incidence of thread-jacking. (Did I invent a new term, or has it been used before?)

[klone, MSN, RN]

I get it. It seems ridiculous to require a BSN of nurses who are looking at retirement in 5 years.

If I were queen of the world, I would go so far as to waive it if you have 10+ years of experience, rather than 20.

Actually, if I were queen of the world, I would not require a BSN at all for direct care nurses, but instead, offer a robust incentive package for those who CHOOSE to go back and further their education, the form of a healthy tuition reimbursement package and an increase in pay for those who have obtained their degree or have specialty certifications.

[Have Nurse, ADN, RN]

Nice!!!