I am taking classes towards my BSN because like other nurses with a diploma or ADN I am being "forced" to return to school for my BSN. I have had my ADN for 9 years. My question is HOW is statistics, critical inquiry, and the other classes going to make me a better nurse? Isn't hands on training the best way to learn? I feel like they are requiring BSN now and in 10 years want MSN so that we wont need doctors working on the floors, because nurses will do their own orders!!
I am 42 y/o and rally don't want to do this, but I have a minimum of 23 years left of working and had to be forced to stay where I am due to not having a BSN. Sure they say we may be "grandfathered" in, but that limits us to stay put.
Anyone have any input on this, as to what am I going to learn getting my BSN and why the requirement now?
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
I believe the poster is referring to RN-to-BSN bridge programs.
Yes, I believe that as well. That is what I found amusing. 2 years? Allnurses has a number of discussions were nurses talk about getting their BSN in 6 months. My program was a year at a local well respected state university.
Just because you found parts of your program not to your liking (and believe me, not all programs
have students write about having a golf ball taped in one's hands) does not mean that BSN/BSN completion programs have no merit.
Naturally! I would not say any program had "no" merit. However we must look at the cost vs benefit of anything.
I know that many people would agree with me that RN to BSN programs could be much better and more relevant.
More education is never a bad thing;
Oh I don't agree with that at all. It also depends on your definition of "education". If by spending one's limited time and resources doing one form of "education" that the otherwise could have spent on a more valuable, meaningful and relevant education are not worse off?
Not having that BSN can be detrimental when wanting to move up the career ladder into management or education, changing jobs, etc.
Yes, very true. If I were an RN with an ADN I would consider skipping the BSN completely and doing RN to MSN instead. They take about the same amount of time and effort from what I have observed.
I didn't find anything condescending in the PP's post;only the recognition that nursing has changed and will continue to change in the future.
Pointing out the blatantly obvious to people who are clearly in the best position to know (nurses with 30 years experience) IS condescending.
I compared my ADN curriculum to direct entry BSN curriculum locally (3 different schools) and the difference was general education credits and an official leadership class. Maybe ADN programs have gone a long way or people never bothered to compare the two. In all honesty, I think we need to take general education classes out of programs. Do we really need art history or American literature to be a nurse? In fact, by doing a bridge program, I'll receive more "education" than a traditional BSN in regards to nursing education.
What is a scary thought is that an ADN program is tougher to get in than most education programs. The people teaching our children do not have to be the most competitive to teach.
In all honesty, I think we need to take general education classes out of programs. Do we really need art history or American literature to be a nurse? In fact, by doing a bridge program, I'll receive more "education" than a traditional BSN in regards to nursing education.
What is a scary thought is that an ADN program is tougher to get in than most education programs. The people teaching our children do not have to be the most competitive to teach.
No, you don't need art history or American literature "to be a nurse." But you need them to be an educated person, which is the point of a degree program vs. technical/vocational training.
I do not find it "scary" that it is easier to get into an education program than a nursing program. I am less concerned about the caliber of school teachers than I am the caliber of people who might hold my life in their hands if, God forbid, I need to be hospitalized. :)
The truth is in life we do a lot of things that aren't necessary but required. The wave of the future is the requirement of the BSN. People can either get on board or not complain when they are left behind. Would you want your child's teacher to have their job with a 2 year degree? While it may have taken you 3 or even 4 years to obtain at the end of the day it is called a 2 yr degree. I personally detest nursing theory and find it boring and useless. I also passed all of those theory courses to get where I needed to go. It's all about what people want.
I compared my ADN curriculum to direct entry BSN curriculum locally (3 different schools) and the difference was general education credits and an official leadership class. Maybe ADN programs have gone a long way or people never bothered to compare the two. In all honesty, I think we need to take general education classes out of programs. Do we really need art history or American literature to be a nurse? In fact, by doing a bridge program, I'll receive more "education" than a traditional BSN in regards to nursing education.
What is a scary thought is that an ADN program is tougher to get in than most education programs. The people teaching our children do not have to be the most competitive to teach.
All candidates for college degrees are required to complete various state required course distributions as well as often those imposed by the college/university itself. The latter however you often only find in four year colleges/universities.
The whole idea of moving nursing programs out of hospital based schools and into colleges was to give student nurses a more "rounded" education. Contrary to popular belief college/university are not merely "job training" though some would say community colleges/associate degree are slightly geared towards that goal. No, but the whole idea of college is to give persons experience and knowledge that help to mold and form a "well rounded" individual, to repeat the phase.
Whatever the reason it must work because despite initial misgivings and grumbling hospitals/facilities took to ADN prepared grads in place of diploma in droves. So much so in most areas of this country diploma schools have all but vanished (NYS has just one), the hospital based programs that do remain have mostly all become ADN schemes.
I compared my ADN curriculum to direct entry BSN curriculum locally (3 different schools) and the difference was general education credits and an official leadership class. Maybe ADN programs have gone a long way or people never bothered to compare the two.
If that is the only difference, then you have every right to be upset -- AT YOUR ADN PROGRAM -- for requiring more coursework than is required by the national standards. It sounds like you went to one of those ADN programs that have increased their requirements to the point that there is little difference between their program and a BSN. (Did you really have to take a whole course on research and a whole course on theory? Wow!) They require more courses and collect more money from the students ... but only award the lower academic credential. If a school upped its requirements, but not the credentials it awarded, I would be upset, too. Where I live, you can get an ADN in 15 months.
Another possibility is that the courses aren't as much alike as you think. Sometimes courses that have the same title are taught at different levels. For example, the research course in a BSN program is less advanced than one at the MSN level, which is less advanced than the one at the PhD level -- even though they all may have similar course titles, such as "Research in Nursing."
As another example, at the BSN level, the national expectation is that students be familiar with the work of the major nursing theorists and be able to apply their theories in common patient situations. At the MSN level, the standard expectation is that students be able to analyze theories, critique their use, and use them as a theoretical foundation for a wide variety of projects. At the PhD level, the expectation includes the ability to develop new theory and to make more sophisticated judgments about the use and development of theory.
At an Associate's Degree level, the expectations are even more modest than those of the BSN level. Courses in theory and research are not even required. They just integrate a taste of it into other courses.
If your school required that higher level of achievement as well as those additional courses in all aspects of nursing (such as community health, the critique of theory and research articles, leadership, etc.), then you may want to consider an RN-BSN program that will allow you to test out of some of those courses -- or at least move at a pace where you can finish quickly and not have to invest more time studying material you have already mastered.
However, as someone who has taught theory and research in an RN-BSN program for several years, I have yet to find ANY student (out of the few hundred that I have taught) who has come into my classes knowing that stuff.
I've been a nurse for over 25 years (gack!), and I've never had a problem finding a job with just an associates degree. I didn't expect to ever have problems finding employment. That said, a BSN may open doors for me or it may give me an edge that I need should I choose to find another job. Last year I earned my BSN. It didn't cost me much in time or money and although I may never *need* it, I think it was worth getting. Just in case. :)
With the plethora of fully accredited online RN to BSN programs these days, it seems a no-brainer to complete the degree unless you are just a few years from retirement. And hey, you might actually learn something! :)
I can't understand for the life of me why so many nurses find the idea of being more educated so offensive. The anti-intellectual tone found all over this forum is awkward and shameful. What in the world is wrong with more education, in any context or situation? What's the BIG PROBLEM with this profession evolving academically and intellectually? Why does that idea CHAFE so?
I don't see this kind of immature bellyaching in other fields. Pharmacists, doctors and physical therapists all did their time in school with 4 years being the minimum.
As long as the LPNs and ADNs keep up their sobbing about having to go to school, it's no wonder doctors and other allied health professionals don't take us seriously. Suck it up, buttercups. You might have to learn more stuff and be smarter, OH MY GOD THE HORROR. My employer pays BSNs more than ADNs, and that trend WILL spread.
If being dumber and earning less money is your choice, do the world a favor and stop humiliating yourselves by complaining about it. Seriously, this whole debate is stale, stupid and plain EMBARRASSING. Reality WINS, guys. Get the BSN and just quit the whining about it already.
What an offensive, ignorant, immature, divisive post.
By stating that there are nurses calling for less education, I am speaking of those who state that having a 2-year degree is just fine, despite the fact that, nationwide, the trend is to get a 4-year degree. And saying that the course work in an RN-to-BSN program is just "busy work" is worrisome...
I won't be basing my life's decisions on "trends." I don't do it with my blouses and slacks and I won't do it with my education. And I can and will call an RN-to-BSN program "busy work" FOR ME when I have a bachelor's degree, doctor of jurisprudence, and a recent promotion that combines both of those with my poor, piddling little ASN to double my salary in a Monday through Friday hospital job. Saying I should need a BSN to call myself a nurse at this point is a little more than ignorant. One size doesn't fit all, nor should it, and if you want to claim that people are arguing for "less education" or that we just love being ignorant, uneducated ADN nurses, that's your deficiency to own.
PMFB-RN, RN
5,351 Posts
Yes, I believe that as well. That is what I found amusing. 2 years? Allnurses has a number of discussions were nurses talk about getting their BSN in 6 months. My program was a year at a local well respected state university.
Naturally! I would not say any program had "no" merit. However we must look at the cost vs benefit of anything.
I know that many people would agree with me that RN to BSN programs could be much better and more relevant.
Oh I don't agree with that at all. It also depends on your definition of "education". If by spending one's limited time and resources doing one form of "education" that the otherwise could have spent on a more valuable, meaningful and relevant education are not worse off?
Yes, very true. If I were an RN with an ADN I would consider skipping the BSN completely and doing RN to MSN instead. They take about the same amount of time and effort from what I have observed.
Pointing out the blatantly obvious to people who are clearly in the best position to know (nurses with 30 years experience) IS condescending.