LookingAhead

That's really strange, nurseywannabe - the group I was in for lab did all of these things ourselves... It's actually true! I went to a talk by the Dean where she showed us all the architectural plans and laid out the timeline for the new building. Just sayin. :)

Oh and in terms of how lab compares to clinical: in my opinion, lab is nothing compared to clinical. It's a good safe space to practice skills and receive feedback, and it certainly has its place in a learning environment-- but no dummy, no matter how sophisticated, compares to doing a skill on a real patient.

In terms of labs: you start in the lab during the first summer, one day a week, in which you learn basic nursing skills like clean vs sterile technique, suctioning, cleaning wounds and trachs, inserting/removing foleys, etc. you will return to the lab after the summer once per clinical rotation to practice these same skills.Nurseywannabe is totally right in saying that the school's lab facilities are not currently state of the art - what this means is that there is not enough lab space and the mannequins/machines are not the newest. The school is about to break ground on an enirely new nursing school building a couple blocks from the present nursing school; much of this new building will be lab and simulation space, but it won't be complete until 2015.

I second what myelin said - I would only add a couple things: 1) Don't count yourself out in advance! If you want to apply for midwifery, that's what you should go for. That said... 2) Get direct patient experience, ASAP! Get doula experience. You have five months before the application is due, which is plenty of time to get good direct experience if you start now. Then in your essays you can speak about this experience. 3) It doesn't seem absolutely crucial, but being able to speak a second language (preferably, but not necessarily, Spanish) is looked on favorably (and will serve you well during the program and in your career). Again, five months is plenty of time to become competent in the basics of Spanish. Best of luck in your applications!

Hi meli.avila - sorry, what was it you wanted an update on? I posted a lot on this thread so I've lost track of all the things I was waiting to hear back about! :)

Hi cblack! I second the decision to go with your gut. You're choosing between two good places, so don't get too anxious. :)It's true that Columbia's program takes less time (2 years 3 months as opposed to 2 years 9 months at Yale) but that's largely a function of pacing - you get more vacation time at Yale, plus they make you do a few more classes because they don't have any prereqs. Spreading the coursework out over a slightly longer period was actually a reason that a number of Yale midwifery students I talked to chose the school - a lot of them were parents and it allowed them I have a little more balance in their lives. Yale does seem to be a place that more actively works with parents than Columbia, so that could definitely be a positive thing. And yes, Columbia awards a BSN, but that's probably only an issue if you want to work as an RN during the masters, which you basically can't do as a midwifery student at Columbia anyway (because of the pace of the program).Personally, I'm going with Columbia - but that's what my gut told me to do. It seems like Yale is what you want! Congrats on your great options and good luck with your final decision!!

DoulaMama - I just declined my spot for CNM/WHNP. It was a tough decision, so I waited until the last minute! I hope this opens up a spot for someone!!

Yeah, it was pretty surprising to me that she was so confident that everyone who wanted a job as an RN had found one. From what I've heard from nurses (not related to Columbia) in NYC the job market is just really tough for new grads what with older nurses retiring later because of the economy, as well as several hospital closures/mergers that have put some RNs out of work. (And that's to say nothing of the simple fact that there are lots of nursing schools in the NY area, so there are always lots of new grads.)

I'm really sorry that's been your experience, graceface. I just wanted to say that my experience has been really different - I've had all of my (many) questions to the admission staff and the director of my specialty (CNM) answered promptly, thoroughly and respectfully. I also found the students to be really open and helpful. I will say that the stereotype about people from New York is often true - I'm from NYC myself so I often forget, but people from the rest of the country (particularly southerners and people from the west coast) are often really surprised at how...not warm...New Yorkers are to strangers. :) New Yorkers often cut straight to the necessary info without a lot of ceremony or friendliness. If you're not used to it, it can be a little mystifying at first. I promise that's not true of all of us! I'm really looking forward to meeting all of you in May!

Unfortunately there's no more waiving out of A&P (that's what we were told on interview day).

This is just...I'm flabbergasted. A lifestyle choice?! Let's get to the heart of this and say what basically all human beings choose to do at some point: have sex. Go ahead and call that a "lifestyle choice" if you like, although why that is helpful to this conversation. Now let's talk about what happens to most people at some point when having sex without birth control: pregnancy. And who are the people dealing with this directly? WOMEN. Pregnancy and birth have enormous impacts on "life and health" - whether or not you actually choose to parent the child that you give birth to - they impact physical and mental health in countless ways, they impact relationships, they impact educational attainment, finances and the ability to find remunerated work outside the home. For those who want to have a large number of children: go right ahead - that's your lifestyle choice. But for everyone else, the ability to prevent pregnancy (entirely, or until such time as you wish to have children) is absolutely "essential to life and health". It is crucial for women, in order for any society to have a chance at a full participation of its members. Perhaps you don't have an interest in living in such a society - but I do, as, I believe, do most people. Looking at statistics about the rates and types of birth control use among women who have had abortions ought to raise serious questions - but it is not a useful reaction to say "Well, we've still got abortions so clearly this whole experiment with birth control has been a huge failure!" It would be far more useful to look at what the other factors associated with the correct use of birth control and effective family planning: clearly, simply having access to a packet of birth control pills is insufficient. Factors to be improved on include patient counseling and education on how birth control actually works, and how it can fail; ensuring that patients are receiving information on the vast array of (potentially confusing) options for birth control, what side effects they may experience and what their alternatives are other than simply ceasing to use birth control; how to negotiate birth control use with partners who may be unwilling to use it; promoting varieties of birth control (both through education and through free or low-cost availability) that have less potential for human error, such as IUDs, injectables, etc. - the list goes on and on. Considering the fact that most everyone has sex, and that most people are interested in planning when/if they have children, birth control is a critical public health issue. But you know what? Even if it were simply a "life style choice" I would still support universal coverage for birth control, because of how impactful pregnancy and birth are on the health of women and their familes. You know what else is a life style choice? Eating cheeseburgers every day. Drinking yourself into a stupor. Never getting off the couch. But I want to live in a place where you can get care for heart disease and cancer, no matter why you have them - even if it was because of your life style choices. That's what it means to live in a humane society.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding my point - the Affordable Care Act is not a health care plan. It isn't an insurance plan. It's a piece of legislation attempting to regulate aspects of the health care industry, including services that insurance companies must cover. The fact that you don't need most of the preventative services listed is great - you're not required to go get them. The point is that when all insurance policies are required to pay for these services, the cost of services goes down for everyone - which is a good thing because you never know what services you're going to need. I am happy to pay into a system that covers your needs as a cancer survivor, despite the fact that I'm not one myself. Covering birth control as a preventative service brings down costs associated with treating women for conditions that could have been prevented through that birth control - which is something that it makes financial sense to support considering that your tax dollars go to Medicaid. The Affordable Care Act's provisions for preventative care will save you money in this way.

Through the insurance that I had in my first year out of college, my generic OCPs cost $43 a month. There was no such $10 option available to me. And condoms do not necessarily cost pennies - if you're buying them in boxes in a retail store, and that's your only method of contraception, the cost can really add up. God help you if you or your partner is allergic to latex. With all due respect, just because you never encountered an individual who couldn't access family planning adequately due to cost doesn't mean there aren't many such women. And having worked in MCH for 12 years, you know that a woman doesn't have to always be unable to afford FP services to end up with an unwanted pregnancy - one month that she couldn't afford it will do the trick.

I think the issue is that you're conceiving of "health care" as services that are provided to people who are seriously ill - that doesn't have to be the definition of health care. These services that are receiving total coverage under the Affordable Care Act are Preventative Services - including contraceptives, well-woman gynecology visits, screening for gestational diabetes, immunizations, HIV testing, cholesterol screenings, and many others. You can read about them at Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act | HealthCare.gov. The idea is to be moving away from a system that simply treats people's illnesses when they're already so sick that they need extensive and costly procedures, towards one that first protects and promotes health, and then treats illness when it arises (ya know, like the definition of NURSING).

I don't see how this is at all relevant...aren't we supposed to be improving the human experience with our increased scientific and medical knowledge? It shouldn't trump payment for those services, it should be covered as well as those services.

What I heard about online education was from some current CNM students - basically that they have online classes (they were divided as to whether this was a bad thing or just a sort of neutral thing), and that some of them had even gone to faculty members and unsuccessfully asked for more classroom time (?!). I'd like to think that the smaller class size is a good thing - but honestly, the class size seemed plenty small before. It seems like this is simply an issue of not having been given enough money by the Regents to admit more students. The NIH funding issue is reassuring, first of all because it isn't a fluke (they're often #1 in NIH funding), and obviously because it provides a stable source of income outside of the UC system. But the US News & World Reports rankings seems pretty meaningless to me, and not at all protective against program closure - just look at how the University of Washington, #1 ranked nursing school, is closing it's midwifery program.

Does anybody know exactly what is happening in terms of funding for UCSF? I've been accepted to their MEPN program, but it's very disconcerting to know that masters specialties are being cut for lack of funding, and that funding for the program overall has gone way down (and consequently, that tuition has gone way up). It's a bad sign when only 60 students are being admitted, when in past years they've had the funding to admit 75 or even 90. Will my specialty (CNM/WHNP) still be admitting new students a year or two in the future? Will more and more of the classes be totally online? Who knows. I tried to get some information about UCSF's financial situation on the interview day but basically nobody gave me a straight answer. No matter how good a school's program is, without enough funding the quality of the education they can offer will necessarily suffer, and if I'm going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an a degree I'd at least like to know that the program is still going to be around 5 years from now. Anyone have any insight on this?

A small point: there are clinically-focused DNP programs that include significant clinical components, including U Texas-Houston, U Tennessee-Memphis, and Columbia.

I'm deciding between Columbia and UCSF. Yale is a great program, I just don't think it's right for me for a few personal and logistical reasons.Best of luck!!!

I'm declining my offer at Yale for CNM - I hope this opens up a spot for you ASAP!

The emails are out! I'm in for CNM.

So did I!

Here it is: http://www.facebook.com/groups/165064643608095/

In clinicals, of course - but in lectures also?!

That's hardcore - I don't think I would have had the patience to go through the process even a second time! Re: grants/scholarships, here's a bit of info: Financial Support: Scholarships, Aid, Opportunities Available from the School of Nursing | UCSF School of Nursing