I see your point TammyG and that is why I almost did the same thing you are doing. However, I was discussing it with a couple of NP friends of mine, and they suggested that I look at it a little differently. I have no plans on having any of those populations you list be my primary population, but one scenario they suggested happens on an infrequent basis, but does happen to them is when someone who is a pt of theirs has a family member that needs to be seen for something, and they would like you to see them. In our location, there is quite a dearth of available providers, so being able to take care of the 12yo son, or whatever is much appreciated and something that the FNP is able to do.
The second scenario is to either work in or do part time work in urgent care or the ER. In both cases you will end up needing to see pts of all ages even if pediatrics is a very small portion of that pt population. So, I went FNP, not because I expect to have a large amount of ped or OB pts, but because I expect to have the occasional pt in these populations that I need to see. Now, if I end up specializing in say, cardiology, then I will never need that flexibility, but if I do need it, I'll have it.
So, then the other side of the coin is, what is lost by going FNP vs. AGNP? From an education standpoint, I think there might be a course or two that I will be taking, that I wouldn't need if I was to do an AGNP track. I also will have to have a certain number of pt encounters in each of these populations in my clinical settings, so I either need to go over the minimum # of hours to compensate or I will have a few less visits in my primary population when I graduate and start working. From a practice standpoint, I could find no additional limitations in going FNP vs. AGNP.