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.
The Aiken and report and everything related to it were just promotional pieces backed and funded by the very institutions that stood to benefit. No amount of academic BS jargon will change that fact. That researcher hit the nail on the head with his critique and people like you can't stand that. Again, I'll do what I must. And you're right; the same phony data was laundered and recycled to be used again in many other unscientific printings that would have made P.T. Barnum proud.
Who do you think funded the Akien study? And how exactly do they benefit from the results?
Again, there is you and your ranting on one side and the full breadth of the extant scientific data on the other side.
The conclusion that BSNs save more lives and are better nurses is an outright deception. Anyone who believes this this deception should also believe that someone with a doctorate in nursing would provide the ultimate in patient care.
Again, cite some legitimate sources (not blogs or forum posts or opinion pieces). If you are so passionate about this, why not invest in some research classes so you could better understand what you are talking about.
Who do you think funded the Akien study? And how exactly do they benefit from the results?
Again, there is you and your ranting on one side and the full breadth of the extant scientific data on the other side.
It was supported and backed by grants and funding mostly from the AACN. If you can't figure out how they benefited from the pre-determined and paid for results, then I know you're going to be in trouble when your organization downsizes. I presented the facts from the lie itself which you chose to ignore because you and your like-minded associates knew it was the truth. Just a couple to remind you: the data pool for the study on BSN staffing and mortality rates was used for an earlier study about staffing levels and mortality. The information was just copied onto another template for the BSN study. The authors then said they would simply factor out the results from first study for the subsequent study. It wasn't even an original study. They only applied data that was first manipulated 133 times (according to the authors' own admission) to hypothetical situations, not real conditions. They ran the data through a logistical regression model to see what might happen in a hospital if it had a 10% increase of BSN nurses. They did not even attempt to compare the relative levels of RN education in real hospital situations; which is supposed to be the reason for the study in the first place. Just those two facts alone render the fabrication (I won't even call it a study anymore because there was nothing scientific about it) worthless. And above I've shown that JAMA is not the scientific trust-worthy organization they were held out to be. You can continue to be venal and ignore the facts in front of your face. I know your wife has worked for a college and your probably still getting some kind of tuition reimbursement through some school affiliation. I still remember three years ago when you were bragging in a smug way about whether to go for a doctorate in psychology or the DNP. You did so because you knew you wouldn't have to pay the full tuition. That was on a different thread. I never cared about your opinions. I care about the plights of real working nurses and patients and getting the truth in front of them. These are the nurses in their 40ss and 50s who have demonstrated expertise along with certifications in specialty areas of nursing who are being told by idiot nurse managers and administrators that they must go and spend $15,000 to $20,000 to write APA papers on nursing theory so a bunch of portly middle-aged nurses in academia and on boards can have positions till they retire. The BSN deception is unraveling on it's own as most lies do. Myself and others are just expediting the process.
It was supported and backed by grants and funding mostly from the AACN. If you can't figure out how they benefited from the pre-determined and paid for results, then I know you're going to be in trouble when your organization downsizes. I presented the facts from the lie itself which you chose to ignore because you and your like-minded associates knew it was the truth. Just a couple to remind you: the data pool for the study on BSN staffing and mortality rates was used for an earlier study about staffing levels and mortality. The information was just copied onto another template for the BSN study. The authors then said they would simply factor out the results from first study for the subsequent study. It wasn't even an original study. They only applied data that was first manipulated 133 times (according to the authors' own admission) to hypothetical situations, not real conditions. They ran the data through a logistical regression model to see what might happen in a hospital if it had a 10% increase of BSN nurses. They did not even attempt to compare the relative levels of RN education in real hospital situations; which is supposed to be the reason for the study in the first place. Just those two facts alone render the fabrication (I won't even call it a study anymore because there was nothing scientific about it) worthless. And above I've shown that JAMA is not the scientific trust-worthy organization they were held out to be. You can continue to be venal and ignore the facts in front of your face. I know your wife has worked for a college and your probably still getting some kind of tuition reimbursement through some school affiliation. I still remember three years ago when you were bragging in a smug way about whether to go for a doctorate in psychology or the DNP. You did so because you knew you wouldn't have to pay the full tuition. That was on a different thread. I never cared about your opinions. I care about the plights of real working nurses and patients and getting the truth in front of them. These are the nurses in their 40ss and 50s who have demonstrated expertise along with certifications in specialty areas of nursing who are being told by idiot nurse managers and administrators that they must go and spend $15,000 to $20,000 to write APA papers on nursing theory so a bunch of portly middle-aged nurses in academia and on boards can have positions till they retire. The BSN deception is unraveling on it's own as most lies do. Myself and others are just expediting the process.
It was funded almost entirely by a grant from the NINR which is a division of the NIH with additional funding from the RWJF.
They used extant survey data, what's the problem with that? Hundreds of studies a year use data from surveys like the NAHANES. That means nothing for validity of a study. Again, take some classes so you can understand.
I don't think you really have any understanding what "manipulation" means in the context you are using it. Of course data is controlled for other factors. It has to be in order to study a single variable. And you are talking about an entirely different study with the 10% model.
I have no idea what you mean about "real" versus "hypothetical" hospital situations. It doesn't make any sense.
JAMA is one of the most trusted scientific journals in the world. If you don't like the results then please keep ready your conspiracy theory blogs. Just don't cite them here as "evidence".
You insult others education because our haven't finished anything on your own. You can continue to call names and dismiss others but the vast majority of others here have invested in themselves and have accomplished that which I am sure deep down you wish you had.
And to be very clear, my wife works in an undergrad institution that does not have a nursing program and in no way involves my education. I worked for or paid for all of my education. Just like you should have. It's never too late.
It was funded almost entirely by a grant from the NINR which is a division of the NIH with additional funding from the RWJF.
They used extant survey data, what's the problem with that? Hundreds of studies a year use data from surveys like the NAHANES. That means nothing for validity of a study. Again, take some classes so you can understand.
I don't think you really have any understanding what "manipulation" means in the context you are using it. Of course data is controlled for other factors. It has to be in order to study a single variable. And you are talking about an entirely different study with the 10% model.
I have no idea what you mean about "real" versus "hypothetical" hospital situations. It doesn't make any sense.
JAMA is one of the most trusted scientific journals in the world. If you don't like the results then please keep ready your conspiracy theory blogs. Just don't cite them here as "evidence".
You insult others education because our haven't finished anything on your own. You can continue to call names and dismiss others but the vast majority of others here have invested in themselves and have accomplished that which I am sure deep down you wish you had.
And to be very clear, my wife works in an undergrad institution that does not have a nursing program and in no way involves my education. I worked for or paid for all of my education. Just like you should have. It's never too late.
Boston Man: I may owe you an apology. I looked at a post from you on another thread dating April 23, 2015.
"I will say some of my prior posts sound harsher than I intended them, and while I was not calling any one individual selfish I did imply that of everyone and that is more harsh than I need to be.
I have gone back to school, four times. I know what it is like. I did it with almost no money to my name, then with a baby on the way, then with with a toddler. I have loans that I am still paying off. I do understand the cost of it, even more the cost in time away from my family. On the other side, my family life is much better with how happy I am now in my work and I make plenty of money to pay back my loans, most nurses do.
I absolutely agree that family is very important, actually most important. But the two are not always mutually exclusive. I can be done, and if I read right, you are doing it right now?
Selfish sounds like a harsh term but I don't mean it to me. I mean it in the sense that people make choices to put their family first, I don't blame them, but that's not (always) what is best for the profession on a whole. Doctors manage to have families. Lawyers manage to have families. Social workers manage to have families. Teachers manage to have families. All have entry degrees higher than nurses."
I may have been wrong about you in certain regards; and when I am wrong I will admit it Maybe you did sacrifice, roll the dice and take out loans needed in the hopes it would pay off. I too paid for my first two degree myself; with government loans and out of pocket. But we will never agree on the BSN push debate. I know you want to see more studies refuting the Aiken report. But for the organizations that would have the funding, it would not be in their best financial interests to do so. You will never see a refuting study in any nursing or related medical publication. They make a lot of money selling advertising space to four year schools. As far as the national Institute of Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, I am very familiar with these organizations. And what JAMA recently did; publishing an article authored by B. Obama who is not a scientist and simply wanted to further promote the ACA before the election, signified a new low for JAMA. Obama's peers are lawyers and politicians so the article could not have been scientifically peer-reviwed. So that fact the JAMA published the Aiken report does not mean it was trustworthy and peer-reviwed as they've proven they have a price as well as many other self-serving organizations do. But his is how business is; many times unethical. And I understand that. Many criminal cases have been tried on circumstantial evidence without a smoking gun. I have just seen enough of this type of evidence to know that the BSN push is for self-serving purposes. And I am going to stake my career on it. I am 50 give or take a few. It has been shown that there is definitely age discrimination in nursing. To take out a loan for a BSN with the chances of possibly not being able to get another nursing job is too risky for me right now. As I said, I will never be convinced that any one mode of RN education is better than another. Good competent nurses have come from all three programs. And no one should be forced to go into debt to feed the revenue troughs of institutions. But again for what it's worth, I apologize to you. Your statement in bold above says a lot. You are right. It's never too late; but will it be worth the time and money?
Disagreeing about an issue is one thing. And I admit I do get hot under the collar about the BSN issue. But I didn't like where it was going and how I was feeling about it. Personal attacks are wrong; especially among professionals. But if I sense one hitting me, I'll always hit back.
Disagreeing about an issue is one thing. And I admit I do get hot under the collar about the BSN issue. But I didn't like where it was going and how I was feeling about it. Personal attacks are wrong; especially among professionals. But if I sense one hitting me, I'll always hit back.
But no one is "hitting" you...YOU are the only one personally attacking people who WANT you to show data, and present facts. Asking for facts is not an attack.
If you can replicate the study, make it ALL ADN and show those variables that the study design ignored, then DO IT, and present the information here; there are people critical of the study that can use the design, include the critiques that should be used, use ADNs and BSNs and make the comparison that mortality is the same, and undergo that study with those results, no one is going to kill you are your supporters or cover up these results; that's the thing with researching and using an IRB; the information that someone covers up is eventually discovered and that person is discredited; Andrew Wakefield comes to mind when people use research use an agenda, mainly for harm, and then additional research is used to discredit the information and that person's corrupt views are revealed.
So, if something is corrupt and flawed, use the research and PROVE it, and the right people will be discredited. But don't fight against those who actually went for their BSN such as myself; I saw it made NO SENSE to go to school for 4 years and not end up with a 4-year degree; it is literally the same amount of time and in my mind come up with a two year degree when I invested 4 years of study? THAT doesn't sit well with ME; and in the Philly are where CC's are literally a 5 grand difference when it comes to pre-reqs (science courses are ALWAYs charged higher as well as the nursing courses, and they go up EVERY year) and a university nursing program, it's not much of a savings; and to add to that, the CCs have university agreements where students can go to the universities to complete the BSN, and it's pretty seamless and beneficial YEARS before the market has decided to shift since the propriety schools that offer the ADN have given the ADN a bad name in times of shortage and those who burned out and made massive turnovers or for other reasons ended up costing the business money-especially the ones who have universities attached to them who relied on the ADNs who stayed locally to fill their bedside roles, they made their choices based particularly on some choices that's weren't ideal to them, and have made others after the scapegoat for hide past mistakes, and that is not fair.
With the proliferation of making mega health systems, for those who want the brass ring to work in a hospital, they can do what they want, especially when they have universities attached to them have to play the game-it's not right, but the market has spoken-but to their advantage.
I think the consumer must be informed and make the negotiable moves to make themselves marketable; treat your practice and your skills like a business before the business treats you like a business. That mindset has served me well for the past 15 plus years when I saw the writing on the wall when I first started in this business; it's simply illogical to be angry at the ones who play the game well, when we should be leveling the playing field on the corporate masters and holding them accountable to make their business nurse friendly, since we are the ones who are the PRIMARY reasons of making them and providers money.
That's where the energy has to lie, not anger at those who have advanced in this business and want to make improvements; we need ALL nurses to get involved to combat these challenges!
But no one is "hitting" you...YOU are the only one personally attacking people who WANT you to show data, and present facts. Asking for facts is not an attack.
If you can replicate the study, make it ALL ADN and show those variables that the study design ignored, then DO IT, and present the information here; there are people critical of the study that can use the design, include the critiques that should be used, use ADNs and BSNs and make the comparison that mortality is the same, and undergo that study with those results, no one is going to kill you are your supporters or cover up these results; that's the thing with researching and using an IRB; the information that someone covers up is eventually discovered and that person is discredited; Andrew Wakefield comes to mind when people use research use an agenda, mainly for harm, and then additional research is used to discredit the information and that person's corrupt views are revealed.
So, if something is corrupt and flawed, use the research and PROVE it, and the right people will be discredited. But don't fight against those who actually went for their BSN such as myself; I saw it made NO SENSE to go to school for 4 years and not end up with a 4-year degree; it is literally the same amount of time and in my mind come up with a two year degree when I invested 4 years of study? THAT doesn't sit well with ME; and in the Philly are where CC's are literally a 5 grand difference when it comes to pre-reqs (science courses are ALWAYs charged higher as well as the nursing courses, and they go up EVERY year) and a university nursing program, it's not much of a savings; and to add to that, the CCs have university agreements where students can go to the universities to complete the BSN, and it's pretty seamless and beneficial YEARS before the market has decided to shift since the propriety schools that offer the ADN have given the ADN a bad name in times of shortage and those who burned out and made massive turnovers or for other reasons ended up costing the business money-especially the ones who have universities attached to them who relied on the ADNs who stayed locally to fill their bedside roles, they made their choices based particularly on some choices that's weren't ideal to them, and have made others after the scapegoat for hide past mistakes, and that is not fair.
With the proliferation of making mega health systems, for those who want the brass ring to work in a hospital, they can do what they want, especially when they have universities attached to them have to play the game-it's not right, but the market has spoken-but to their advantage.
I think the consumer must be informed and make the negotiable moves to make themselves marketable; treat your practice and your skills like a business before the business treats you like a business. That mindset has served me well for the past 15 plus years when I saw the writing on the wall when I first started in this business; it's simply illogical to be angry at the ones who play the game well, when we should be leveling the playing field on the corporate masters and holding them accountable to make their business nurse friendly, since we are the ones who are the PRIMARY reasons of making them and providers money.
That's where the energy has to lie, not anger at those who have advanced in this business and want to make improvements; we need ALL nurses to get involved to combat these challenges! [/QUOT
I took Boston's comment about chem-trails as a dig. Maybe I shouldn't blame him as I did make some personal attacks of my own which I admit was wrong. If the man worked as hard as he mentioned in his bold quote above, that's deserving of respect.
The push by big education to increase revenue in their coffers by hiring people to publish so-called "peer-reviewed" research to put the notion into people's heads that more nursing theory and history courses make one a better practitioner needed three main ingredients; so-called educated nursing elites to perpetrate a falsehood to feather their own nests; big money to publish and get it out there, and a public stupid enough to believe and buy into it. And it's not just in nursing; it's in many disciplines.
I only look to the Aiken study itself to prove it was never meant to to test real situations and was only to bolster a belief held by those affiliated with higher education. These are facts of the study itself not my opinion:
The authors simply took the template they had for a previous study on nurse to patient ratios and mortality rates and by their own admission, manipulated the data no less than 133 times supposedly without bias to make it fit the mold for the BSN study. The authors also admitted to excluding hospitals that didn't fit their data set. They took all this manipulated data and ran a logistics regression model to see what MIGHT happen if they was a 10% increase in BSN RNS. The study lumped BSN, MSN and nurses with doctorates in one group and ADN and diploma nurses in another group. It was not known how many nurses in the sample were originally ADN nurses who went back to get their BSN's. BSN's who earned originally earned diplomas or ADNs likely had more experience because they would have been working as nurses before getting the BSN. So the study used flawed sampling methodology because many BSN nurses were originally ADN nurses who went back to get their BSN's. The opposite is not true- BSN's don't go back to get their ADN.
So the study doesn't even compare the relative levels of RN education. "Also, BSN/ MSN nurses tended to work in the high tech/ teaching hospitals and to have lower ratios of nurse to patient 4:1 as compared with the ADN at 8:1." "Mortality rates increases with age. The study states that the average patient age in the hospitals with more ADNs is 61.9 years, while the average patient age in the hospitals with more BSNs is 57.3 years." The study wasn't designed to test real conditions. The study was designed to create hypothetical situations and comment on the validity of said models based on highly modified and incomplete data. . Unfortunately, this one fatally flawed research report has been promulgated as gospel (by those with radically pro-BSN agendas such as the AACN), and has been a very damaging piece of propaganda because it went unscrutinized and unquestioned for a number of years.
Remember this disclaimer statement which is in the study itself because it is significant:
Study Disclaimer:
ANY RELATIONSHIP TO REAL CONDITIONS IS ONLY IMPLIED BY THE AUTHORS.
Also in the study:
And even after all the data manipulation, there were still 'clusters of data' that had to be 'standardized' using 'robust estimations'.
These are in the study itself but not in the abstracts. For any facility or state to change nursing policy based on the conjectures and implications of a few self-proclaimed nursing education experts is purely asinine and dangerous. The detrimental consequence is that many of our most experienced nurses; those with 20+ years of experience are being told to obtain BSNs within 3-4 years or risk termination. Many of these nurses have earned specialty certifications that demonstrate high proficiency in certain areas of nursing such as ICU, maternity, emergency room nursing, rehab nursing..........etc. many are in their late 40s and 50s and can not afford to take on a $20,000 - $30,000 student loan debt to take nursing theory courses such "Sociology of Nursing" (Yes that is an actual course from an RN-BSN program) that have no clinical or real world value for that matter. Instead of going into debt, many are opting out of bedside nursing and will finish their careers in non-hospital jobs leaving a critical void of experienced hospital nurses who were also called upon to mentor the new nurses just coming out of school.
BostonFNP, APRN
2 Articles; 5,584 Posts
Who do you think funded the Akien study? And how exactly do they benefit from the results?
Again, there is you and your ranting on one side and the full breadth of the extant scientific data on the other side.