It used to be that nurses did not have to go to college; we were instead trained by hospitals. Then the education requirement changed and community college replaced hospitals. And now, it is changing to that some hospitals will only hire nurses with college degrees. Undoubtedly, the education requirement will continue to increase in the future.
The downside to this is that it will make this profession harder to get into. And those who are in the profession will constantly need to adapt by going back to school. The upside to this is that it will provide us with more skills to do a better job.
I don't think the BSN manadate has anything to do with a genuine interest in advancing the nursing profession. I think it has to do with giving job security to those in academia, the nursing executives will feel they have less hard heads to crack and the BSN's will "see things the corporate way" and in agreeing with a thought that Brandon posted- all the "nursing tasks " cand be given to UAP- cost farr less money than LPN's and ADN's. I don't think any one of the PTB care a whoot about high quality patient care and doing the right thing, they are willing to settle for competent care level because it is cheaper and means more money for them.
If they cared about high quality patient care- this runawway trainwreck of a healthcare system we have would have reached a screetching halt a long time ago.
Being squeeszed out of money for tuition with the threat and reality of "no BSN= no job" I believe equals extortion. And like earlier pointed out- how many 50 yr old's are willing to put them self into further debt to accomodate these friviolious nursing ecxecutives and nursing academia whose personal financial situations in their own home is - money is no object. This is blatant- look at the clothes they wear to work, their purses, their cars- they are not shopping Wal-Mart people!!! I don't care what size they wear- it doesn't come from Wal-Mart.
Mandating a standard level of education at the bachelor standard for entry into the profession has nothing to do with anything but the professionalization of nursing. Every other reason that is stated such as patient outcomes is simply excuses to help reinforce professionalization.
Whether one wants to professionalize nursing or not is up to debate.
There is no nursing education conspiracy, man did walk on the moon, Kennedy was shot by Oswald, and vaccines do not control our mind.
Some people aren't academically inclined towards four year college work, which often is one of the reasons they chose a lesser degree in the first place. Suppose after being licensed one could shop around for an online RN-BSN program that wasn't too difficult but there are pitfalls there as well. Some simply cannot function without the structure of physically attending classes.
It all comes down to what will happen after the ten years or so (assuming extensions are built into the scheme) pass and the ADN RN still does not have her or his BSN, what then? Are you going to take their license away? Suspend it until proof of BSN is submitted. Can tell you know that is going to make some lawyers very happy.
Wow. Thanks for responding. To the part about academically inclined--OK, maybe it is me, but um, it's really not all that hard or challenging, especially if you aren't aiming for a 4.0 for grad school.
2nd: No, don't take away anyone's license. You set in certain stipulations for delay--say for example, you were working full time, taking courses, and you had children and had to take in a parent with Alzheimer's with that time period? Maybe you had to fight breast cancer twice. So these things have to be approached in a stepped process and case-by-case basis. If you meet certain exceptions, however, you have to be able to demonstrate that they are true--they must be able to be verified. People can't just say, "Ah my grandmom got ill and ......." I mean for various professional certifications in medicine, NP, etc, you have to maintain so many hours of practice, jump through certain hoops. It's the way it goes.
BSNs have been around a lot longer than the 70's. BSNs were around at least in the 1920's at Yale, there were other schools such as Columbia that were established in the 1890's that offered a nursing program that gave you a bachelor's degree along with a diploma in nursing (kind of like a dual degree or interdisciplinary degree).
Yes I realize that BSN's have been in existence long before the 1970's. For the sake of this discussion, I mentioned the 1970's simply as a reference point. Many people seem to think that BSN's are a recent phenomenon.
Mandating a standard level of education at the bachelor standard for entry into the profession has nothing to do with anything but the professionalization of nursing. Every other reason that is stated such as patient outcomes is simply excuses to help reinforce professionalization.
Whether one wants to professionalize nursing or not is up to debate.
There is no nursing education conspiracy, man did walk on the moon, Kennedy was shot by Oswald, and vaccines do not control our mind.
Smile. I agree and disagree at the same time. Politics and money are indeed huge issues here. I am not saying I am against making baseline nursing education BSN. I think ultimately it will promote our profession.
What I am against is the way in which it is being approached, particularly in this economic climate, and particularly with regard to giving new grad BSNs without strong clinical RN experience preference over those that have strong clinical experience--even if those with said strong experience have been out of nursing for a time.
Why? There is a curb of forgetting, but if you have strong, lengthy experience, unless you have some form of dementia or a drug problem, no. It does NOT all fall out of your brain. You have clinical judgment and critical thinking skills that you have NOT lost. Being a bit rusty /0/= forgotten strong knowledge, skills, judgment and critical thinking--that new graduates, regardless of the BSN, have not as yet obtained--and will require YEARS to obtain--even if they don't like to face that reality.
However, when you can kill two birds with one stone--that is, meet the current political agenda, which looks good on paper, with keeping salaries low (Hey you're paying non-experienced, novice RNs a lot less than experienced ones.), well, this can look like a win-win all the way around. But the thinking is shortsighted.
Hospitals are going to be bitten in the rumps big time over this approach. Live and learn--yet again.
Some people aren't academically inclined towards four year college work, which often is one of the reasons they chose a lesser degree in the first place.
What if a person who was not "academically inclined towards four year college work" wanted to be a physician? Should we simply lower the academic threshold for that profession?
Smile. I agree and disagree at the same time. Politics and money are indeed huge issues here. I am not saying I am against making baseline nursing education BSN. I think ultimately it will promote our profession.
What I am against is the way in which it is being approached, particularly in this economic climate, and particularly with regard to giving new grad BSNs without strong clinical RN experience preference over those that have strong clinical experience--even if those with said strong experience have been out of nursing for a time.
Why? There is a curb of forgetting, but if you have strong, lengthy experience, unless you have some form of dementia or a drug problem, no. It does NOT all fall out of your brain. You have clinical judgment and critical thinking skills that you have NOT lost. Being a bit rusty /0/= forgotten strong knowledge, skills, judgment and critical thinking--that new graduates, regardless of the BSN, have not as yet obtained--and will require YEARS to obtain--even if they don't like to face that reality.
However, when you can kill two birds with one stone--that is, meet the current political agenda, which looks good on paper, with keeping salaries low (Hey you're paying non-experienced, novice RNs a lot less than experienced ones.), well, this can look like a win-win all the way around. But the thinking is shortsighted.
Hospitals are going to be bitten in the rumps big time over this approach. Live and learn--yet again.
I guess what the issue is that there are several various forces in nursing pushing for BSNs in various ways.
The overall goal of nursing is to professionalize and eventually have the minimal entry level the BSN so that we can firmly call nursing a profession.
Hospitals are pushing for BSNs as more of a marketing gimmic and simply because there are available BSN nurses due to market forces.
And then there are those forces that would like ALL nurses to be mandated to be BSN nurses.
I honestly think that a gradual approach that focuses on changing educational programs will win the day, just as Diploma programs have largely gone away I think that ADN programs will also go away. Professionalization is not something that is done in a decade or even several, professionalization is something that happens over lifetimes.
Wow. Thanks for responding. To the part about academically inclined--OK, maybe it is me, but um, it's really not all that hard or challenging, especially if you aren't aiming for a 4.0 for grad school.
2nd: No, don't take away anyone's license. You set in certain stipulations for delay--say for example, you were working full time, taking courses, and you had children and had to take in a parent with Alzheimer's with that time period? Maybe you had to fight breast cancer twice. So these things have to be approached in a stepped process and case-by-case basis. If you meet certain exceptions, however, you have to be able to demonstrate that they are true--they must be able to be verified. People can't just say, "Ah my grandmom got ill and ......." I mean for various professional certifications in medicine, NP, etc, you have to maintain so many hours of practice, jump through certain hoops. It's the way it goes.
As one as posted elsewhere, here in NYC to get anywhere near a top tier NYC private hospital new grads must have a GPA of 3.0 or above (one hospital wants 3.5 or above), in both nursing (and perhaps overall, have to look it up) and sciences. Most all require one to submitt college transcripts as part of the new grad hiring process as well. Added to this most of the nursing programs around here including CUNY (city university system) have started mandating 3.0 in the pre-nursing sequence, and the sciences for entry and often retention.
In NYC you cannot obtain a BofS in most if not all majors IIRC without organic chemistry and perhaps a college level math class (usually algerbra or above), and of course statistics. This on top of whatever core the college/university imposes upon all students. Now some may be able to eek out a 2.5 or even 2.8 in organic chem, but for not too small a number of potential nursing students that class is the deal breaker. Keep in mind of course if one did not take general chem in high school you're going to have it as a pre-req to getting into a college level OC class.
Getting into a RN program around here is fast becoming like planning to go to med school. One has to start thinking about it at the high school level and begin laying down the proper foundation.
So yes, basically you have to "aim for a 4.0" that way if you only reach 3.5 you're still good.
Only a "insert bad word" starts racking up debt at age 50. It makes no fiscal sense as you will not recoup the cost by the debt affording you higher pay. If you are 20 it makes sense. Not if you are 50 unless they are going to pay you a higher salary which is not the case going from an ADN to a BSN.
There is no reason that ADN RNs shouldn't be grandfathered in. As it is, hospitals are showing an increasing preference for newly-minted nurses with BSNs. I hope it's not having a great effect on experienced ADN RNs.
Most likely when the bar is advanced to the BSN all of the ADN nurses will be grandfathered in and new nurses will have to achieve the BSN standard. Similar to the advancement of the nurse practitioner programs to DNPs from MSNs.
Or we could just do it the easy way and grandfather anyone with a current RN license in.
* * *
You can grandfather in all the diplomas and ADN's and LPN's you want- those are just words. Try getting a job!!
That may be true — for bedside/ICU/ER/etc. hospital nursing.
Many did, many more did not. In fact sitting two feet to my left is a Diploma nurse who I think roommated with Nightingale. When she is gone she will not be replaced.
Once one limits the schools, time will take care of itself.
*LOL* Roomed with old Flo, how funny! *LOL*
A friend of mine works with an "old school" RN who still wears whites and her cap. One day they were having a go at each other and she came out with it: "nursing has changed since you were working with Edith Cavell"...
I guess what the issue is that there are several various forces in nursing pushing for BSNs in various ways.
The overall goal of nursing is to professionalize and eventually have the minimal entry level the BSN so that we can firmly call nursing a profession.
Hospitals are pushing for BSNs as more of a marketing gimmic and simply because there are available BSN nurses due to market forces.
And then there are those forces that would like ALL nurses to be mandated to be BSN nurses.
I honestly think that a gradual approach that focuses on changing educational programs will win the day, just as Diploma programs have largely gone away I think that ADN programs will also go away. Professionalization is not something that is done in a decade or even several, professionalization is something that happens over lifetimes.
I agree re: a gradual approach.
What I find absolutely infuriating is when hospitals turn away RNs with strong and relevant clinical experiences b/c they do not have a BSN, or b/c they have been out of the workforce for a while.
I mean if you have strong experiences RNs, even if they are out of the workforce, but they are matriculated in a BSN or BSN-MSN, whatever, for God's sake, give them preference. You cannot get a new RN (BSN or not) up to speed ( in most cases) in a matter of weeks. It takes really a good two years of full-time RN experience.
I find the arguments from hospitals about being out not giving interviews to strongly experienced RNs that have been out for a while and not yet having the BSN ( I have been hearing that this is a huge issue for many experienced RNs) totally illogical and foolish.
So, et um, could it be that you can 1. Get the FTEs or nurse employee numbers with % of RN, BSNs on paper, while also gaining the benefit of paying them a lot less, b/c after all their GNs. Kills two birds with one stone--new BSN--got paper credentials, but no clinical experience--lesser salaries.
LOL, and people want to know why so many in nursing are angry?
It's the same old mentality. Treat RNs like the grunts that they are, but, hey, let's get them to at least look more academically professional on paper. The certifying agencies and general public will think that the institution is top notch, even though those new GNs are going to take two years to really even begin to get up to speed. (But if we get strongly experienced RNs that are matriculated in BSN and upward programs, even though they will take a much shorter time to get up to speed if their experience is strong--well, we have to pay them MORE b/c of their experience! On top of that they may be a bit more demanding about things like tuition reimbursement--which we really don't want to shell out on that much, if any dollar amount at.) So, now you are hiring people that have the BSN, and most of them will not use any tuition reimbursement to go to grads school. They will more likely want to get their personal/family/parenting lives started.
So much of this is all about $$$$, and again, it's shortsighted. Do you see what I am saying?
It's absurd and hypocritical.
The nurse/paramedic that left his ICU position without two weeks notice--b/c of nurse: patient ratios demonstrates why this whole approach it so wrong, and I believe it just scratches the surface.
What I find absolutely infuriating is when hospitals turn away RNs with strong and relevant clinical experiences b/c they do not have a BSN, or b/c they have been out of the workforce for a while.
I mean if you have strong experiences RNs, even if they are out of the workforce, but they are matriculated in a BSN or BSN-MSN, whatever, for God's sake, give them preference. You cannot get a new RN (BSN or not) up to speed ( in most cases) in a matter of weeks. It takes really a good two years of full-time RN experience.
I find the arguments from hospitals about being out not giving interviews to strongly experienced RNs that have been out for a while and not yet having the BSN ( I have been hearing that this is a huge issue for many experienced RNs) totally illogical and foolish.
So, et um, could it be that you can 1. Get the FTEs or nurse employee numbers with % of RN, BSNs on paper, while also gaining the benefit of paying them a lot less, b/c after all their GNs. Kills two birds with one stone--new BSN--got paper credentials, but no clinical experience--lesser salaries.
LOL, and people want to know why so many in nursing are angry?
It's the same old mentality. Treat RNs like the grunts that they are, but, hey, let's get them to at least look more academically professional on paper. The certifying agencies and general public will think that the institution is top notch, even though those new GNs are going to take two years to really even begin to get up to speed. (But if we get strongly experienced RNs that are matriculated in BSN and upward programs, even though they will take a much shorter time to get up to speed if their experience is strong--well, we have to pay them MORE b/c of their experience! On top of that they may be a bit more demanding about things like tuition reimbursement--which we really don't want to shell out on that much, if any dollar amount at.) So, now you are hiring people that have the BSN, and most of them will not use any tuition reimbursement to go to grads school. They will more likely want to get their personal/family/parenting lives started.
So much of this is all about $$$$, and again, it's shortsighted. Do you see what I am saying?
It's absurd and hypocritical.
The nurse/paramedic that left his ICU position without two weeks notice--b/c of nurse: patient ratios demonstrates why this whole approach it so wrong, and I believe it just scratches the surface.
Hospitals are not pushing the BSN standard, that is a nursing initiative, hospitals are just reacting to it. Worst case is that they are attempting to hire BSN nurses purely for marketing reasons, not a bad thing actually.
Market forces tend to work themselves out, don't you worry about that. Nursing managers have their reasons for hiring certain people and they will pay the price, or reap the rewards, for such decisions. Darwinian principles tend to play a large part in deciding which business models succeed and which fail.
Asystole RN
2,352 Posts
Mandating a standard level of education at the bachelor standard for entry into the profession has nothing to do with anything but the professionalization of nursing. Every other reason that is stated such as patient outcomes is simply excuses to help reinforce professionalization.
Whether one wants to professionalize nursing or not is up to debate.
There is no nursing education conspiracy, man did walk on the moon, Kennedy was shot by Oswald, and vaccines do not control our mind.