Another way of eating the young. My once best friend had been a medic in Viet Nam, (I was a medic in Texas at the same time.) We both decided to go to nursing school. I got wait listed, while he was told there were no class openings. That was true, I started the next semester, but there were a number of girls wait listed after me. He ended up going to a school out of state.
Three men started with my class, none of them made it to graduation. One was a young man wha had been severely burned. His hands and face were disfigured. At the begining of the second semester he was told in front of the class, that he wouldn’t be continuing because he frightened patients. The Dean of Nursing announced it during our first period class. Grrr. It still makes me mad.
I was one of two males in my class, and was the only one that made it. Of course, we started off with 21 overall, and only 6 of our original class made it. Nursing school is very tough, and you have to have real peer support, as well as strong personal drive. Eating young is a real problem in my opinion as well. There are many older nurses who view young people as either lazy or drug seekers, and don’t think we can get anything done. Unless things change, the shortage seems as if it will only get worse, and that seems to be a fact of life.
Why should they ‘take whoever applies’. Because that is how 90% of all undergraduate college degrees in the US work and it seems to be working for them. As I said with chemistry (and the vast vast majority of undegraduate majors in the US) you apply, you take the classes and if you make it you graduate. with nursing you aren’t even allowed to try to make it unless you are among the top 10-20% who get picked.
As far as good grades that is a crappy measure of how good a nurse will be. I had straight As going into nursing school but couldn’t do the physical component. I’m sure they turned away alot of people who had been CNAs for years and years who knew the physical component inside and out because they got Cs in things like elementary algebra or elementary chemistry I got their spot instead. It is a very poorly constructed program.
Do you really think turning away hundreds of thousands of potential nurses is somehow a good idea? What reasoning gives birth to that idea? Nursing schools can’t intelligently decide who should or shouldn’t be accepted anyway, most just go by things like GPA which has no bearing on nursing ability.
You know about one nursing school, from what I can tell. What makes you say that nursing schools (in general) “can’t intelligently decide” who should or shouldn’t be accepted?
Nursing is a field that has dedicated a significant amount of time to issues of pedagogy and curriculum. There’s been some very interesting stuff in that field, so from the academic standpoint they appear to me to pay attention to student related issues, such as what it takes for a student to succeed.
Back to academic aptitude-- you say this has no bearing on nursing ability. I’d like to hear someone who works in the field ring in on that.
The American Medical Association has nothing to do with nursing, so far as I know.
I don’t see any point in arguing it - let’s just say I would rather someone with poor math skills (this includes me!
) not be the one measuring my medication dosage.
I would dispute this statement about other undergraduate college degrees. The university I am most familiar with has several colleges. The colleges of Engineering and Design are much more competitive than others, such as Ag & Life Sciences, Physical & Math Sciences and Humanities & Social Sciences. Often students are accepted into a less demanding college and rejected from Engineering or Design. Sometimes they attend the university in a less selective College and reapply to the program they originally preferred.
What is this “physical component” in nursing requirements?
Snakescatlady - Fair enough, sorry if I was rude. however I think that cutting off 80-90% of people who want to be nurses is just a really bad idea. I wasn’t cut out to be a nurse but people with alot of CNA experience didn’t get the chance because I got Aa in things like sociology, introductory english or introductory chemistry while they got Cs.
Harriet the Spry - Perhaps for engineering in some universities that is true. But from what I’ve seen the majority of degrees are just apply & try. Nursing should be the same way, whomever wants to try should be given the chance. Nursing is a mixture of a physical component and an academic component. But the majority of science degrees are like that (biology, zoology, chemistry, etc) and they still allow as many applicants as they can get.
astro - Things like turning patients, following the physical rules and things along those lines. Again, I didn’t like the setup. We had a class on pharmacology where I would almost always score in the top 10% of the class. However I remember at least one other student who had been a CNA for years who would score below a C in the same class. The system makes no sense, I didn’t have what it took physically to be a nurse but did well at academics while the people who did poorly at academics but did well at the physical component were left behind.
If anything they should eliminate nursing quotas and let everyone who wants to try be given the chance. Failing that they should control nursing admissions by things like years of healthcare experience and references, not GPA. All the schools I’ve seen just use GPA. I had no healthcare experience and got one of the handful of slots because my GPA was higher than 95% of the applicants while people who had been CNAs or LPNs for years and even decades were passed over.
Wesley, you forget that there are a limited number of seats in the class. I second the sentiment that if you can’t make it into nursing school, I really don’t want you giving me medical treatment. Nursing isn’t something you can just decide to do on a whim because people’s lives are at stake.
But why are there a limited number? In scientific degrees you just apply and try. We have physical components (labs) and lecture components in both nursing degrees and science degrees but no limits on the number of applicants in scientific degree fields. They should guage acceptance based on healthcare experience and letters of recommendation, not GPA in classes that have nothing to do with what a nurse does. When I applied you had to take classes like sociology, speech, psychology, chemistry, algebra, english and a few others. They accepted those with the highest grades in these classes, which is an irrational system.
I don’t think just getting into nursing school should be the guage. I know at least one nurse who flunked several classes and took five years to get an associate degree. But she is a fine nurse. My friend flunked med surg and will take about 5.5 years to get her B.S.
Wesley, I am flabbergasted you think it is a “bad system” when students leave nursing because they don’t have the skills to pass (or do well in) pharmacology.
As I understand it, there are things an RN can do that a CNA is not allowed to do, which are specifically tied to their education and clinical training. If someone cannot complete the education required to be an RN, then I’m guessing they should remain a CNA or seek another career field.
I agree with you that experience as a CNA is a partial measure of how well one might be as an RN, but it is not sufficient to predict how well one can handle the math, chemistry, and biology also required to be a competent, successful registered nurse. Admissions standards for an RN program are designed with this in mind. That isn’t “irrational.”
I believe you are also wrong about the “apply and try” being the dominant model in higher education. That is only true at community colleges, which do not offer 4-year college degrees. Now, many baccalaureate-granting institutions aren’t terribly selective, but it is understood that most students will have taken a certain number of college preparatory courses first. And many programs within those colleges have tighter admissions requirements.
Given the short supply of nursing faculty and clinical training spots available, I think it would be foolhardy to adopt a system “whoever wants to, can try, and we’ll see who fails out”. What a waste! Much better to do some screening and increase the chances that the students admitted to nursing will have the academic aptitude to handle the rigors of the program. Your evidence is anecdotal (what happened with one program) and furthermore, I feel it doesn’t support your argument! I’m sure I’m not the only one who think it’s a good thing when a student incapable of handling pharmacology is dissuaded from the field–even if the person was a fine nursing assistant.
No, because the cutoff for pharmacology was a 75%. I don’t think someone who gets a 69% is going to become a bad nurse, I think that that person will probably learn on the job what all pharmacological skills they need. Besides if I were sick I would rather have two nurses who each go 67% grades in pharmacology classes 15 years ago take care of me than one nurse who got an 85% in her pharmacology class 15 years ago.
The apply & try method seems to be common in 4 year colleges where I am. Perhaps it is just IU but the idea of not being allowed to take classes in your major until you are accepted into that major is pretty rare where I am and only applies to medical degrees.
The system is very irrational. GPA is just a sign of how well you can learn in an academic setting. I don’t think it should be the application standard for nursing school. Besides the reality is most people forget what they learn in school by and large after a year, they may remember the main idea but all the details usually fall by the wayside. It may be an unpopular truth and I’m sure some people will say something like ‘only the lazy students do’ (I’d like to see those people remember more than 20% of what they learned in college a decade ago that they don’t use on the job) but it is true. The ability to learn academics that you don’t use on the job shouldn’t be the standard for what would make a good nurse.
The point is that the nursing shortage is the biggest problem we have, not whether people can score above a 75% in a pharmacology class. A nurse who isn’t great at academics is better than no nurse at all and I’d rather have several nurses who have low stress levels, alot of breaks and alot of time to sleep who got Cs in school than one or two nurses who work 12 hour shifts, hate their jobs and think of quitting all the time due to the workload but who had a B+ average when they went to school 10 years ago.
I know there is a shortage of teachers, which is another major bottleneck. But my point is that in other academic fields there is alot of hands on learning as well but they manage to hande that well enough that they don’t put caps on how many people are allowed to try to get a degree in that area. At IU most of the hands on classes (labs) are taught by graduate students. This seems to work pretty well and I don’t know why they don’t apply that type of teaching method to nursing schools. For lectures you can have 300 students in a class and for labs you could have graduate students be the teachers. It works for the vast majority of other academic degrees, I don’t know why it wouldn’t for nursing. Maybe because you need an RN to oversee everyone’s individual clinical report.
I don’t know about that Wesley. Nurses are often the last stop before a drug is administered. and harried Doctors sometimes make potentially lethal prescribing mistakes. A nurse who is weak on remembering drug effects (and I don’t think a mid-high “D” speaks well for this ability or overall intellectual acumen) is a lot more likely to kill you than a nurse who can’t roll you over easily.
My view on the subject is that whatever skills you need you will learn on the job by and large, and you will remember the academics you learned that will come in handy. When I was a nursing student we took a pharmacology class in the first semester. Most students wouldn’t end up graduating until 2-3 years after that so by that time most of them would’ve forgotten 80-90% of what they learned in the class.
Doctors and nurses already make tons of mistakes
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9911/29/medical.errors/
I don’t like it, but I personally don’t think doing well in a class you took decades ago is going to make the situation change any. What is important is how effective you are on the job, not your academic skill. Better record keeping and electronic communication is probably the best way to cut down on errors.
My view at the end of the day is that the nursing shortage is a far bigger problem than things like academics, and that should be the main thing we are trying to solve. As it stands hospitals are doing things like hiring individuals from foreign countries who don’t speak/read english well (which is deeply important in a medical setting) and hiring people like paramedics to fill in for RNs. A RN who did mediocre in school a decade ago is better than no RN or an RN who doesn’t speak or read/write english. As I said, I did really well academically (I could memorize and recite info without effort) but I wasn’t too good with the hands on problems. A nurse who was the opposite should’ve gotten my place and hopefully did after I dropped out of the program.
I have no idea if this is true or not, but - given the long time it takes to complete nursing school (to be an RN0, and the competitive nature of getting accepted, I imagine that many of the people that went into nursing in the past are now becoming MDs instead. Sure you have to take the MCAT exam typically, but if you have the grades to get into nursing school, you most likely have the grades to get into a medical school. Graduate from a medical school and you’re at the top of the pecking ladder, so to speak.
I do know for a fact that many of the current medical students at the University that I work at are nurses that have gone back to school.
I just wanted to say that googling the above phrase results in 9 hits. But all 9 hits trace back to only two distinct quotes.
So that phrase is not quite as singular as I thought. Almost, but not quite. I’m impressed. I’ve not seen a metaphor quite so uniquely mixed in a while. Thanks! 
My two cents on the OP: One major bottleneck in training of new nurses is lack of suitable clinical rotations. It’s no help to have a freshman class of 300 nursing students if you can only give 10% of them the necessary clinical experience in patient care. Both medical and nursing students must get proper training by caring for real, living (and dying) patients. Otherwise, they’re like 5th-rate wizards, filled with knowledge which can sometimes be useful, but is more often irrelevant when not harmful.
In my field (embedded radar systems) we joke that the people who write the signal processing software are difficult to find because they have to be smart enough to do the job, but dumb enough to take the job. (I’m, um, part of that population).
IANAN, but it seems to me that anyone who goes through the education that might qualify them for nursing schools will probably opt for a different profession where the prestige is higher, the money’s better and you don’t get kicked in the stomach by schizophrenics. I think nurses (and teachers) should be paid a hell of a lot more than they’re paid right now; it seems that you have to have an altruistic streak to stay in the profession.
The fact that we still speak of labor “shortages” is an indication that a little bit of corporate Kool-Aid has been drunk. “Shortage” implies that “somebody ought to do something about this”, but all that needs to be done is to pay nurses more money or give them easier working conditions. The supply will meet the demand.
Back in the '70s, the government capped the price of domestically produced oil. I don’t have the actual figures at hand, but for instance, if you were willing to pay $20 a barrel for it, the oil companies still had to sell it to you for $10 a barrel. So the oil companies didn’t produce as much oil as they otherwise would have, and the result was that sometimes you’d go to the gas station and they’d be out of gas, or they’d only let you have a couple of gallons. That was a shortage.
There’s nothing stopping hospitals from paying nurses $150 an hour if they have to. If a hospital offered to pay nurses $150 an hour to work whenever they wanted and guaranteed them unlimited hours for five years, those positions would be very quickly filled.
Shortage talk happens about every five years in the engineering job market. Sometimes companies say there is a shortage of engineers even during times of massive layoffs. What they really mean is that there is a shortage of engineers willing to work for what the company wants to pay. That makes about as much sense as me saying that there is a yacht shortage because I can’t buy one for $5000. In the case of both engineers and nurses, shortage talk is a way to artificially depress domestic wages by getting the government to let poor foreigners in on temporary visas to work for what the companies want to pay. The same thing is happening in the market for unskilled labor, except they don’t bother with the visas, they just stop enforcing the immigration laws.