Guest1168644

Barring the known shortage of PCP’s, short term and long term. You would still have to account for the good will of universities to take in less money. Standardized testing would be good, so long as applicable to the career. I feel if done right this would not serve as a barrier. I also think testing before the start of the program would not hamper innovation. But seriously, this would make absolutely no difference than the current system we have now.

I think your scenario is, and would lead to an unhealthy system that would not survive. But in an effort to entertain your line of thinking, I’ll be sure to look up when I step out from my porch this morning. I don’t want one of these clinicians, with their stethoscope on backwards, to land directly on my head when she falls out of the sky. But at least the receiving NP would be less inclined to need her otoscope for that severe of a trauma.

In short, there is absolutely no cost control. Universities will only continue to increase tuition, and program requirements, provided the continued existence of government backed student loans. Through this dynamic, higher education is incentivized and empowered to artificially increase demand, and as a result, produce inferior products; how else could I have spent half a semester on the topic social justice, or witness a DNP graduate with an inability to utilize an otoscope or appropriately diagnose and treat impetigo? This dynamic is missed by quite a few in my opinion. If one is truly concerned about patients, program admission criteria (the weight given to this, honestly I cannot understand, seriously who the heck knows anyone that received less than a 3.0 GPA in their undergrad program, what a curb for quality HA!), and supply side issues, then one should focus their anxieties less on those who worked hard to become NP's, and more on the system that funds and perpetuates. As stated earlier, significantly subpar programs will always weed themselves out, as will subpar NP's. Which is another topic entirely, that for whatever reason is continually mentioned by you specifically. This idea that an MD would hire an NP for easy money, without concern for their business, or patient pool. This is wholly laughable to me, and an obviously terrible business model.

I should rephrase the initial comment. The idea I meant to convey is I do not want to limit options for viable candidates, not entry. The onus of entry into the field is on every candidate, as it should be. I did not word this correctly.

The current system is not sustainable. I am all for standardization. But the idea of limiting entry to otherwise viable candidates, is not something I wish to entertain.

In the absence of action by national organizations, certifying bodies, it would appear that the school in question is being held accountable....

I think license and certification is only viewed up to a certain point that it will fit the writers given narrative, and once reached, it is dismissed for exactly what it is, an entry level requirements. Aim to not let emotion cloud your judgement on this thread. While there is about 5-6 naysayers here, there are many more that know, through real world experience, the caliber of critical thinking that exists in many nurses that go on to “prestigious” 90k a year programs. Some on this forum act is if they are the sole purveyors of reason, logic, and perception of literally every MD and NP out there, and do so with complete lack of evidence.

The supply side naysayers are losing their minds right now at the idea of this happening haha

I could anecdotal this board to the moon and back with stories, but I do not like the negativity that would occur with such a form of persuasion. I honestly have asked multiple times that this specific thread be deleted. It brings nothing substantive, the arguments are based in no more fact than the garbage nightly news, much of the dialogue is poor (even what is left after the great moderator purge) and it really just serves as a jumping board for many to tear people down.

Good for her.

I feel the association with subpar training through online programs is rampant on this board, I see no need to entertain your request for specifics, especially given your history of aggressive posts. I have asked in the past that this specific thread be deleted, as it typically devolves into a dumpster fire, mainly by way of the arrogant. I am certain that nothing constructive would occur with any further dialogue, with you specifically..... BUT, for those still reading.... I think I have made my stance known in regards to limiting access to NP programs. As stated before, if a program produces a subpar product, it will eventually fail to gain students - be it through a natural course of inability of graduates to find employment, students to find preceptorship, or through the courts as per the students that would have been sold a terrible product. I am all for options, especially given the current climate of higher education. Online has the most to offer at this point in time, and I find it unjust to view an NP based off their school rather their own personal merits or experiences.

This thread loves the anecdotal.... While still a student, I did my urgent care rotation with a preceptor who had previously graduated from an online program. She knew her stuff, knew it well, and was amazing with her patients, quite possibly the best clinical rotation I ever experienced. This preceptor just so happened to also be "orienting" a new hire that recently graduated from a D1 school, brick and mortar. I say orienting in the sense that she had already completed her orientation officially, but was unofficially still very much orienting. This NP admittedly could not use an otoscope, came to my preceptor with questions about everything under the sun, and from what I heard, was later responsible for a new clinic closing down as they received so many complaints during her tenure there. How would it be possible for the online program graduate to be so effective in her role, whereas the D1 brick and mortar NP was so terrifying unprepared?

I am curious as to what your opportunities for OT in primary care are?

Honestly not sure I would notice much of a difference between a subpar lecture be it online or in person. I have sat through many spectacularly terrible lectures in a brick building, much the same as similarly bad ones in the comfort of my own home.

My mistake, seems to just be a recurring theme within threads on this specific topic. Maybe address the following statement you made, “I thought we were discussing the viability of our current educational model for NP's which has brought the standards to new lows.” Specifically, “to new lows”.