I need help. I'm toward the end of the MSN program and I'm having a tough time with the exams for the Primary Care classes - right now it's Peds. Part of the problem is a large portion of the material covered on the exams is not covered in the lecture notes (usually power point presentations) nor in the reading material (usually articles on the topic being lectured on).
Some of my classmates are doing ok because they have experience in some of the areas being tested on the exams. I've been an RN for 1 1/2 years so I don't have a lot of experience outside of my clinical experiences and the short time I've been a nurse.
I'm really upset with the instructors because they're testing us on material that's not being covered. I realize this is graduate level and they shouldn't spoon feed us...but I believe the material we're being testing on should come from either the lecture notes or the reading material. If, in order to pass the exams, we need to have outside experiences, then why do we need to spend thousands of dollars on school?
I'm very clinically capable but I'm afraid of flunking out of the program because I can't pass the exams.
Help...what do you think...would you confront the instructor on the unfair exam practices...or would you just suck it up and figure out how to pass the exams?
There are very solid reasons to have several years of experience before getting into a masters program and this is one of them. I do think you will have to just hustle to stay caught up. Other avenues might be a good solid peds book like the Wong/Baker text or some other book that your instructor could recommend.
I went back for my APN with 14 years of nursing experience under my belt and did just fine - but I will say that much of what I knew as what I learned in 10 years in a level one trauma center.
I gotta hand it to you - I would have had a hard time with only 18 months experience. Good luck and hang in there.
This was the first thing that came to my mind. I would not want to be treated by an NP who had so little clinical experience. No slam on the OP intended, but I question how skilled an NP can be as a brand new RN. This is one of the reasons that I personally will not go to an NP for primary care; there are just too many out there who have little clinical experience.
Congratulations on doing so well in your oncology class and for being brave enough to tackle an MSN so early in your RN career. I feel encouraged that I'm not the only "new nurse" tackling an advanced program. It's interesting to hear that you're teaching others...I find myself doing the same thing. My fellow nurses are always surprised to hear that I've only had 18 months of nursing experience. I wish you continued success in your program!!
This is an interesting thread. If the standard for successful graduate study is two to five years of solid clinical experience, how can the universities claim to produce competent graduate-level nurses in their master's direct entry programs?
Catlady - the colleges claim that they produce clinically competent grads is that the grads can pass the certification exam. However, in real life is that grad clinically competent when they have no relevant experience? I doubt it.
If the program took you without alot of clinical experience then there should not be an expectation that you would have alot of knowledge before hand. What are the course objectives? Test questions should reflect the objectives. I agree with what others have said - this should be discussed with the faculty - do you have faculty advisor? That would be a good place to start.
I work for a medical school and as far as I can tell, there is no requirement for clinical experience whatsoever to enter most medical programs. They just dump the info on you, throw you onto the floors, and hope you pick it all up ASAP. Lots of people can enter med school straight out of undergrad, having had the pre-med classes and perhaps some volunteer experiences in the hospital but certainly not the equivalent of 3-5 years as an RN. If graduate medical programs admitted only those with significant clinical experience, and structured exams based on what students should have learned in the past, a) there would hardly be any medical students left and b) there would be an uproar, don't you think?
It just seems to me that all medical training is simply not enough when compared to years of solid experience. I'd rather have a veteran RN treat me than, say, a newly minted resident or an inexperienced doctor, even though the latter have "doctorate" degrees. In a perfect world, experienced clinicians would teach new ones and new ones could not progress until they had the experience under their belts. However, that's just not how it is for doctors or NPs.
Also, just FYI, I have a master's degree in another professional field and while there were many people in my program with lots of experience in the field, we were always tested on material rooted in lecture, discussion, and reading.
PANurseRN1
1,288 Posts
This was the first thing that came to my mind. I would not want to be treated by an NP who had so little clinical experience. No slam on the OP intended, but I question how skilled an NP can be as a brand new RN. This is one of the reasons that I personally will not go to an NP for primary care; there are just too many out there who have little clinical experience.