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?
i know it might see silly to some,but i do not understand how people can argue Rn's need more education when we have nurses(yes they...lpn's are nurses despite what anyone says) that have 1 yr of education.
Actually, in my neck of the woods, some of the nearby facilities did start picking on the LPNs. I work at a facility now where there are only 3 LPNs left and if they don't produce an RN license by January, they are history. These ladies have been nurses FOREVER and have been at this particular hospital for at least 17 years. One of them, I first met 28 years ago when I was a brand new LPN. Whoever is deciding to throw rocks at nurses, trust me when I tell you that they are not discriminating. ;)
I'd been a med/surg LPN for years and when I couldn't get another hospital position (they wanted RNs only) after my current hospital started cutting hours of the PRN nurses, that's when I made the decision to move up to the role of RN. After I gained that one year of RN experience, I thought I would spread my wings a little, but was met with "you're just an ASN; we only hire BSNs. Fortunately, I didn't quit my 'day job', so-to-speak, since they hadn't made any demands......YET. I've been very casually pursuing my BSN ever since but decided, after 4 years, to stop playing around and finish it up. My capstone begins in about 7 weeks. After that, I will be changing my username to something more appropriate.
That is one thing that does bug me is that a BSN is more education but not necessarily nursing education. By doing the RN to BSN route, I am getting more nursing education than a traditional BSN. Had I spent the extra money and went the traditional route, I would have had less clinical experience and the same amount of nursing theory based on the information provided by the local schools on their own websites and what is reported to my state board.
I am all for streamlining nursing education. Other universities are starting to aim for 3 year degrees in my area and I think nursing should go for that instead of a traditional four year nursing degree where the general education credits include classes like philosophy or religion. I would even accept a four year program with more science included but I don't have that much respect for the idea that a fine arts class like drawing will make someone a better nurse.
Oh and before someone says that religion will make someone more multicultural, that particular university's religion class consisted of pretty much the only right belief is Catholicism, the world is 6,000 years old, and the Bible is 100% right.
i say downgrade us(yesthat includes me too) to Lpn's. Then,make all Lpn's go back to school for a yr to remain Lpn's or else lose their jobs. In other words,make it identical to the Canadian and UK systems.[/quote']
Huh?
That is not what happened, at least in Canada.
I went to school with the last group of Diploma RNs to graduate here in my part of Canada. These days a bachelor's degree is the entry to practice requirement for a registered nurse.
No one got demoted, no one was forced to go back to school. If you were an RN on Friday, you were still an RN on Monday after the change went into effect, you still got paid one whole dollar less per hour than your counterparts with degrees, you were still less desirable for certain positions (mostly managerial and educational). The world did not crumble and no one lost one iota of status.
I feel like if you have a two tier system, with people sharing the same job title, responsibilities and function, but having two different levels of education you are setting the system up for strife. Yes, employers will probably vote with their dollars and prefer people with the higher level of education. You can argue that all you like, but it isn't going to change. A standardized entry to practice cuts down some of the bickering as far as I can tell.
For the most part I don't know what level of preparation my coworkers (at least those who graduated in my year or before) received, and I don't really care. It isn't a thing where I work because the issue is a done deal, no one has anything to gain by worrying about it.
If the NCLEX was different, I could understand all the fuss. But until they make a different NCLEX and make a huge difference in pay, I don't see what the difference is. A BSN has what amounts to a semester of general ed credits difference than a ADN. When I started researching the difference, what it amounted to was a history, religion, a math class, and a science class. I would have to take chemistry and a statistics class along with world history and some kind of religion class. In my area, I will be able to get hired with my ADN so that's what I am working on right now. At some point I will get my BSN.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
No one got demoted, no one was forced to go back to school. If you were an RN on Friday, you were still an RN on Monday after the change went into effect, you still got paid one whole dollar less per hour than your counterparts with degrees, you were still less desirable for certain positions (mostly managerial and educational). The world did not crumble and no one lost one iota of status.
That makes good sense. It is also exactly the path followed by other health professions in the USA who have increased to degree requirements for entry to practice.
It is not the path advocated by those in the USA. In our situation there is far more interest in punishing ADN RNs for having the gall to entry practice without a BSN, than actually requiring the BSN for practice.
I feel like if you have a two tier system, with people sharing the same job title, responsibilities and function, but having two different levels of education you are setting the system up for strife.
The strife is almost entirely on AN, not so much in the real world.
A standardized entry to practice cuts down some of the bickering as far as I can tell.
It might well but at what cost? I am convinced the cost is too high simply to prevent a little online bickering.
It isn't a thing where I work because the issue is a done deal, no one has anything to gain by worrying about it.
It wouldn't be that way in the USA. There are still plenty of people who won't be satisfied until they exact their pound if flesh from the ADN RNs. Actually having an ever increasing number of BSN prepared RNs is, at best, a distant and secondary goal.
If the NCLEX was different I could understand all the fuss. But until they make a different NCLEX and make a huge difference in pay, I don't see what the difference is. [/quote']
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
It is the future.
My issue is with the online RN-BSN not necessarily adding to a 30 year veteran's career. But my daughter is entering the BSN program in the fall. (I am going to brag now she a high school senior and was accepted to 3 programs...I am so proud I could burst)
Like I said.....It is the future. She is the future.
The strife is almost entirely on AN not so much in the real world. [/quote']
Lol, I kind of figured that.
I don't really see how anyone benefits from trying to change the status of people who are already legally nurses, I do think that here in Canada the change to Degree preparation was both a good idea, and well implemented, but you have to have a grandfather clause to make it feasible.
I don't really understand all the politics behind this separation in the US, in particular, your comment about people wanting to punish AD nurses is baffling, I don't understand what purpose it serves. I also don't understand the opposition to moving towards a single entry to practice standard, are there any states that have made this move?
I also don't understand the opposition to moving towards a single entry to practice standard, are there any states that have made this move?
Yeah. North Dakota. Lasted less than 20 years. And the reason they did it is because they received incentive money from the ANA to make it happen, along with three other states who never did manage to implement the BSN-only standard. The history is interesting.
I plan on getting my BSN but for me, not because my employer requires it. I am taking it slow because I have a son who is only in preschool right now, and help take care of my grandma with dementia. I have completed one class, but have more to go. I will go back in the fall when my son is in school full time.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
Lol, I kind of figured that.
I don't really see how anyone benefits from trying to change the status of people who are already legally nurses, I do think that here in Canada the change to Degree preparation was both a good idea, and well implemented, but you have to have a grandfather clause to make it feasible.
I don't really understand all the politics behind this separation in the US, in particular, your comment about people wanting to punish AD nurses is baffling, I don't understand what purpose it serves. I also don't understand the opposition to moving towards a single entry to practice standard, are there any states that have made this move?
There is not benefit of changing the status of current RNs. That is evidence that BSN as the sole entry point is, at best, a secondary goal.
Like Canada with nurses, the US increased the degree required for several health professions. physical therapy and pharmacy among them. They followed the same model as nurses in Canada. They set a day after which the new degree would be required for licensure and grandfathered in all the professionals who were licensed under the old requirements. There was no attempt to push those without the old degree into unemployment, they weren't told they weren't good enough, they were not discriminated against.
All of that is happening with ADN RNs in the USA.
The ANA is opposed to such a plan. They want to make RNs with associates degree something less than full RNs, the term they use is "technical nurses".
Had they advocated for something similar to the Canadian plan, or that used by the other professional in the USA I am convinced they would have faced FAR less opposition and it's very likely we would have BSN as entry today IMO.
However that would not serve what it appears to me their real goal is.
;)
smartnurse1982
1,775 Posts
i know it might see silly to some,but i do not understand how people can argue Rn's need more education when we have nurses(yes they...lpn's are nurses despite what anyone says) that have 1 yr of education.
Yet,everyone seems to pick on Adn Rn's?
Why not start from the bottom up?