A girl made a post about the parenting class she took, where she was given some information regarding breastfeeding that she didn't think was correct. She had asked her mom, who told her something different. So she came on to clarify. One of the other members responds to her to listen to her mother, because nurses really are not the smartest people.
I normally just try to ignore the ignorant things people say, it's the internet after all. But that just aggravated me. First off, no where in her post did she say a nurse taught the class. Secondly, way to stereotype a group of people. Here, let me give you a pretend report on one of my ICU patients, and see how much you understand. Then tell me how "not smart" nurses really are. That would be like me saying Stay at home moms are lazy and that is why they don't work. Ugh.. sorry just needed to vent to people who understand. I don't know why it bugged me so much, but it did.
Specializes in CCU, SICU, CVSICU, Precepting & Teaching.
i took those boards as well, and while a 30 minute cut off may be less stressful, i think it must still be hard. we knew exactly what area we were testing in; if a question was ambiguous, well, we knew we were taking the ob section , or the pysch section. also more scope for if you missed one area, there were enough questions to make up for it. what if you hit a rough patch online, and get cut off before getting a chance to show you know more in a different area?
one of my buddies got knocked off her bicycle on the way in for the second day; came in late pushing a beat up bike and covered with mud. the proctor says "gee, were you in an accident?" she takes the exam, we throw her bike in my truck at lunch, race to her house, she showers, we snarf some sandwiches, race back and take the last exam. then we went to the er to get her sore pelvis w-rayed. she passed!
and did her pelvis pass, too? or was it the pelvis that passed?
I felt the boards were dare I say easy. HOWEVER, I "studied" for those things 1 years plus! (I'm talking of the LPN boards, I have yet to take the RN boards). I also take pride in my profession and feel that it took some "smarts" to get where I am. Nursing school is learning a whole different way of thinking. Not every nurse is a genius or the smartest person evah! But it took some brains to become one IMO!
Where in that statement do I imply that ever nurse ever let in is an idiot? You still do not understand what was said.
We do let anyone in. As a result, some less than desirable candidates are allowed to practice. Please tell me where exactly you are having trouble understanding, and I will break it down so that it is easier for you to understand.
I cannot speak for any other NCLEX other than the one I took, dare I say neither can you. I work in an ER, which as a nurse is a much different skill set than say, Med surg nursing, which is also much different skill set than NICU nursing. Again for PACU, OR, etc. I don't understand what you base your comment on that it's "a fact that NCLEX used to be much more comprehensive." It IS comprehensive.
It is not. Not every test taker is tested on Med/surg, OB, psych, peds, or geriatrics. If every person is not test in the major, crucial areas of nursing, then the test is NOT comprehensive by definition. There is no way to logically say that it is.
Let me first write that nursing school used to have very simplistic educational materials 40 or so years ago (as nursing has progressed since then),
What does this have to do with anything? Medicine used to have simplistic educational materials 40 years ago by comparison, too. Just about every trade or profession has advanced in the past 40 years.
how difficult do you believe that NCLEX was at that time compared to now, where we have 13 or so books (just for an ADN program) with many specialty books for each system. Doesn't make any sense saying NCLEX "used" to be much more comprehensive. In fact, that's an asinine statement.
It's not asinine, unlike your example. It is a fact. The NCLEX used to be a two day, 16 hour test that covered ALL the major areas. By definition that IS comprehensive. And just because we have a lot of text books now as opposed to 40 years ago does not make the NCLEX more or less comprehensive. I don't even understand that link as it's a text book non-sequiter.
as a sidenote for "low educational standards"....
the attrition rate for where I went to school - of course not all ADN programs are the same, as instructors, etc. BUT let me write that the attrition rate was about 50%, and that was into the second year that we were still losing students. I am calling BS on that statement of yours. Low educational standards my rump. You can NOT be a nurse to write that junk.
I think you're making my point for me. To be a nurse you only need a little over 12 months of higher education. That is a low standard. Most professions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree. Many require graduate level education. I'm not saying that every nurse who ever graduated from a LPN or diploma program or ADN program is an idiot or a bad nurse, and the fact that I even have to spell that out speaks volumes about our educational levels.
You can call BS all you want, but the fact remains that our standards are low. As you've pointed out, nursing as evolved and become more complex, shouldn't our educational requirements reflect that? A bachelors degree today is equivalent to what a high school diploma was 60 years ago. With greater access to higher education, a type of inflation has occurred. A bachelor's degree isn't as elusive as it once was. But, nursing has resisted it. In fact, as you read around these boards you'll find that nursing doesn't want to raise their educational standards, and often times it's pointed out that "not everyone can complete a bachelor's program." And, that's my point exactly. There is A LOT of contempt on this board for higher education. It says a lot about our trade, and offers a pretty good glimpse as to why nursing is sometimes looked down upon.
We should be requiring that to get a nursing degree you must pass inorganic and organic chem. We should require pathophysiology (and it's shocking to me that it's not required in a lot of programs.) We need to raise the standards. Period. The fact that some won't be able to meet those standards is not a bad thing. Nursing and medicine has become much more complex and the average acuity of patients is increasing. We need to raise standards to meet those needs.
another element of the nclex, that made it easier for me...
is that i finally felt comfortable/confident in answering the questions.
up until that point, most of our class (whatever was left of it), would be arguing w/the instructor over nsg questions we got wrong on a test.
you know...those questions that almost always have 2 best answers?
well, by the time i took the nclex, that "got it" moment had clicked.
still, and i agree w/ruby, that if one can finish a state exam in 30 mins (and feel confident), then to me, i'd much rather believe that the test wasn't challenging enough...
versus believing that the test taker was incredibly intelligent.
there's a ton of material to learn in nsg school.
but its quantity is not indicative of intelligent application.
rather, you learn how to organize, prioritize, and memorize.
i truly believe that.
and if my theory isn't true, then why are there so many downright SCARY nurses practicing today?
it is not. not every test taker is tested on med/surg, ob, psych, peds, or geriatrics. if every person is not test in the major, crucial areas of nursing, then the test is not comprehensive by definition. there is no way to logically say that it is.
what does this have to do with anything? medicine used to have simplistic educational materials 40 years ago by comparison, too. just about every trade or profession has advanced in the past 40 years.
it's not asinine, unlike your example. it is a fact. the nclex used to be a two day, 16 hour test that covered all the major areas. by definition that is comprehensive. and just because we have a lot of text books now as opposed to 40 years ago does not make the nclex more or less comprehensive. i don't even understand that link as it's a text book non-sequiter.
the test taking years ago was hand written, and much of it was in essay format, which could have accounted for such a lengthy (albeit complicated) testing. nclex is now computerized, and it is comprehensive. i do recall a variety of situations of every type of patient, from ob, to cardiac, etc.
i think you're making my point for me. to be a nurse you only need a little over 12 months of higher education. that is a low standard. most professions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree. many require graduate level education. i'm not saying that every nurse who ever graduated from a lpn or diploma program or adn program is an idiot or a bad nurse, and the fact that i even have to spell that out speaks volumes about our educational levels.
an adn program is two years of nursing, and most are one year of prerequisities. that's more than 12 months.
you can call bs all you want, but the fact remains that our standards are low. as you've pointed out, nursing as evolved and become more complex, shouldn't our educational requirements reflect that? a bachelors degree today is equivalent to what a high school diploma was 60 years ago.
i don't agree with this statement. i'd have to see a side by side comparison to actually believe that our bachelor's degrees today are equivalent to hs degrees 60 years ago. i find that hard to believe.
with greater access to higher education, a type of inflation has occurred. a bachelor's degree isn't as elusive as it once was. but, nursing has resisted it. in fact, as you read around these boards you'll find that nursing doesn't want to raise their educational standards, and often times it's pointed out that "not everyone can complete a bachelor's program." and, that's my point exactly. there is a lot of contempt on this board for higher education. it says a lot about our trade, and offers a pretty good glimpse as to why nursing is sometimes looked down upon.
we should be requiring that to get a nursing degree you must pass inorganic and organic chem.
i would agree with you there. i have worked with rn's who didn't have to take microbio, chemistry, etc. that's a hard pill to swallow - unless my adn program had much more stringent pre-reqs.
we should require pathophysiology (and it's shocking to me that it's not required in a lot of programs.)
i would imagine there must be standardization for adn programs, especially as we are all taking the nclex, which is national and assuming we've all had the same prep - again, my program required patho. are we talking adn or lpn programs?
we need to raise the standards. period. the fact that some won't be able to meet those standards is not a bad thing. nursing and medicine has become much more complex and the average acuity of patients is increasing. we need to raise standards to meet those needs.
i agree with you about raising the standards - but most of this can start out in the adn programs and weeding those out that can't get past a more complex pre-requisite challenge. i do believe rn's should go back and get that bsn.
my point regarding textbooks and more and more of them for school, is that we have learned so much and break down our learning into systems. years ago this did not occur in the depth that we do now, we know much much more, as far as science and evidence-based practice.
i don't get your point about the high attrition rate of where i went to school - i think that reflects their high standards and the challenge to complete that particular program. i suppose not all adn programs are equal. i had met an rn who had no clinical time in her program. perhaps that is where we should start with reform....
As far as the Kaplan course......I agree. It was a waste of my time and money. I would never recommend it to any nursing student getting ready to sit for the NCLEX. The only thing they stressed was how to work through the questions using that decision tree they claimed was helpful for someone that has not even gone through nursing school.
As far as the Kaplan course......I agree. It was a waste of my time and money. I would never recommend it to any nursing student getting ready to sit for the NCLEX. The only thing they stressed was how to work through the questions using that decision tree they claimed was helpful for someone that has not even gone through nursing school.
I never took the Kaplan course so I can't speak to it, but I did use the Kaplan book (along with Saunders) and found the strategies it recommended to be helpful.
another element of the nclex, that made it easier for me...
is that i finally felt comfortable/confident in answering the questions.
up until that point, most of our class (whatever was left of it), would be arguing w/the instructor over nsg questions we got wrong on a test.
you know...those questions that almost always have 2 best answers?
well, by the time i took the nclex, that "got it" moment had clicked.
still, and i agree w/ruby, that if one can finish a state exam in 30 mins (and feel confident), then to me, i'd much rather believe that the test wasn't challenging enough...
versus believing that the test taker was incredibly intelligent.
there's a ton of material to learn in nsg school.
but its quantity is not indicative of intelligent application.
rather, you learn how to organize, prioritize, and memorize.
i truly believe that.
and if my theory isn't true, then why are there so many downright SCARY nurses practicing today?
leslie
Regarding the bold part...this is absolutely true. How could it possibly be any different, unless you spend a year or two more in college, except in a hospital setting, learning the same things that you would learn in the first couple of years on the job? You have to learn it somewhere. This is what orientation programs are supposed to be for, except that most are sorely lacking in both quality and quantity.
But this is also true of virtually every college degree program out there. That's why many new grads in other fields go into training programs as new hires and aren't paid as well as their peers with more experience.
Specializes in Med/Surg, Neuro, ICU, travel RN, Psych.
It's been 5 1/2 years since I graduated, and they have since changed the format from the nursing school I went to. But my program was known to be hard. They weren't in the habit of just passing anyone through. Quite a few failed out. As far as the NCLEX, I could see where it would seem easy, especially if you are done with the minimum number of questions. I myself had to sit through the entire test. It was long, and was very comprehensive. I passed on the first try. Will never know if it was because I missed to many questions, or I was one of the chosen to take the entire thing regardless. I did great on our "practice" test that was made to mock the NCLEX. So who knows.
As far as the Kaplan review. I didn't use it. I just studied on my own. But I have a friend who went to a private school for her RN. They used the Kaplan throughout school. It was a large part of their grade.
steelydanfan
784 Posts
You said and I qoute: "We let anyone in".
End of argument.