logank622

I've looked at this thread and there's a lot more to it than nursing program accreditation. By the same logic you provide, about 50% of hospitals, etc. DON'T require that the nurse graduate from an accredited nursing program. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I've provided facts to back up my claims and my position, but most people seem to be content to make decisions based on what they think instead of actual information. I'm clearly wasting my time trying to use logic and rational argument.

What is your source for this claim? I can understand accusing ACICS of being lax, or of doing a poor job of evaluating its accredited schools, but can you support your accusation of "dishonest"? ACICS clients being "under federal investigation" for fraud is not sufficient. Which ACICS-accredited institutions were found guilty of fraud, and how did ACICS respond? If a nurse is accused of abusing a patient, the BON launches an investigation. With no other information presented, do you assume the hospital that hired the nurse is "dishonest"? It's the same criteria as "scam" - you are making serious accusations and you need to back up your claim.

"Scam" is a loaded word. Here's the URL for the US DOE recommendation to withdraw recognition of ACICS - the word "scam" doesn't appear anywhere in it. ACICS has been recognized by the DOE since 1956; if it were a scam, the FTC would have a record of it (there are no results for it when I search their site) and the DOE would withdraw immediately instead of going through the 18-month process. Some of its accredited institutions may be less-than-stellar or approaching "scam" territory, but I think it's a stretch to make that accusation for the accrediting agency itself. U.S. Department of Education's On-Line Secretarial Recognition Submission Process. There are plenty of legitimate non-degree nursing programs - for example, here in Ohio the BON has given full approval to Firelands Regional Medical Center School of Nursing in Sandusky, a diploma program that has no recognized accreditation by the US DOE. Being a non-degree program has no bearing on legitimacy. There are a lot of emotional responses to this thread - I'm trying to stay objective. I'm concerned that words like "unaccredited" and "scam" are being used when they aren't accurate or are unnecessary. Those are serious accusations that so far have only been supported by opinions, not facts. Please understand that I agree these programs (Fortis, ITT, etc.) are terrible - I've stated it several times in this thread. They are poor quality: they accept less-than-qualified students, are driven by profit, and have low pass rates. Those are verifiable facts, and that alone should be sufficient reasons to encourage potential students to look elsewhere. Some of those Fortis graduates won't pass the NCLEX because they shouldn't have been accepted to nursing school to begin with. Some will pass but will have trouble finding jobs because of the school's reputation (not because of their accreditation). Some will be turned down because the school doesn't have NLN approval. Many graduates took out enormous loans to pay for school, and they will have trouble paying them back even if they can find a nursing job. There are plenty of scenarios that can support our assertions that students should avoid those schools. I don't understand why there is a need to risk our credibility by accusing them of being unaccredited, which can easily be disproved, or calling the accrediting agency a "scam" when the government body responsible for them does not use that term. Those arguments aren't necessary to make our point.

I do understand about the accreditation. My point is, they ARE accredited. It is not accurate to say they are not. I can understand why your personal experience causes you to view them that way, and I'm truly sorry you went through that. However, they are legitimately accredited and recognized by the US Department of Education. Transferring credits is an issue for nationally-accredited schools. I've posted about that before - it shouldn't be an issue, but regionally-accredited colleges can deny them. Nurses graduating from those colleges have trouble getting jobs. It's not because of the accreditation - it's because they have reputations for being poor quality. Their graduates qualify to sit for the NCLEX, and a small number of them pass. There are too many nurses for too few positions, so those nurses have problems finding jobs - it's an issue of reputation. Between the transfer issues and low employer acceptance of those degrees, it makes sense to warn students away from them. I agree with you 100%. My beef is with the claim that they are unaccredited. I understand I'm splitting hairs, but as I mentioned, I have a higher education background so I'm more sensitive to the word "unaccredited". Now that I see where you're coming from, I do sympathize with you and I understand your passion. I hope you'll understand my point as well - these programs are poor quality and are purely profit-driven, and they have a lot of other valid issues. I'm just asking you to stop calling them unaccredited because it's not accurate.

There are plenty of nurses who get jobs with those degrees. I understand the transfer issue, and I agree with it, but the fact is that they are still accredited, and some nationally-accredited programs' credits do transfer. It is wrong to say those schools are unaccredited. As I said earlier, there are plenty of valid reasons to warn students away from those schools. Lying about their accreditation is NOT one of them. I may be an LPN, but I also have a masters degree in higher education. You are misinformed.

And as I explained in a previous post, you are wrong. You do not understand "proper" accreditation. If they are not properly accredited, why is the BON even meeting with them, let alone approving them (whether under close scrutiny or not)? Your personal observations of the BON's being "unimpressed" don't mean anything. The BON has the power to refuse approval, but they didn't do it. You said they were told to get their pass rates up. You're not making any sense. Also, Fortis has numerous locations in numerous states. Which meeting did you go to? I'm referring to the location in Indiana, where the poster was located. That program has legitimate accreditation and has initial approval from the BON.

You are not correct, no matter how many exclamation points you use. Those are legitimate accrediting agencies recognized by the US Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. You can search the database at chea.org. Your post below is slightly more accurate. Regional accreditation is the gold standard, and those credits will transfer. Nationally-accredited programs' credits may not transfer, but sometimes they do. ACICS and ACCSC are national accrediting agencies. The two bodies you mention are professional accrediting agencies. For nursing, a school needs either regional or national accreditation and BON approval. Professional accreditation is a separate issue.

This is incorrect - Fortis has national accreditation through ACCSC. In Indiana, their RN program has initial accreditation from the BON. I understand and appreciate your passion, and I'm not defending Fortis, but they are accredited. There are other valid reasons to avoid them.

Please cite the source for your claim that Medtech and Kaplan are "totally unaccredited". In Indianapolis, Medtech is accredited by ACICS (same as ITT) and Kaplan is accredited by ACCSC (Accrediting Commission of Career Colleges and Schools). Both are recognized by the US Department of Education. In addition, both have LPN programs that are FULLY accredited by the IN BON. It looks like Medtech's RN program isn't passing muster with the BON, but their LPN program is fine. "For-profit" is not the same as unaccredited or diploma mill. Far from it. I absolutely agree that for-profit education has issues - they market themselves heavily, rely on students' qualifying for federal aid, and accept students who may not qualify for other programs, and their NCLEX pass rates show it. There may be plenty of valid reasons to warn students away from them. But please don't call them "unaccredited" unless it's actually true.

You're correct that you MUST include it on an application, but it is not dishonest to leave it off a resume. Your resume is a picture of your experience and career, and you have complete control of that. In fact, it would hurt your resume to include a short-term position where you (presumably) didn't accomplish much. You shouldn't lie on a resume, but there is nothing at all wrong with omitting a position that doesn't represent you. At worst, leaving it off your resume would show an employment gap - if this is brought up, you could explain that you were in a position that was not a good fit. (Again, this is NOT dishonesty - resumes are not legal documents.) Even that may be avoided by only listing years - for example, Smith Hospital, 2012-2015. A proper background check can only be completed after you submit an application. As long as the position is included on your application, you're fine. Don't add it to your resume.

I'm ashamed to say I never knew the nurse's name when I was in school. I wasn't a FF, but I was there enough that I should have learned her name. I'm not a school nurse, but I was a substitute teacher for a while. (OK, so it was five and a half days. Whatever. Those kids were monsters.) That's the only time in my life I've been called by my last name, and I hated it. I don't mind being called by my first name, and especially if a kid is scared or in pain, I'm not going to get hung up on formalities. That's just me though - I can see that being a slippery slope and a potential boundary issue for some people. When I was in first grade myself, there was a teacher named Ms. Sis-pants-ski. At least, that's how we said it - I could never spell it. It was a long Polish name with an outrageously low vowel-to-consonant ratio, and I doubt any first grader could pronounce it correctly. Years later I heard she got married and her name was now Mrs. Smith. To this day, I'm irrationally angry at her for making us fight with Szspanszcky (or something like that) when other students could just use Smith. She was a sweet, pretty young teacher and there's no excuse for her not getting married sooner for our convenience.

Agree 100% - we also gave senna frequently. It doesn't look like anyone has mentioned levothyroxine, iron, or Prostat. Also, we usually had at least one person on some type of antibiotic. Keflex, Cipro, Bactrim, etc. OP, congrats on passing the NCLEX!

I agree, "upspeak" is annoying, though honestly I don't hear it much. I have several friends in the Pittsburgh area, and they do the opposite. When they ask a question, they inflect the last word downward instead of up. "Are you going swimming." "Did he call you yet." To me, it's absolutely adorable. I'm not sure why I like it so much, but it makes my visits that much more fun.

I know sometimes people just have a block on certain words. My brother always pronounced coconut as "conoconut". For years. I still don't know if he can say it properly. :) But you at least recognize that you're not saying it correctly. I worked with one woman who had been a nurse for 30+ years and she told me during report that she had given a patient her PRN loratadine. She even mentioned it a couple times. When I checked the MAR - lorazepam, not loratadine. After 30 years, she probably could have picked up on that one.

I only recently learned the difference. I think most people think they're interchangeable. For me: The worst for me is when a nurse doesn't take the time to learn the proper pronunciation of meds. Metoprol, Alprazam, etc. Any number of variations on metoclopramide or metronidazole. Not only irritating but potentially dangerous. I don't even care if you stress the wrong syllable, but don't change syllables or leave them out entirely! Defiantly instead of definitely. "Hopefully". It means "in a hopeful manner". If you say "hopefully it rains tomorrow", you're saying "It WILL rain tomorrow, and it will rain in a hopeful manner". Unfortunately, the dictionary has added "I hope" as an acceptable definition, so I have to let this one go - but darn it, it's just not right! :)