Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The program my sister graduated from makes you complete the ADN before the BSN. It's a four year school and that's just how they do it. She did not, however, look for a nursing job until after she completed her BSN.
Let's be real---most nursing programs don't require nurses to take any science classes that science majors would have to take. My sister took intro to organic chemistry, intro to chemistry and microbiology for nursing students. Aside from statistics and/or algebra, the only other math class she had was related to dosage. Having a BS in something doesn't mean you took a lot of math and science---you can get a BS in education, business, psychology, etc. Usually a BS just means you have more credits directly related to your major.
Depends on the school
The 'fluff' science courses you are alluding to are called applied science courses but that doesn't mean they are easy.
My local nursing school students take the same science courses as medical students, PT, pharmacy in their first year - so no 'applied science' courses there. They sit in the same lectures, sit the same exams as the rest
cna/lpn/adn/bsn/np, they all are "nurses" but it ranges from a certificate, associates degree, bs degree, masters, phd degree
those "lower" paying nursing jobs arent ones with four year degrees
an "rn" can be from a two year degree
A Cna is not a nurse.
Also,two and four degreed nurses make the same.
Once I got my Bsn(I was an Adn) I got a $0 increase.
No extra money whatsoever.
I was Rn who discovered an Lpn made more than me. It was $2 more per hour. We had about the same experience nursing wise,except mine was on the Rn level.
That is the most surprising thing about nursing to outsiders- Nurses make the same pay regardless of education and experience.
Not a single one of my friends who majored in business took any hard sciences unless they went out of their way to do so. They took the fluff science (Intro to...) to fulfill requirements. I'm sure not every school is like that but a lot of them are. Math is a different story for business majors but any nursing program I had looked into only required statistics and sometimes algebra, which at an introductory level is pretty easy.
I had researched a lot of nursing programs (and I was in one, until I left the school) so I know what most of their requirements are like. Many of them require the basic fluff science classes for people who cannot handle the real deal. (I'm not saying that all nurses cannot handle regular science classes; I am saying they are often taking the "Intro to [insert science class here]" that are created for people who just need to complete science credits.) Some of them require a little extra---like general chemistry instead of intro to chemistry, for example. But for the most part, they are not taking a pre-med course load like you suggest. I think my sister took something like intro to physics, which is not even close to the level of physics a general physics class would have. A&P is probably the most intense of the science courses and it varies so much by school. It was a killer in my school and many people who failed would retake it at the community college. Regardless, that's mostly for "health science majors" and not pre-meds.
ACEN and regional acccredidation agencies require a certain number of science programs.
I had to take biochemistry for my Bsn.
Aspen University does not require chemistry for their Bsn program,but guess what? They are not regionally accedited
While it is true there is little difference on the ground between what ADN vs. BSN nurses actually do; thus taking the three year option over four made sense. There is more to things.
First and foremost not every high school graduate or even adult returning to school has the academic chops to gain admission to/handle four year college work. Associate/technical nursing degrees (ADN) are awarded largely from community colleges and or private programs. There for a host of reasons (including state mandates) curriculum *may* be less academically challenging.
Case in point; in past not all ADN programs mandated Organic Chemistry; while nearly all BSN (and diploma schools for that matter) had such requirements. Here in NYS in order to obtain a BofS in any subject mandates distribution of credits in both college level math and science. It is a "Bachelor of Science" degree after all.
Nursing math is hard enough for some; but college level math (Finite/advanced algebra), along with Statistics is more than some can cope with; but to get a BofS in this state (and many others) those credits are required.
There has been a raging debate within nursing profession for decades about how much science (chemistry) should be required to become a nurse. Some schools (even four year degrees) have what is called "chemistry for weenies" (aka, General and or Organic Chemistry for nurses) that touches upon the basics, but aren't full frontal college level. Other schools *all* nursing, pre-med, pharmacy, health sciences take the same chemistry classes. These naturally are geared towards pre-med and often are difficult.
You should also know that the Associate degree in nursing was invented to do just what you have observed; produce RNs faster.
This came about during WWII when there truly was a shortage of nurses. Diploma schools dominated nursing education at that time, and took three to three and one half years to complete. The ADN programs could be run out of community colleges or whatever and only took two and one half years.
This allowed for the "production" of nurses faster and with demands both at home and military every newly license nurse freed up an experienced one for the services. That and or the new grad herself could be sent.
In the post war years there was a concerted push by the nursing profession to move education out of hospitals and into colleges/universities. The two year ADN degree fulfilled a need as created; to produce nurses quickly.
Some in the nursing profession have been pushing to make the BSN standard for entry into practice for > 70 years. It is only within the last decade or so that things are finally moving that way; but only because hospitals are leading that charge. That is in many areas they are only hiring nurses with four year degrees.
Nothing starts a more heated debate among nurses than the old "ADN vs. BSN". Nurses with a BSN degree to not make that much more money than ADN, and far as state licensure and practice rules are concerned a
There are only two types of nurses in USA; professional/RN and practical-vocational/ LPN or LVN.
I think the more heated debate is Lpn vs Rn.
But that is not how ADn's came to be. You are thinking of Lpn.
But that is not how ADn's came to be. You are thinking of Lpn.
No, I'm not.
"World War II was a catalyst for many changes in nursing and nursing education. There were not enough Registered Nurses to serve the needs of the civilian population and to meet the needs of the US military around the world. The US Congress responded to this crisis by unanimously passing the Nurse Training Act of 1943, also known as the Bolton Act. This new law established the Cadet Nurse Corps, a government program to provide grants to schools of nursing to expand enrollment and shorten the training period to increase the number of nurses working in the armed forces, government and civilian hospitals, health agencies and in war related industries (US Cadet Nurse Corps, 2010). In order to place more nurses into service during the War, the Cadet Nurse Corps decreased the time nurses were in training to 30 months. The Cadet Nurse Corps graduates proved themselves to be clinically effective and professional health care providers." https://nursinghistory.appstate.edu/...g-education-nc
Equally *no*, am not confusing nor otherwise muddling the difference between LPN/LVN and professional nurses (RNs); know very well the differences. But for your information: The History of Practical Nursing
As for the "heated debate" regarding LPN or RN again, no.
Each have their own scopes of practice and quite honesty their numbers and use vary by stated. Places like Texas have huge numbers of practical nurses that often still work in hospital settings. Meanwhile in many other states such as New York LPN/LVN have long been phased out of acute care (hospital) settings. You find practical/vocational nurses in nursing homes, rehabilitation, home care, and other areas outside of hospitals in those areas.
In fact thanks to the glut of ADN graduates in many areas who cannot find work in hospitals coupled with changes in nursing home market you are seeing more and more of "technical" nurses (Associate degree) working in nursing homes, rehab, etc....
Since there is nothing a LPN/LVN can do that a RN cannot, places are happy to get professional nurses long as there isn't to much pressure on wages.
As with so much else with nursing profession things vary considerably on the ground based upon often location and so forth.
"World War II was a catalyst for many changes in nursing and nursing education. There were not enough Registered Nurses to serve the needs of the civilian population and to meet the needs of the US military around the world. The US Congress responded to this crisis by unanimously passing the Nurse Training Act of 1943, also known as the Bolton Act. This new law established the Cadet Nurse Corps, a government program to provide grants to schools of nursing to expand enrollment and shorten the training period to increase the number of nurses working in the armed forces, government and civilian hospitals, health agencies and in war related industries (US Cadet Nurse Corps, 2010). In order to place more nurses into service during the War, the Cadet Nurse Corps decreased the time nurses were in training to 30 months. The Cadet Nurse Corps graduates proved themselves to be clinically effective and professional health care providers." https://nursinghistory.appstate.edu/...g-education-nc
Equally *no*, am not confusing nor otherwise muddling the difference between LPN/LVN and professional nurses (RNs); know very well the differences. But for your information: The History of Practical Nursing
As for the "heated debate" regarding LPN or RN again, no.
Each have their own scopes of practice and quite honesty their numbers and use vary by stated. Places like Texas have huge numbers of practical nurses that often still work in hospital settings. Meanwhile in many other states such as New York LPN/LVN have long been phased out of acute care (hospital) settings. You find practical/vocational nurses in nursing homes, rehabilitation, home care, and other areas outside of hospitals in those areas.
In fact thanks to the glut of ADN graduates in many areas who cannot find work in hospitals coupled with changes in nursing home market you are seeing more and more of "technical" nurses (Associate degree) working in nursing homes, rehab, etc....
Since there is nothing a LPN/LVN can do that a RN cannot, places are happy to get professional nurses long as there isn't to much pressure on wages.
As with so much else with nursing profession things vary considerably on the ground based upon often location and so forth.
Lpn's and Rn's are both considered professional nurses.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BusinessManIT
That would require some effort, money, and the willingness to accept that the new, inexperienced nurses would not be as productive at first while they come up to speed. I suppose this is unacceptable to most employers.
It's that way with most fields. I'm a truck driver, and in this field, if you have less than 2 years experience, only the "starter companies"(SWIFT,CR England) will even consider hiring you; some smaller companies will hire you with a year if you can wow them on the road test, but it's rare.
Lpn's and Rn's are both considered professional nurses.
Am sorry to break this to you, but no they're not.
It may vary by state but from what one has seen nearly all nurse practice acts break things down into at least two distinct category of nurses without an advanced degree: Registered Professional and Licensed Practical/Vocational. States may often have at least two more but these are nurses with advanced (post graduate) education; Clinical Specialist and Nurse Practitioner.
In fact so often one might just say they fall under "beating a dead horse" category. Which is probably why so few nurses (professional or vocational) bothered with this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
