SeattleStudent123

Thanks for your response, JustKeepDriving. If my tone comes off as contentious, I don't intend it to at all! I'm just looking for answers and I don't know anyone in the field. My hesitation with pursuing a PA program is the very 2,000 hour requirement that you mentioned. Also, (and I'll be the first to admit I could be wrong) but PA's seem a bit more pigeonholed career-wise. The 5 year schooling would be if I did the accelerated BSN and then applied and got into the DNP programs at UW. It would end up being about 5 years with wait times included. 5 lost working years for a *chance* at getting a $80-90k-whatever job in, as you said, a stiff job market does not seem like that great an opportunity. Frankly I think you'd have to be crazy to pursue it from nothing. If you already have a BSN, that's a different story. I guess my main point is the clear timeline discrepancy between most prominent east coast schools' direct entry programs and the schools in the Seattle area. To be perfectly honest, I don't want to spend a large period of time working as an RN, even while in school. I'd rather have more schooling and not work at all so I can get out in the NP market sooner. Every article I read says that there is little overlap between the two job's responsibilities, and it seems like most people who are proponents of a RN-NP progression feel that way simply because that's what they did with their own careers. Why would I go through all of these lengthy, arduous hoops when I can be in-and-out of an equal if not greater institution in 2 years time and be a practicing NP whilst the corresponding Seattle cohort is still in the first semester of a DNP program? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the sources I've read say that a national mandate for DNP is a long, long way off and may never even happen. I don't know what to do and it seems like no two people have the same opinion!

Hi all, I'm a 29 year old currently setting the groundwork for a career as a nurse practitioner. I'm taking prerequisite classes and soon will volunteer a considerable amount of time in the health care setting to further bolster my resume and all that. A confusion that I'm running into is that I'm looking at programs in Boston, some other cities in the east, and my current transitory home of Seattle. The programs are REALLY different. The east coast programs are all 2-3 years in lengths and the application process seems fairly cut and dry. In Seattle, UW doesn't even offer a direct entry program, and to become a nurse practitioner starting from nothing seems like it would take 5+ years (accelerated bsn and then a DNP). I've heard that SU is changing their direct entry immersion program to a DNP degree, which will add two years to the program, bringing it also to nearly 5 years. This imbalance of time, and ultimately money in both lost income and tuition, makes little sense to me. How can the same working title, nurse practitioner, but obtained in 2 years and yet Seattle schools require 5 years of schooling for the same job? Who would even apply to these Seattle programs? Am I missing something? I also think it's a fair point to note that 5 years is a year longer than MED school. Why would a mid level practitioner need more schooling than a doctor? Can someone add some insight to my confusion?