Why, would any RN oppose requiring a BSN for all future nurses?

Nurses General Nursing

Published

Okay, I could see certain philisophical objections, such as if you are a libertarian, or strict conservative that opposes most governmental regulations (after all standards for education are a form of governmental regulation). However, any such provisions would almost certainly have provisions that "grand-fathered" in all current RN's who had diploma or ADN/ASN degrees (and would probably include those students currently enrolled in ADN programs).

The bottom line is that pay, and to a lesser extent respect for ANY profession, is primarily determined by supply and demand for that profession. Now as nurses, there is little that we can do to address demand ( save perhaps for buying stock in fast food restaurents since that will surely generate more business in terms of cardiovascular disease). However, we can address supply. In so much as getting a BSN requires more time and effort than a ADN it will TEND to diminish the supply of nurses. Virturally every profession in the United States has recognized this simple principal from accountents, to physicians and pharmacists. Over the years they have successfully lobbied their various state and federal representatives to steadily raise the requirements in order to obtain a license to practice their profession. Consider Pharmacists for instance. At one time all one had to do was "work behind the counter" under the instruction of an experienced pharmacist for several years to acquire a pharmacy license. Then they required an examination. Gradually, the requirements were increased to a two, then a four year degree. Now it requires SIX years of difficult schooling plus a challenging examination to practice pharmacy. The net result is that the pay of pharmacists has dramatically increased, and they are now in a true "buyers market" for their services.

It's the way the "profession game" is played in the United States. I'm not saying that it is without it's moral implications. As someone who is largely libertarian, I am usually opposed to most governmental intrusion in the private sector. However, I'm also a realist, and as someone who plans on spending the rest of my life in this profession, I realize that this is the sort of thing that will help to raise the compensation, and benefit level of my chosen profession.

I am and ADN with a degree from University of Alaska where they have ADN, BSN, and MSN courses and degrees. Before I did this, I went and got a BA from Central Washington in an unrelated field. In Alaska, the ADN and BSN programs require the same number of clinical hours. So what's the diff in my opiniion? BSN spends more time in the classroom in relation to clinical time than do ADN students. I'm for ADNs all the way....

Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.

Hear, hear! mattsmom, you said it all! WOOOOOOT!:D

I'm another ADN who would have gone for a BSN had I a) been younger when I started out, b) lived closer to a university school of nursing, and c) been able to afford a 4-year degree. As it is, I've gone as far with my associate's degree as I ever wanted to: I've been a substitute ADN clinical instructor, a care manager, and a director of nursing. I'm a floor nurse now by CHOICE. The only limitation I have, by virtue of my "inferior" education is, I can't teach nursing in a college classroom. And I never wanted to do that anyway; I like teaching in the clinical environment, and as a preceptor I get to do that all I like.

Now, I don't believe education is EVER wasted; I just don't think that taking a bunch more "-ologies", as I call them, would have made me a better *bedside* nurse. (A better manager, maybe, but I tried management and didn't like it.) If the opportunity to finish a bachelor's program presented itself, I'd still go for it, if for no reason other than to further my knowledge base; however, I doubt anyone's going to finance it for me, so it remains out of reach............for me, and for hundreds of thousands of other ADNs and diploma nurses.

Until the issues of educational accessibility and affordability are addressed, I don't think mandating a BSN for entry into practice will be feasible. In the meantime, we hard-working ADNs and diploma nurses will continue providing the best care we possibly can for patients who couldn't care less about the initials following our names, as long as two of them are "RN".

Originally posted by Fgr8Out

~*~*~*~*

LOL OH MY!!!!!

SOMEONE doesn't get it when another is being facetious with them... hmmmm? Settle down, honey... and pull your head out from wherever it is that it very likely shouldn't be. Not EVERYONE here is out to get you... In fact, despite your vulgar posts... I was essentially agreeing with you.

Would you like some A1 Sauce to go with that foot I see you have in your mouth? :roll :roll :roll

Hate A1...how about some wasabe??? Extricating my foot may be humiliating, but I am passionate about this subject of whether a B..l S..t degree in nursing makes a nurse; after 20 years in this "business", I have come to only one conclusion....nursing admin's use this exclusionary title as a means of denying pay incentives to otherwise highly experienced and qualified nurses. I have an MSN from Florida Atlantic U, but no BSN...their Bridge program recognizes folks who are well educated in other fields. Most graduate nursing programs could care less if you have a PhD in Public Health or Epidimeology...their philosophy is if you don't have a BSN, you are not qualified or worthy of consideration for their graduate programs. Nursing is where its at today because of all this crap...it's not going to change....nurses are going to forever screw their own because for the most part, it attracts an overwhelming percentage of people with real issues regarding self worth, or lack thereof. I cannot stress enough that the ONLY enemy a nurse has is another nurse.

You don't think you are contributing to that with the "bull s$$t nurse" thing? Cause I have never considered myself to be bulls$$T, but hearing that others do, does make me a little sad.

Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.

Have to agree w/fergus here. It's really uncalled for and does NOTHING TO UNITE us. The enemy is within, I agree. With stuff like this, I can see it clearly.

I am ADN graduate and even though I feel my education was at least as good as the local BSN program. I wish I had gone for the BSN because it is only 1 or 2 semesters more and then Id have a BSN. I am working on my BSN now and it will take 2 years in addition to the 4 I spent on my ADN. Advancement and education opportunities are better for BSNs. I also think that requiring a BSN might help to make us more respected.

BUT .. the reason I don't think they should make BSN a requirement is that it is already hard enough to get into nursing school. If we shut down all the ADN programs then the nursing shortage would be multiplied and thousands of people would have to wait even longer then they are now for a spot in school.

There are constantly people in my state trying to solve the nursing shortage by proposing that the standards for nursing education be lowered. If we made the shortage worse I'm afraid they might succeed.

1. In no way do I mean to imply that someone with a BSN is a superior nurse to someone with an ADN or diploma. I wouldn't even assert that their education is superior. Rather, it is my assertion that requiring a BSN would diminish the supply of nurses, and assuming constant demand, would increase their average compensation. If you could show me definitive evidence that ADN's were three times superior to BSN nurses it wouldn't alter my thesis (assuming that requiring a BSN would diminish supply more than requiring an ADN). Although, I will concede that such evidence would make the implementation of such policies difficult or impossible.

2. Someone made an extraordinary point in that as nurses we should be concerned about "substitution" of other professionals for RN's if our price (read salary) should become too high (IV Tech's, LPN's ect). The way that other professions such as pharmacists have addressed this issue is to legislate their exclusivity. Consider, that it doesn't matter how competent a pharmacy technician is or how many Wal-Mart might hire, NO prescription can be dispensed without the LICENSE of the supervising phramacist (and there are state and federal regulations which limit how many tech's one pharmacist can supervise). M.D.'s have done the same thing by legislating their mandate to write prescriptions (note in the news story up front how bitterly they oppose giving this ability even to NP's, do you really think their primary concern is patient welfare?). You can find equivalent situations in many if not most other lucrative professions. In most jurisdictions only an electrician has the LICENSE to wire a home (thus I cannot substitute a skilled "handyman" no matter how much I might prefer doing so even if it would save my family a ton of money). Only an attorney who holds a valid license may offer legal advice. Only a Real Estate salesperson who holds a license may collect a fee for helping to sell your home. I am suggesting that as RN"s we should seek as much exclusive legislative LICENSING authority as is possible. To an extent this is already the case. In many areas there are several functions such as the administration of medicine which are usually reserved to RN's, or LPN's under the supervision of an RN.

3. Someone pointed out that rural areas would suffer under such a proposal. I agree that this might be the case, and might make the passage of such legislation (requiring mandatory BSN's) politically unfeasible. Therefore, I would suggest allowing exceptions for communities under a specified size (say fifty thousand residents or so). In addition, I would encourage federal and state funding to assist current ADN programs in converting to the BSN format.

4. Finally, it should be pointed out that this is NOT a perfect plan. It will in effect create some losers. Undoubtably some who could have otherwise gone to school to become RN's will not be able to do so ( actually if this wasn't the case then it would not be effective in reducing supply) after adoption of BSN only licensure. However, there will also be substancial winners not the least of who are the RN's (including ADN's, current BSN's, diploma nurses, and those in school currently to become RN's under ANY of these pathways). Pay will tend to increase beyond current trends.

5. Consider also that this sort of action (requiring a BSN) may be necessary just to COUNTERACT current governmental and private intiatives that may tend to OVERSUPPLY the RN job market. This wouldn't be the first time that this has occured. According to the same Econ Professor, that I referenced above Dr. Spector, the government undertook and aggressive job training program in the early 1970's to help displaced, and unemployed workers, including those on welfare. They chose several professions to emphasize nursing and computer punch card oporators among them (a formerly solid living that went belly up with the rise of the microchip later in the decade). Perhaps, it was no coincidence that nursing experienced a relative glut of RN's later in the decade and into the early 1980's. Now I know that you constantly hear about the current and increasing nursing shortage, and I am not absolutely disputing that analysis. However, consider that in the same way that RN's have a vested interest in creating a relative shortage of nurses so to do others such as HMO's, hospitals, and insurance companies have an interest in obtaining less of a shortage. Already, the government has funded multi million dollar recruitment campaigns, and is offering unprecedented scholarships to attend nursing school (many that I know receive all tuition paid for PLUS an additonal $1,000 dollar stipend per month, in addition to books and uniforms). Consider, that actions such as those which I advocate might be necessary just to maintain the status quo. Again, it's nothing personal (on the part of the HMO's, Govt, insurance companies and others) rather it's just business. This is how the "profession wars" are played in America. Unfortunately, not being personal doesn't make it any less painful to be on the losing side of such battles.

Some will call for unionization as the proper response. However, without disparaging unions (they have undoubtably brought vast reforms which have dramatically improved much of American working life especially in the first half of this century) I would point out that those careers which have relied upon unions have not fared so well as those which have instead taken the legislative supply/ professional licensure route. Those professions which have fared better utilizing unions (such as electricians) have ALSO played the "legislative" supply limiting game to bolster the power of their unions.

roland one way to keep the shortage from becoming unbearable under BSN mandation would be for state universities to set up cooperation agreementsfor telecourses or distance learning for the extra bsn coursework. this way community colleges don't lose out on money because they would still operate in about the same way that they do now but all persons in the nursing programs in the future would have to continue the other course work before graduation and nclex. this way would also circumvent the problem of finding tons more instructors, and nurses who don't live near a 4 yr school who wish to be an RN could still do so.

Specializes in 5 yrs OR, ASU Pre-Op 2 yr. ER.
Originally posted by Alnamvet

OK, let me put it in terms you can understand , dear: BSN is exactly what many suggest it stands for , B..ll S..t Nurse. You want baccalaureate trained nurses? Than, any Bachelors level education is perfect; want to be an RN after you have a BA or BS, or whatever, than a Diploma or ADN program is all you need! Got the picture Einstein?

This reply has been edited for extremely foul language ;)

Namecalling, foul language, etc. do nothing but devalue an opinion, and keep the entire ADN vs. BSN arguement/debate/bloodbath from actually coming to a compromise.;)

allowing the "non core" classes to be taken by distance education could go a long way in easing the transition of many ADN programs into BSN. This would reduce one of the primary objections that rural areas would be disproportionately impacted. It think that it would still probably be necessary to have "waivers" for certain regions where the BSN programs just are not available in sufficient quantities at least for a period of time.

Specializes in Med/Surg, Ortho.

I find this thread amusing for the fact that I as an ADN am precepting senior BSN students in the team leading roatations. I havent been out of the program that long myself although i was a LPN for quite a few years.

I find it quite amusing that IF BSN programs thought themselves so superior they would "allow" a ADN preceptor for their students. I think the BSN/ADN debate is better left in the toilet where it belongs, along with those that WISH they could be superior because they have a BSN.

For gosh sakes, look at all the people with degrees that come out of 4 year colleges that are lucky if they can find a job at McDonalds. I know people personally,as im sure most of you do too, that have degrees in economics, business, art, etc. that cant and wont find jobs making much more than minimum wage, and most likely if they find a job it wont be in their "chosen profession". You are what you make of yourself, not what label someone puts on you. A BSN doenst make you a professional either, the proof is in the output.

Specializes in Med-Surg, Trauma, Ortho, Neuro, Cardiac.
Originally posted by LPN2Be2004

Namecalling, foul language, etc. do nothing but devalue an opinion, and keep the entire ADN vs. BSN arguement/debate/bloodbath from actually coming to a compromise.;)

Very well said.

+ Add a Comment