puppskmm

Last yeear ISU was caught lying to the Calif BRN and was running an illegal LVN to BSN program in Callifornia from 2007 to 2012. When the information became known, ISU lied to the board and branded the students who complained about the program as inept, incompetent, etc. The truth is: ISU is not honest and covers up its mistakes. Do you want to get involved with this type of program. Read the posts about the LVN to BSN program in California here on AN for evidence about the ISU program. The decision is yours but be informed beffore you make it.

ISU has become accepted in Texas. Having said that, ISU was recently caught lying to the California Board of Registered Nursing and the Board found that ISU was operating an illegal nursing school in Calif from 2007-2012. ISU may fit your needs, but realize that ISU lied to one Board of RN and it has not been honest or followed its own guidelines with its own ISU student nurses. Advisory: be aware what you are getting yourself into before you committ.

Hannabee, I can understand your concern about people who monitor this site. While the CA BRN may or may not read the posts, I can absolutely state that ISU not only reads our posts but has an shill, who fails to identify him/herself as a employee of ISU and provides ISU LVN/LPN to BSN information about our posts. [shill is defined as: An accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others."] This person has never taken any of the prerequisites, challenge exams, and has never registered for a ISU nursing class. I find this deception a problem. Yet others on AN who are associated with a college or university, clearly identify themselves. As far as my being associated with the CA BRN, I am not. I am a student like you. Since you stated you have another bachelors degree, you are well aware the importance of critical thinking and research. Following ISU through the CA BRN website and attending BSN meetings is not difficult. Anyone who is seriously interested in what is happening with the ISU LVN to BSN program should have done the same. As far your time, energy and financial investment into in the ISU LVN to BSN program, you may not have had to take any prerequisites because of your previous degree, but you still had to take the challenge exams. The cost of the 4 exams is approximately $350 each and then there is all the paperwork and certifications that must be provided to ISU--all of which cost money. You and the rest of us lost a minimum of $1500 for the pleasure of applying to ISU and passing the challenge exams. There were 144 in the last class. Multiply 144 x $1500.00 and the total is $216,000 for the fall 2012 class. A nice chuck of change that directly increased the LVN nursing department's bottomline. If you and other students signed up for the first class--Intro to Nursing--the tuition increased the financial gain. While you were waiting for your entrance letter into the Fall ISU LVN to BSN program, ISU had been put on notice that their precarious house of cards was about to be obliterated. ISU had been notified form the CA BRN that the Board received student complaints about the class syllibus and that the Spring 2013 Long Beach VA clinical did not adhere to the Calif Nurse Practice Act. ISU did not rectify the problem, but the action it took was to pulbically slandered, shun and blackball those complaining students as well as lie to the CA BRN investigator. Why did ISU do this: to continue their lucrative LVN to BSN program and to save face or their job. Further, during the CA BRN investigation, information came to light that ISU was running a pilot LVN to BSN program in Calif that was never submitted to the CA BRN for approval nor did it receive an approval. ISU had been running the pilot program for more than a year. According to the Calif Business and Professional Code and the Calif BRN Nurse Practice Act, the pilot progam was illegal, yet ISU continued to accept students and charge tuition for an illegal California LVN to BSN program. You received an acceptance letter during the initial CA BRN investigation in 2012, but it was not until September 2012 that the true issues came to light. Sometime between May and September 2012, the Calif State University Chancellor realized the scam ISU running. Not wishing to sully CSU's stellar reputation, the Calif State University Chancellor quickly declined to continue the contract with ISU. Still, ISU denied any wrongdoing and continued its scam of the CA BRN. Further, ISU did not take responsibility for its actions but continued to blame the innocent LVN to BSN complaining students as well as the CSU Chancellor. The straw that broke the ISU LVN to BSN camel's back was what happened after the September 2012 CA BRN Board meeting. The Board took serious interest into what ISU, SSU and Chancellor's office representative testified to during that September meeting. The CA BRN had gathered enough information, and based on its investigation and testimony, it remove ISU's school approval. What I have seen and continue to see is the ISU nursing department continues to mislead California LVN students. Everyone wants to trust its University, and it is very difficult to accept that ISU has been scamming California LVNs and operating an illegal nursing program in California from 2007 to December 2012. Hannabee, I agree with you that there is a serious void in LVN to ADN/BSN programs that California offers licensed and working LVNs. The Calif State Universities and the University of California system have a minopoly on the clinical sites within California. Whether this could be called racketeering, I don't know but sooner or later California will have to rectify this if any distant learning program is to be successful within Calif. It may be that CSU and U of Calif may start offering a distant learning program of their own--I understand UCLA is about to offer a distant learning program in Los Angeles. Hannabee, I disagree with you. THERE IS NO NURSING SHORTAGE WITHIN CALIFORNIA. ADNS and BSNs who have graduate find it next to impossible to get a job. As far as LVNs, schools who train LVNs, they are as common as jelly beans. Every 6 months a new crop of LVNs is graduated. The problem is, by law, those LVNs cannot work acute care facilities and can only work in SNFs, private duty, or home health. If your facility requires you, an LVN, to work overtime, it is not for a lack LVNs. It may be that LVNs do not want to work for the facility or that the facility has poor nursing administration. Again, THERE IS NO NURSING SHORTAGE WITHIN CALIFORNIA. For those students who are not in California but enrolled in the LPN to BSN program, realize that ISU will do anything to protect its program. WHAT HAPPENED IN CLAIFORNIA CAN HAPPEN TO YOU.

A new LVN to BSN program offered by ISU in Calif by Feb 2013--no way! It has not been publically discussed in the Ed Committee agenda, it has not been approved by the ed committee, and it has not been presented to the Calif BRN board for consideration. Next Board meeting is April. If not approved in April, ISU would have until the Board breaks for summer to get their ducks in a row or everything would have to wait until September. Would be interesting to see if the ISU LVN to BSN program is on the agenda. Now, ISU might hook up with an existing nursing school, but the information would still have to be made public, discussed in the ed committee, on its agenda, voted and then submitted to the Board for its consideration. Even if it did hook up, ISU is months off from offering a new program in Calif.

You mentioned: My source couldn't be better and she has no reason to lie to me about this. "backed up with facts" makes me laugh...and skeptical is spelled with a k...ok ok...whatever, don't believe me...I rarely go to allnurses.com, I only went on here specifically to share good news...that is all. With all due respect, I would be very skeptical of anything that ISU says unless it is backed up with documention from the CA BRN educational committee and the Board. Talk is cheap, especially when it comes from ISU--who has yet to apologize or take responsibility for the huge fraud it fostered upon the Calif LVN to BSN students. As far as spellinng errors--who cares. I often make spelling mistakes when typing and sometimes never see them when proofreading. I would imagine there is an error or two on my recent posts. Instead, you may want to concentrate on the content of the post. Peace out :)

P = population - women in labor I = intervention - accupuncture C = Comparison - no accupuncture O = Outcome - what outcome do you think will happen? Is there enough information out there or scholarly articles available for you to gather information for your research paper?

Jarvis has a small pocket guide that can be used separately or with the assessment book. It should help you with yorur adult pt.

The ISU LVN to BSN partnersip with Sonoma State University in California was on life support after the contract (from Jan 2007 to Jan 17, 2012) ended. For some time (which is unknown at this time) it was illegal to offer classes in Calif because there was no contract. Further there was nothing within the original contract to protect the student when the contract ended. Essentially, if you were a student in the program your classes ended and you have nothing to show for it. ISU is blaming the California State University chancellor for now renewing the contract. However, either there was no negotiation to renew the contract before it expired or someone forgot to renew the contract. Sometime later after the contract expired, someone went to the CA BRN to get them to keep the program going. There were two temporary extensions of the contract--after the original contract ended--and the extension were for 6 months only. The 2nd extension ends Dec 2012. During that time, ISU tried to get SSU/Calif Chancellor to sign a new contract. During that year's time, ISU could have used the time to locate new partners for the LVN to BSN distant learning program in Calif. To date, there is no new partnership. The Board told ISU if it does find a partner, it has this month and next month to submit and get approval for a new program with a new partner. If there is nothing or no approval, the Spring semester is lost and no new students could be admitted. It is possible that in Fall 2013 that a new partner can be found and the program authoirzed by the CA BRN Board; or, no partner could be located and that ends any hope for a DL LVN to BSN ISU program in Calif. For those people who took prerequisites or bought challenge exam material, look at the back of your contract. It should say if you are not accepted into the nursing program all you money will be refunded. Any fees paid for challenge exams should be refunded fully by ISU.

If you are in California and took classes from TCN to get into the LVN to BSN program, go to the back of your contract. It should state that you will be refunded all fees paid to TCN if you are not accepted into the nursing program. Since there is no program in Calif, you will not be admitted in January 2013. TCN owes you a complete refund.

If you want to CLEP out of a class and don't want to use TCN, do a search on the word CLEP. That should bring you to companies who provide info to CLEP out of classes at a fraction of the cost of TCN. If you need to take a class, I heard that ISU takes transcripts from Ivy Tech in Indiana. I here it is not only a regular accredited community college, but also offers accredited distant learning classes.

The back of the TCN contract states if you are not accepted into the nursing program all youf funds will be refunded. Refer to the back of your TCN contract.

Video transcript of the September CA BRN meeting can be found on UTube [COLOR=#003366]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZADwJ0WCIk\\ the ISU agenda # is 9.4

I agree with you, it does suck. The video transcrip of the meeting can be found on UTube transcript of the meeting located at [COLOR=#003366]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZADwJ0WCIk\\ As far as whether ISU will find another partner in Calif, well the program is worth millions to ISU. I would imagine that the nusing administration is trying to regain that golden goose that got loose. However, I would imagine that the CA BRN will examine any new program that is presented. The question asked of the CA BRN is how such a program could have been offered in California with absolutely no safeguards for its students. Essentially, there was a contract that never provided information on how students would matriculate once the contract ceased. Will there be a new contract for a distant learning LVN to BSN in Calif. Good question. The program is worth money but it is more difficult to get clinical placements and the board will scrutinize the program more closely--now that the board was left with egg on its face because of this mess with ISU/SSU. If I were a betting person, I would say that within the next 5 years, there is a 40% chance that such a program will happen. However, as the glut of RNs turns around and the glut turns to scarcity, I would imagien that someone will get devise a program and get a contract.

The partnership program in California between ISU and SSU started with a contract between ISU and SSU in 2007. Accordnng to the testinomy at the Sept 27th CA BRN, the assistant to the Calif State Univ Chancelor, Christine Mallon, stated: "ORIGINALLY THIS YEAR, ON JAN 18, 2012 THE ORIGINAL MOU [aka the agreement between ISU and SSU] EXPIRED." In January 2012 the 2007-2012 contract expired and within that contract, there was no provision for current students. To operate in Calif, the CA BRN in 2007 required ISU be connected to SSU. As of Jan 2012, the program was now illegal in California. Yet, ISU never communicated the issues to their students. It did, however, continued to admit new students and take tuition from current Calif students for what is now an illegal nursing program. Someone went to the CA BRN to implore BRN to step in and help the now illegal nursing program. The CA BRN contacted SSU and somehow got a temporary 6 month interim contract. Whether there were continued talks to renew the contract is unknown and still there no provision to protect the current Calif students. The temporary 6 month interim contract expired June 2012 without a new MOU entered into and still no provision for current students. ISU continues to make plans to admit new students in Fall 2012. The CA BRN got SSU to enter into a yet another temporary interim contract for another 6 months (this is temp contract #2) which would expire Dec 2012. ISU knew there was no contract but contued to admitted Fall 2012 new students with e 3 months remaining on the tempoary interim contract. Still there is no new MOU or any protections for Calif students. Sept 25, 2012 the CSU Chancellor decides not to enter into a MOU with ISU. The 2nd temporary 6-month MOU/contract expires Dec 2012 without any provision to help the present students. Left with egg on its face, ISU contended that they were under the "impression" that there would be a new MOU and SSU and the CSU Chancellor had mislead them. The truth is the original contract died and there was no new contract. There was nothing in writing that indicated any of the parties had any indication that they would enter into a new contract. ISU has failed to communicate the issues to its students about when negotiations for a new contract was started before the MOU/contract ended January 2012. One would have thought that it happened long before 2012, but no one is talking. A member of the CA BRN specifically asked how the Board could have admitted new students when there was 3 months left on the 2nd tempoary 6-month MOU/contact and there was no new contract or any provision to assist present students? The bottomline is this: ISU failed to negotiate a new MOU/contract with SSU before the Jan 2012 MOU/contract expired. Why would Calif not renew the contract. It all comes down to money. SSU got 6% and ISU 94% of monies collected from CA students. SSU is paid $200 for each student enrolled in a clinial and there are 6 clinicals. If we use the 52 students who graduated between 2007-2012, these students would represent an income to SSU of $62,400 (52 students x 6 clinials x $200) $62,400. However, those same students would provide ISU with $1,040,000. [minimum tuition $20,000 x 52 students]. Those 52 graduated students were worth a million dollars to ISU but SSU got 6% of the profits from that partnership. Presently, there are 141 admitted students in California. Should they graduate, that would me an additional $169,200 to SSU (141 students x $200 each for 6 clinicals). Those same 141 students are worth to SSU $2,820,000.00 [total tuition $20,000 x 141 = $2,820,000]. If you were SSU and the Calif State Chancellor, would you entere again into such a lopsided parthership in which you only got 6% of the profits and your patner raked in 94%? According to Christine Mallon, assist to the Calif State University Chancellor. Found on the UTube transcript of the meeting located at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZADwJ0WCIk\\ Ms. Mallon's testinomy can be found at 2:52:50 "Thank, you, uh, the CSU has 23 campuses; SSU is one of them, and um, the relationship, in terms of the relationship is what I would like to talk about the MOU itself. So, we -- the Chancellor has decided after much consultation with the ISU officials that on 12/31 of this year the MOU will be allowed to eexpire as it was previously planned for. 2:53:23 "Originally this year on January 18th, the MOU expired for a short period of time (I take it). Based on advice from the BRN, it was extended to June and then it was extended to December. So, it was extended twice, from what I understand, based on the input fromthe BRN, but we cannot continue this any further. It will be allowed to expire." At no time did ISU ever consider its golden goose, the California students. The original contract never provided student protection about what ISU would do with the students when the January 2012 MOU/contract would expired. That provision was somehow left out of the original contract. The original MOU/contract provided SSU 6% of the profits and did not protect the golden goose. How could this have happened? Poor management, poor contract, and a preditory distant learning nursing program, who was more interested in their profits than developing a contract that was fair to all. When the contract expired with no new contract, this left ISU with no California program. It is now scrambling to locate a new partner to protect its golden egg. As one student said to ISU, SSU, and CSU, "How can you sleep at night!"