Many ADN-BSN online programs tried to deceive students into believing that they can get their BSN from ADN in 13 months or less. That's a lie and false advertisement. They are not telling the whole story.
For example, University of Texas at Arlington advertises this past spring that you can get your degree from ADN to BSN in 13 months. After you enrolled and pay their high tuition rates, they want you to take from them American History I and II, Texas history, and other courses that have nothing to do with Nursing. You can take these same courses from Community Colleges in California at 1/6 their cost, but if you do they may or may not accept them for credit. For example, I have a friend who took US History from a community college. UTA does not accept them for transfer credit. Their Academic Advisors are trained to do what is good for business, and not what is good for you, the student. Be careful and do not fall for their traps! They want you to stay longer in their school, and pay for their courses that nobody wants to take, such as political science, and so forth
I heard that Excelsior College gives you 35 BSN credits for your NCLEX. They don't give you the run around treatment. They are located in Albany, New York. Their tuition is a little higher, but you can graduate sooner with no hassle and stumbling blocks.
There was no scientific process here. Just a group of self-serving academic lackeys who got a bucket load of funding and nice bonuses to boot to push the agenda of the very people and institutions backing and supporting them.
What bonuses? Cite your sources.
The authors know this which is why they refused to return a call from a major news network inquiring about it. You will not see a refuting study mentioned in any nursing publication because there is no money to made that way and most of those publications make a lot money selling advertising to four year schools.
The for-profit schools making all the "money" are often associate programs, so there should be plenty of cash available. Please, cite the "four year schools" that have taken out advertisements in JAMA.
The only thing I will agree in this "study" is that ones chances of survival are probably better having surgery in a hospital with more board certified surgeons. But as far as proving people fare better in hospitals with more BSNs - garbage. You do what you feel you must do and I will do the same
So you are willing to cherry pick data from a "garbage study" huh? You have very eloquently defined pseudoscience: you take your opinion and search out only data that supports it. And at the same time you are accusing others of the same....
P.S. Any other study I've seen referenced the Aiken study and even cited it in their sources. Talk about regurgitation! The ION made its recommendations solely based on the "Faiken" study. Because that's exactly what it is.
That's because it is a landmark study. You would cite it no matter if you were supporting or refuting it. You have never published anything I assume.
So you are willing to cherry pick data from a "garbage study" huh? You have very eloquently defined pseudoscience: you take your opinion and search out only data that supports it. And at the same time you are accusing others of the same....
You're not as smart as you think you are; And from reading you other posts going back as far as 2011, you come off as smug and thinking you're the smartest in the room. " is that ones chances of survival are probably better having surgery in a hospital with more board certified surgeons." I said chances of survival are probably better-a little reading comprehension here.
That's because it is a landmark study. You would cite it no matter if you were supporting or refuting it. You have never published anything I assume.
It's a Landmark lie. The data pool for the study on BSN staffing and mortality rates was used for an earlier study about staffing levels and mortality generally. The information was simply copied onto another template for the study. The authors then said they would simply factor out the results from first study for the subsequent study. Then they only included data that was given the green light by the very people backing and supporting this fabrication.
And I don't believe for one moment you are not trying to defend this study because you have no irons in the fire Because every time someone brings out the truth about it, you are right there to put a ridiculous spin on it. You're the Jonathan Gruber of the Aiken study. That's why you're moderating on this site. So save it for the young college students you're trying to dupe. Go back and tell your colleagues the farce is over and there are a lot of PO'd people who now know they were duped out of thousands of dollars because those affiliated with academia are afraid of having to compete in the real world. I made my intentions very clear; I'm going to do to those driving the BSN push what they have done to new nursing school grads over the last few years.
And I have had things published in my locale. But I'm not going to identify myself on this site. You'll find out as I push back further.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
I am not really defending anything other than the scientific process; these studies don't apply to me and I don't have any "horse in the race" so-to-speak. If a quality study comes along to refute it then my position would change. You can call it "garbage" and regurgitate the objections of the N-OADN (talk about bias) but until there is a study published that refutes it, you are spurting only your personal opinion supported by anecdotes.
Good luck with that, I will be waiting to hear about it in the news. If some for-profits get shut down along the way, that's a bonus to everyone.
All studies have flaws, I don't particularly love the 2003 Aiken study for an entirely different reason, but this has been replicated over and over in multinational studies by different authors using different study designs.
The Akin study didn't separate those RNs who entered nursing with an associates or diploma and then went back for a degree later from those who entered nursing with a BSN or higher.
So I don't see how it can be used as evidence for BSN as entry to practice.
It's a Landmark lie. The data pool for the study on BSN staffing and mortality rates was used for an earlier study about staffing levels and mortality generally. The information was simply copied onto another template for the study. The authors then said they would simply factor out the results from first study for the subsequent study. Then they only included data that was given the green light by the very people backing and supporting this fabrication.
It's a study that you don't believe not a lie. A study published and vetted by one of the most respected peer-reviewed publications in the world. If you don't like the methods, get involved in research and repeat the study and move the profession forward rather than calling everything you don't like a lie and a shill.
The Akin study didn't separate those RNs who entered nursing with an associates or diploma and then went back for a degree later from those who entered nursing with a BSN or higher.
So I don't see how it can be used as evidence for BSN as entry to practice.
I'm not sure why it matters, in fact I think it is a strength of the study. I think people read the study and say "we need BSN entry" but really what I think it means is that nurses that are lifetime learners in the long run make better nurses.
If the study showed that, on average, a nurse that started as a diploma nurse and went on to gain both experience and education had better outcomes than a diploma nurse that did not, then it's is much more compelling argument than a new-grad to new-grad study. New grads don't stay new grads for long, the real issue is the whole career.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
I'm not sure why it matters, in fact I think it is a strength of the study. I think people read the study and say "we need BSN entry" but really what I think it means is that nurses that are lifetime learners in the long run make better nurses.
If the study showed that, on average, a nurse that started as a diploma nurse and went on to gain both experience and education had better outcomes than a diploma nurse that did not, then it's is much more compelling argument than a new-grad to new-grad study. New grads don't stay new grads for long, the real issue is the whole career.
It may indicate that nurses are lifetime learners and in the long run make better nurses. But you seem to be the only ones who sees it that way. Mostly I see people concluding that we need BSN as entry.
In my hospital we have been doing a lot of interesting data collection since 2006. One of the thing our data shows is that our ICU length of stay decreases, and ICU bounce back rate is lower when we have more nurses with CCRN. Its not a study and certainly not peer reviewed and its just one unit in one hospital.
I was thinking that if I go to grad school and need to do a research project this is exactly what I would like to study.
I managed to get a BSN in 9 months from Ohio University. However, I also planned and took classes during my ADN to make sure I had all the other non-nursing classes out of the way except for the writing class. I started in March 23ish and I graduated December 1sh so it was actually less than 9 months. However, I had to double up classes. So it is possible to get a BSN in less than a year but it depends on how many classes you transfer in.
I'm not sure why it matters, in fact I think it is a strength of the study. I think people read the study and say "we need BSN entry" but really what I think it means is that nurses that are lifetime learners in the long run make better nurses.
This fabrication claims to compare relative levels of RN education and patient mortality rates in hospital situations. That is not what was done and that's why the hell it matters. I also love the fact the criteria for the inclusion of certain data for the study was based solely on the discretion of the so-called†‘experts' creating the study. And all those 'experts' were backed by the AACN (American Assoc. of Colleges of Nursing) ); an organization committed to BSN-entry.
I'm not sure why it matters, in fact I think it is a strength of the study. I think people read the study and say "we need BSN entry" but really what I think it means is that nurses that are lifetime learners in the long run make better nurses.
This fabrication claims to compare relative levels of RN education and patient mortality rates in hospital situations. That is not what was done and that's why the hell it matters. I also love the fact the criteria for the inclusion of certain data for the study was based solely on the discretion of the so-called†‘experts' creating the study. And all those 'experts' were backed by the AACN (American Assoc. of Colleges of Nursing) ); an organization committed to BSN-entry.
This fabrication claims to compare relative levels of RN education and patient mortality rates in hospital situations. That is not what was done and that's why the hell it matters. I also love the fact the criteria for the inclusion of certain data for the study was based solely on the discretion of the so-called†‘experts' creating the study. And all those 'experts' were backed by the AACN (American Assoc. of Colleges of Nursing) ); an organization committed to BSN-entry.
It may indicate that nurses are lifetime learners and in the long run make better nurses. But you seem to be the only ones who sees it that way. Mostly I see people concluding that we need BSN as entry.
In my hospital we have been doing a lot of interesting data collection since 2006. One of the thing our data shows is that our ICU length of stay decreases, and ICU bounce back rate is lower when we have more nurses with CCRN. Its not a study and certainly not peer reviewed and its just one unit in one hospital.
I was thinking that if I go to grad school and need to do a research project this is exactly what I would like to study.
I think that would be a great study. I wish certifications counted as credits towards a BSN.
BostonFNP, APRN
2 Articles; 5,584 Posts
What bonuses? Cite your sources.
The for-profit schools making all the "money" are often associate programs, so there should be plenty of cash available. Please, cite the "four year schools" that have taken out advertisements in JAMA.
So you are willing to cherry pick data from a "garbage study" huh? You have very eloquently defined pseudoscience: you take your opinion and search out only data that supports it. And at the same time you are accusing others of the same....