Published Mar 3, 2021
Al Kalosis
34 Posts
On another social media forum, someone asked a question about order of credentials in a resume or signature, etc. A needlessly heated debate ensued. One nurse went so far as to say she "despises" nurses who list their credentials incorrectly. For real?
The ANCC states that the "preferred order" is highest degree, then license, and so on. Note the word "preferred." Not "required." Their rationale is that a degree is permanent, while a license can be revoked, or deliberately not renewed, and is therefore less permanent. While I appreciate this logic, I choose to list my credentials differently. My rationale is that the license is the most important, because the license is needed to provide patient care. Someone with a BSN who never passed the NCLEX cannot provide patient care as a RN, for example.
And now that I know listing my credentials "incorrectly" will offend small-minded people, I see it as a bonus.
Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN
1,248 Posts
Your opinion is your own; that's not the same as a rationale.
Susie Q, BSN, MA, PhD(hon) has a nursing degree but not a license for some reason. She may have failed NCLEX, but she may have retired, or just given up working at jobs that require nursing licensure for something better for her. Don't assume the worst.
The license isn't the most important in many settings that require nursing education, expertise and experience. In the old days we used to say it's what's between the ears that counts, not the hat on the head (or, "what's in your wallet").
BTW, the seeing offending people "as a bonus" was kind of gratuitous. There's been entirely too much of this going around the last few years.
20 minutes ago, Hannahbanana said: Your opinion is your own; that's not the same as a rationale. Susie Q, BSN, MA, PhD(hon) has a nursing degree but not a license for some reason. She may have failed NCLEX, but she may have retired, or just given up working at jobs that require nursing licensure for something better for her. Don't assume the worst. The license isn't the most important in many settings that require nursing education, expertise and experience. In the old days we used to say it's what's between the ears that counts, not the hat on the head (or, "what's in your wallet"). BTW, the seeing offending people "as a bonus" was kind of gratuitous. There's been entirely too much of this going around the last few years.
It's an opinion, but it's also a rationale. Please explain, how is it not?
You assume that I assume the worst. Not true. Just giving an example of why, for myself (not necessarily for you or for Susie Q), the license is the most important piece, and should be listed first. An equally illustrative example would be that a former nurse who changed careers cannot provide patient care as a RN. The same principle applies. I still consider my license to be the most important credential, and still choose to list it first. You and Susie are free to list your credentials in whichever order you choose.
"What's between the ears" is never listed as a credential, so it is irrelevant to a discussion regarding the ordering of credentials. Experience and other qualities fit nicely on a resume, but there just isn't room in someone's professional title.
And yes, a person who "despises" nurses who do not list their credentials in the same order that she does, is small-minded, petty, and deserves to be offended, gratuitous or not.
By the way, your response to this light-hearted post seems needlessly hostile. Why?
On 3/3/2021 at 6:34 PM, Al Kalosis said: You assume that I assume the worst. Not true. Just giving an example of why, for myself (not necessarily for you or for Susie Q), the license is the most important piece, and should be listed first. An equally illustrative example would be that a former nurse who changed careers cannot provide patient care as a RN. The same principle applies. I still consider my license to be the most important credential, and still choose to list it first. You and Susie are free to list your credentials in whichever order you choose. "What's between the ears" is never listed as a credential, so it is irrelevant to a discussion regarding the ordering of credentials. Experience and other qualities fit nicely on a resume, but there just isn't room in someone's professional title. And yes, a person who "despises" nurses who do not list their credentials in the same order that she does, is small-minded, petty, and deserves to be offended, gratuitous or not. By the way, your response to this light-hearted post seems needlessly hostile. Why?
You assume that I assume the worst. Not true. Just giving an example of why, for myself (not necessarily for you or for Susie Q), the license is the most important piece, and should be listed first. An equally illustrative example would be that a former nurse who changed careers cannot provide patient care as a RN. The same principle applies. I still consider my license to be the most important credential, and still choose to list it first. You and Susie are free to list your credentials in whichever order you choose.
"What's between the ears" is never listed as a credential, so it is irrelevant to a discussion regarding the ordering of credentials. Experience and other qualities fit nicely on a resume, but there just isn't room in someone's professional title.
And yes, a person who "despises" nurses who do not list their credentials in the same order that she does, is small-minded, petty, and deserves to be offended, gratuitous or not.
By the way, your response to this light-hearted post seems needlessly hostile. Why?
* When we respond in this kind of forum we are often addressing more than just the OP. It’s not always all about you.
* Not everyone feels that providing direct patient care is the only or even the highest, best use of an RN license.
* Just because somebody seems to be despicable to you doesn’t, IMO, justify an intentionally offensive rejoinder. For the record, the way credentials are listed is specified in professional literature and academia, but in all my years I’ve never seen anyone “despise” anybody for a different preference on that. You can list yours otherwise any way you like. If you choose to write something, the editor will amend it to match the required style of the publication. If that offends you enough, you can withdraw it, but that would seem self-defeating and petty to me.
* “I was only joking” is a familiar rejoinder when a “light-hearted” statement isn’t taken well. I stand by my opinion that it is unseemly to offend somebody intentionally in the way and for the reason you described. One could even characterize it as hostile. As my grandmother would say, “ T’ain’t funny, McGee.”
We’re done here.
SteveRN, MSN, RN
3 Posts
What I find interesting is that some other health professions, physical therapy for example, prefer a different order for listing credentials. The American Physical Therapy Associate, for example, has the order as license first followed by highest physical therapy related degree (John Smith, PT, DPT for example). This is actually the order that I was taught when I first entered nursing (John Smith, RN, BSN or John Smith RN, ADN, etc.). It has taken me some time to get used to writing my credentials as MSN, RN. I don't think it is worth an argument and my facility actually endorses whichever order the clinician finds most comfortable. I just think it is interesting that different professional organizations seem to have differing perspectives on this. Anyways, just my two cents.
NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN
10 Articles; 18,927 Posts
Once one is awarded a degree, it's your forever -permanent (unless fraud/unusual circumstance); that's why its usually listed first. All other credentials need to meet requirements for periodic renewal. -- licensure, certifications, state designations, etc.
Quote What is the preferred order of credentials? The preferred order is: Highest earned degree Licensure State designations or requirements National certifications Awards and honors Other recognitions Why is this order recommended? The education degree comes first because it is a “permanent” credential, meaning it cannot be taken away except under extreme circumstances. The next two credentials (licensure and state designations/requirements) are required for you to practice. National certification is sometimes voluntary, and awards, honors, and other recognitions are always voluntary.
What is the preferred order of credentials?
The preferred order is:
Why is this order recommended?
The education degree comes first because it is a “permanent” credential, meaning it cannot be taken away except under extreme circumstances. The next two credentials (licensure and state designations/requirements) are required for you to practice. National certification is sometimes voluntary, and awards, honors, and other recognitions are always voluntary.
What’s the right way to list your nursing credentials?
CABGpatch_RN, BSN
151 Posts
On 3/10/2021 at 10:54 AM, SteveRN said: This is actually the order that I was taught when I first entered nursing (John Smith, RN, BSN or John Smith RN, ADN, etc.).
This is actually the order that I was taught when I first entered nursing (John Smith, RN, BSN or John Smith RN, ADN, etc.).
I learned this in nursing school as well. The rationale behind it at the time was that above all else, we are nurses....therefore RN first.
I get leaving the RN off if a license has been retired, inactive or just not renewed. For me, as long as my license is current, I will probably always put RN first, then degree and finally certifications.
Never been questioned about it. ?♂️
NursLitt, BSN
6 Posts
Huh. I am no longer actively in nursing, but my RN license is still current. I am in a tangential field now. I write my credentials as RN, BSN, MLIS. I have no plans to change this; MLIS, RN looks silly and gives incomplete information for my field. (I realize I'm somewhat of a special case here, but such iterations of former direct-care RNs didn't appear to be covered here, so I chimed in).
On 3/5/2021 at 5:08 AM, Hannahbanana said: * Just because somebody seems to be despicable to you doesn’t, IMO, justify an intentionally offensive rejoinder. * “I was only joking” is a familiar rejoinder when a “light-hearted” statement isn’t taken well. I stand by my opinion that it is unseemly to offend somebody intentionally in the way and for the reason you described. One could even characterize it as hostile. As my grandmother would say, “ T’ain’t funny, McGee.”
* Just because somebody seems to be despicable to you doesn’t, IMO, justify an intentionally offensive rejoinder.
You're an angry little clown, aren't you? It doesn't matter what you think. Knowing that such an insignificant act gets someone all worked up is hilarious to me. You disagree. So what? Your hostility is still unwarranted.
You are the kind of person who goes home at the end of the day and pats yourself on the back for self-righteously putting everyone in their place, and then sleeps like a baby knowing you made someone's day worse.
I never said I was joking. I was not joking at all. I said it was a lighthearted post. Please learn how to read and interpret information before attempting to engage in written discourse with others.
Never try to wrestle a pig. You both get dirty but the pig enjoys it.