Published
They probably locked you into the 5-year track because you don't have a lot of RN experience - more competitive candidates probably were offered the 4-year track. Not trying to diss, but I can't come up with another reason why they would force you into the longer program.
If I were an experienced nurse, I likely wouldn't do it. If I were still a new nurse, though, I'd definitely give it serious consideration, especially if it gives you a way to pay tuition while working and not take out loans (or taking out minimal loans). Also, my thought is that the extra RN experience would hopefully be beneficial as you become an NP.
Five years is a long time, especially compared to a 2-year master's program which would let you work too.
mursev
9 Posts
Hi All,
I recently graduated with my BSN a little over a year ago and have worked as a nurse for almost a year. After working a year I decided that I wanted to continue my education and become a nurse practitioner. I was accepted into an Adult-Gerontology Primary Care DNP program. I initially thought that the program would take approximately 3.5-4 years to complete full time. However, when I received my acceptance letter it stated that I had to go on the 5-year program plan. I asked the faculty at the school if I could do the 4-year trek, but they said that I was locked in the 5-year program plan. I told them that I would work only part-time at my work (20 hours a week) They stated that the admission decision was finalized by the faculty who interviewed me and believed would fit my experience. My question is it worth it to do the 5-year trek to be a nurse practitioner? I feel that it is a lot of school (this includes summer terms as well) to become an NP. Or should I just get my Master's and work as a nurse practitioner for a bit and go back for the DNP? Please any advice would be appreciated
Thank you,
Fellow Nurse