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?
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.[/quote']
It is unfortunate that the ANA is approaching it in this manner. You say the strife and bickering is all online, but then you also say that ADNs are being threatened and made to feel that they are "less than."
This is what leads me to believe that it would be good for nursing as a profession to abolish the distinction, make a degree the requirement to become a registered nurse let bygones be bygones with a grandfather clause and move on to more important issues.
I do understand now that that is not what is being proposed, and I think it is a shame. Thanks for explaining.
i say downgrade us(yes,that 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.
Not grandfathering in experienced nurses is simply an absurd argument no matter how you look at it.
You want to change the entry to RN practice to BSN? Okay, but no one has the right to tell a diploma/ADN RN that they "have to" go back to school to keep their licence. Ditto for LPNs. If they change the educational requirements for LPNs they will grandfather me in.
I don't see how any sane person could argue against grandfathering.
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.
The goals of the ANA really have nothing to do with the current situation, since they are no closer to getting those goals implemented than they were almost 50 years ago when they first published their position on this. Ironically, the OP's situation is entirely a result of the free market, not the big, bad, ANA -- employers in many areas are making the choice on their own to favor BSN applicants and to mandate BSNs for their current RN employees.
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.
I'm really not trying to be argumentative here just trying to clarify; What do you think the goal of the ANA is that you allude to? I assume you do not believe it to be to increase the educational requirements/level and professional standing.
Ironically, the OP's situation is entirely a result of the free market, not the big, bad, ANA -- employers in many areas are making the choice on their own to favor BSN applicants and to mandate BSNs for their current RN employees.
This I agree with. The push for BSN that has gained so much strength is purely an economic one. The economy went down; previously non-working nurses went back to work saturating the market; hospitals were able to be picky about their RN choices for the first time in years; all of a sudden they "see the value of the BSN trained nurse". I'm a big proponent of BSN for RN, but I don't believe the ANA or Magnet had nearly as much to do with this push as did the poor economy the the luxury afforded to employers to pick and choose.
As a hospital LPN, I actually worked with a nurse who had just returned to nursing after 30 years of non-practice. Her husband lost his job with Delta Airlines in 2008 and she was forced to dust off her nursing license. She told me that at the time she left, they didn't even have a typewriter at the nurses station, let alone computerized documentation. I had been at this hospital at the time for about a year when she returned, not to the hospital but to nursing itself. I was definitely more able to perform the job than she was as evidenced by the fact that she asked me for help with soooooo many things, right down to what certain meds were used for. But because she had the RN license and I did not, my hours were being cut more and more by the week. That is was pushed me back into school. I got the ASN/RN that everyone had been so discriminatory about, only to hear "we want nurses with a BSN". Really??? But just a few months ago when I came knocking at the door, all that was told to me was that I needed to be an RN. So, just before I walked away, I turned and asked, "is there anything else I can bring with me when I come back?":dead:
That was in 2010. Realizing what I needed to do and that the more we have, the more they're gonna want, I slowly began pursuing the BSN degree because I felt it was inevitable and because a review of my credits leftover from the ASN pursuit had already placed me at or beyond the halfway mark towards BSN completion. Today begins week 11 of 15 in my final nursing course before the capstone begins. After that, I will NOT be forced into a MSN, as a recent discussion on these posts here suggested that one employer advertises BSN required but MSN preferred for bedside nursing. I'm drawing my mandatory line with the BSN.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
This I agree with. The push for BSN that has gained so much strength is purely an economic one. The economy went down; previously non-working nurses went back to work saturating the market; hospitals were able to be picky about their RN choices for the first time in years; all of a sudden they "see the value of the BSN trained nurse". I'm a big proponent of BSN for RN, but I don't believe the ANA or Magnet had nearly as much to do with this push as did the poor economy the the luxury afforded to employers to pick and choose.
The economy really had nothing to do with the current glut of nurses, except it pushed the glut day ahead a few years.
The creation of a vast surplus of nurses has been planned and underway for years now and would have happened regardless of the economy, just later in a good economy.
The real value to BSN prepared RN grads from hospital's point of view is that they tend to be younger, have less life experience and be much further into debt (student loans). Thus they are seen as much less likely to vote with their feet when faced with unsafe working conditions or poor treatment from management.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
I'm really not trying to be argumentative here just trying to clarify; What do you think the goal of the ANA is that you allude to? I assume you do not believe it to be to increase the educational requirements/level and professional standing.
Based on the actions and statements of the ANA I do not believe increasing the educational requirements of nurses is more than a distant and secondary goal. If it is they certainly don't act like it is.
I don't know what their true goals are. I have opinions I have reached based on the actions and statements they have made.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
The goals of the ANA really have nothing to do with the current situation, since they are no closer to getting those goals implemented than they were almost 50 years ago when they first published their position on this.
Maybe, that would depends on what their actual goals are.
Ironically, the OP's situation is entirely a result of the free market, not the big, bad, ANA -- employers in many areas are making the choice on their own to favor BSN applicants and to mandate BSNs for their current RN employees
Free market? I don't think so. More like a heavily manipulated market. More in common with insider trading. The nursing market has been deliberately manipulated to create a glut of nurses. The weapon used was the false "nursing shortage" propaganda. They used this propaganda to extract nurse's (and everybody else's) tax money from state and federal government to create and drastically expand nursing programs. The false "nursing shortage" propaganda also attracted people who otherwise would not have considered nursing to the field.
Free market? I don't think so. More like a heavily manipulated market. More in common with insider trading. The nursing market has been deliberately manipulated to create a glut of nurses. The weapon used was the false "nursing shortage" propaganda. They used this propaganda to extract nurse's (and everybody else's) tax money from state and federal government to create and drastically expand nursing programs. The false "nursing shortage" propaganda also attracted people who otherwise would not have considered nursing to the field.
I don't disagree with you about this (although I don't see it in the same conspiratorial, somewhat paranoid way that you apparently do), but that doesn't change the fact that it is employers who are currently choosing to prefer BSN-prepared nurses for employment, not anything imposed by BONs or professional nursing organizations or academics.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
I don't disagree with you about this (although I don't see it in the same conspiratorial, somewhat paranoid way that you apparently do), but that doesn't change the fact that it is employers who are currently choosing to prefer BSN-prepared nurses for employment, not anything imposed by BONs or professional nursing organizations or academics.
Yes your are right. Nurse employers have a strong motivation to improve their bottom line by hiring only BSN grads.
I don't know what their true goals are. I have opinions I have reached based on the actions and statements they have made.
This what I'm asking. I promise I won't attack you (can't make the promise for others, you understand). I'm just curious; what do you believe to be the true goals of the ANA and what statements/actions do you know of that support this belief.
Here's what I believe I have heard you saying; the ANA has falsely promoted a "nursing shortage" in an effort to flood the market with new RNs. They also want more BSNs out there and disdain ADN nurses. I really just want to know your opinion. I read your postings here frequently and you are very well-spoken (written?) and demonstrate significant intelligence and thought; that is why I'm curious.
So, just before I walked away, I turned and asked, "is there anything else I can bring with me when I come back?":dead: 
CodeteamB
473 Posts