bbear

Here is an excerpt from a Vanderbilt researcher: "Over the next 20 years, the federal government estimates that the demand for RN's will increase 40 percent, with the majority of this employment growth occurring in hospitals. Meanwhile, the number of older RN's is expected to peak in the year 2010 and decline thereafter as large numbers of nurses start to retire. "In the absence of a corresponding increase in the supply of RN's, further shortages and upward pressure on RN wages are likely in the future," Buerhaus said." http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/nursing/media/release31.html To expand upon something--the fastest growing segment of the population is individuals over the age of 85. The aging baby-boomers are only going to increase this trend. This is going to tax our health care system and health insurance industry alike. To deal with this problem, policy initiatives are being implemented to deal with the problem by having middle-level providers (nurse practitioners) and clinical nurse specialists handle a far greater percentage of the care previously managed exclusively by physicians. This provides patients with greater access to health care at a reduced cost (which benefits the insurance providers) = many more nursing jobs.

I am in the process of investigating various CRNA programs and have called many programs to ask about the importance of ICU experience. Surprisingly, I was almost universally told by the CRNA program directors I spoke with that the 1 year ICU experience is a requirement mandated by the AANA--not the schools. I was also told that they will primarily look at your GPA/GRE scores/evaluations to determine your eligibility for admission, and only then will they look at your ICU experience. I was told that the only time that the amount of experience comes into consideration is when 2 or more candidates are all equally worthy of admission--then those candidates with the best experience would be selected. Otherwise, they pick the students who seem best academically prepared for the program and as long as they have the minimum 1 year experience, they're in. For whatever it's worth, that's what I have been consistently told.

I would agree there ARE professions where men can be quite agressive toward one another--although I'm not sure politics and/or government is a reasonable example. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to try to suggest political adversaries maintain the same type of interpersonal relationships that co-workers do. That's kind of like suggesting that professional boxers are physically abusive to one another in the workplace.

Come to think of it, maybe that wasn't at work after all. Maybe it was my wife I'm thinking about. LOL:uhoh21:

There is one particularly interesting observation I have made regarding the differences between how men often relate to one another in the workplace vs. how women often relate to one another. When men become competitive with one another they seem to do so while observing certain unspoken rules of the game. It's as though there is some invisible line they know better than to cross. A code among rivals, so to speak. But when women become competitive--man they take off the gloves and it's fight to the death or not at all. I have on several occasions found myself dumbfounded by the extent to which one woman is willing to go to win the upper hand. Truly scary stuff. *Disclaimer--this is a very general observation and in no way was this observation meant to apply to all women.

IMHO, it depends on how things are being talked about. Most things, anyway. For example, if sex or religion are being talked about in the context of "this is what I like and this is what I don't like" then both should be taboo. But if the conversation is geared toward learning--meaning "I want to understand what is or isn't"--then I think such conversations might be appropriate. Is it not important for nurses to understand and appreciate the religious differences of the patients they treat, or perhaps the different attitudes/problems people might have with sex? Now politics--that's another story. I've not yet been able to come up with any examples of how politics might be an appropriate subject. Is that perhaps confirmation that politics is the true evil in the world? LOL

One thing I forgot to mention, Melly. I too was in your position. I owned my own business and made close to $150k annually. But I was miserable. One day my then 8-year-old son came home from school, rather despondent. He had hit the 2nd grade doldrums and had all but lost his enthusiasm for school. I proceded to lecture him regarding the importance of doing well in school now, whether he was enjoying it or not, so that he would one day be able to realize his dreams. My son soaked it all in, looked up at me, and asked, "Dad, what was your dream?" Of course, I felt like a complete hypocrite. My dream had always been to go to medical school. But I had let the daily demands of my life sidetrack me. So I thought a lot about my conversation with my son. Eventually, I worked up the courage to approach my wife to tell her I wanted to go back to school. I fully expected her to kick me to the curb. She was a stay-at-home mom and we were solely dependent upon my earnings to survive. But I was pleasantly surprised when my wife not only supported my returning to school, but said that she would go back to school with me. I ultimately decided not to attend medical school. The demands of time for doing so would have been more than I was willing to endure. I have 6 children and I do not want to miss watching them grow up in order to chase my own dreams. So my wife and I are still in school. I have 2 years left and I will have my MSN/ACNP certification. I intend to attend CRNA school following that. We live modestly, but comfortably. Surely we have made many financial sacrifices, but you can't put a price tag on the lessons we're teaching our children by our example--that one must always be true to their heart, and that it's never too late to do the right thing. Money isn't the most important thing. Follow your heart, Melly. I've not once regretted my decision.

Melly, if your calling is to help others (as well as have more time for your daughter), pay no attention to the nay-sayers. If you go into nursing and love it but the money does end up being a greater concern than you had anticipated, there are certainly ways you can increase your earning power in the field. CRNAs make well above what you were making in the IT field, and it is not all that uncommon for Nurse Practitioners to be making $80k-100k per year--or more. Do it first because it is your calling. Do it second for your daughter. Do it last for the money. But if you need to make more, you can. Just a thought--with your professional background I would think that you could go into nursing informatics. That would enable you to apply your past experience to the nursing field and you might also be able to use that past experience to earn more out of the gate. Best of luck to you! Brian

Shortly after my youngest son was born, I commenced doing what I've done following the birth of each of my other 5 children--I'd hold them in my arms and take them for a walk up and down the halls of the L&D ward and tell them all about the wonderful things they'd get to experience in life. I'd ask them if they could hear me talking to them while they were in their mother's belly and if they remembered the songs I was singing them at night--you know, a really touchy-feely Kodak kind of moment. But this particular hospital had previously had a baby abducted. Although I was walking on a secure ward (and both my son and I had matching wrist bands) I had a nurse practically push me into a corner wagging her finger in my face and telling me I wasn't allowed to take my son out of his room. I don't know if it was her aggressive posture or the fact that she was interrupting my family birth ritual that got me so hot, but I got right back in her face and told her that he was my son and I'd take him anywhere I damn well pleased. I realize she was probably hyper-sensitive due to the previous incident at the hospital, but sometimes these things go a bit far.

Just for the record, I have heard (from a civil rights attorney who is a very good friend of mine) that a corporation/board of nursing/etc. may only legally ask an applicant if he/she has been convicted of a crime. Therefore, although they may still ask about charges rather than convictions, a person is only obligated to disclose any convictions. If the employer/board of nursing/etc. refused employment/licensure based upon an applicant's failure to disclose charges which did not result in a conviction, they would be in violation of the law and an individual would have very good cause to file suit against them. I'm not giving any legal advise, mind you. But I would most definitely consult with an attorney before I listed any charges which did not result in convictions.

Don't know that I can help you much there. I used to work for Nelnet and I know that they waived all of their origination fees for stafford loans, but I do not know whether they do for their private loans or not. You can check them out at www.nelnet.net to find out.

Greetings all: I was wondering how typical it is for CRNAs to be offered loan forgiveness by their employers? Do you think this would be more commonly offered by an anesthesia group vs. hospital? If it weren't offered, would it be a reasonable request to make if offered a position? Your feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

TCRN, I guess I would first ask you if you're asking about private loans or stafford loans.

This brings up a very important point. There is a vast difference between being assertive and being aggressive. Being assertive is doing the exact types of things a previous poster mentioned--she stated her position regarding salary expectations, and she then provided research/documentation to support her position. Being aggressive would have been more along the lines of her telling administration that she knows what the position is worth, she knows what she is worth, and if the hospital was unwilling to pay her what she was worth in that position then they could just go find somebody else for the job. There is a difference between the 2, albeit a subtle difference, that may amount to little more than tone, inflection, and delivery. Yet these differences could mean the difference between being labeled a b****h or a jerk, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.For my own part, I have nearly always found that a carefully contemplated response proves more tactful and productive than an immediate retaliatory response. Even if I might end up saying the very same thing. Why? Because if my response is immediate and expressed when I am offended or angry, my frustration is likely to be evident in my tone or voice inflection. However, if I merely say, "I'll have to think about that and get back to you," it gives me an opportunity to calm down, think the problem through, and carefully plan my response. So even if I end up saying the same thing, my frustration has been tempered so my delivery will sound much more polished and logical. There's nothing wrong with telling somebody that you need to think about something before you respond. That's not the mark of an idiot who doesn't know what to say, but rather an intelligent person who accepts accountability for their statements. Administrators and co-workers alike would much rather deal with the latter, IMHO.

Thank you, Suzanne, for taking the time to answer my questions.