Around $25 million!
No, I didn’t hit the jackpot in Reno, but it would be pretty cool to actually sponsor a driver!
I could always go half-sies with Budweiser over Kasey Kahne and call it….
It’s a Nascar-free weekend; they take a “brake” (get it?) after five weeks.
Unfortunately I do not, and I’m having withdrawls.
Calling all nurses! Don’t forget Change of Shift is here on March 19th! Hit that contact button up top and send in your submission, the theme is….wait for it….Nursing! I know you have been writing up a storm, so share it with your colleagues!
You should have been there when I realized I could obtain a PhD in Nursing without getting a Master’s degree first.
I was thrilled.
There is nothing wrong with having an MSN, it’s just that my personal goal is a doctorate, specifically a PhD.
Well, nursing is full of debates and the BSN-to-PhD is apparently one of them.
I came across an editorial from a 2003 edition of the American Journal of Nursing discussing the BSN-to-PhD degree program.
The writer, Editor-in-Chief Diana J. Mason, PhD, RN, FAAN doesn’t think it’s a good idea.
Well, let’s look at why.
Ms. Mason recounts a time in her career when she accepted a position teaching pediatrics. She had never practiced pediatrics and did not know much about the specialty. She notes that, “I felt like an imposter.” She vowed to never teach outside her area of expertise and to maintain a nursing practice while teaching.
Sounds good. Now what has that got to do with BSN-to-PhD programs?
Ms. Mason is concerned that utilizing a direct BSN-to-PhD program would produce nurses with minimal clinical experience teaching at the beside and having nursing clinical instructors without clinical background teaching clinical skills is not a good thing.
But here’s where she goes off track. I quote from the editorial (emphasis mine):
Nursing faculty tend to get an associate’s or bachelor’s degree first and practice for several years before returning to school for a master’s degree. They then practice for several years more as advanced practice nurses before completing the doctorate through part-time study—particularly if they have families who need their salaries. According to the AACN, by the time they are ready to enter tenure-track professorships, they are, on average, 46.2 years old and have only about two decades in which to teach.
Is it me, or is there a hint of ageism here?
What is wrong with teaching for “only” two decades? What is wrong with not starting the teaching portion of a career until the average age of 46.2?
If a clinically competent teaching force is the goal, what is wrong with this? Am I missing something? You have nurses who have decades of experience on the floors/units with the nursing students. Not to mention that not all MSNs practice as nurse practitioners; some of them begin teaching with the Master’s degree.
Let me answer some of Ms. Mason’s questions, from a personal standpoint.
- “What would nurse educators prepared via the BSN-to-PhD route really know about clinical nursing practice?”
Ms. Mason assumes that a BSN-to-PhD candidate goes straight through their education with nothing but their basic nursing clinical rotations as experience. Not all BSN-to-PhD candidates are newbies. Some of us, in fact, will have four decades of clinical experience before we even get to the PhD program.
- “How could they teach the subtleties of hands-on care that are apparent to an experienced nurse—how to know simply by looking at a patient that his condition is deteriorating? Or how to motivate a postoperative patient to get out of bed for the first time?”
By using exactly what Ms. Mason is worried they won’t have – hands on experience. The intuition that allows a nurse to know patient is deteriorating comes from exactly that, experience. You can teach the theory, you can teach the clinical. You cannot teach intuition, but you can impart what you have learned from your intuition over the years and that is often more practical than anything that comes out of a book.
- “Would generations of student nurses really benefit from three or four decades of teaching from a nurse who’s not at a proficient or expert level of practice?”
No. But they would certainly benefit from two decades of teaching from a nurse that has four decades of clinical experience.
And finally, a response to this comment in the editorial:
Proponents note that not all faculty must teach clinical courses; instead, they argue, some faculty spend much of their time conducting research. But researchers who haven’t practiced are unlikely to investigate the concerns that are important to practice.
Try telling that to the Nurse Researchers from the Magnet hospitals I met in Reno this week, who work with the bedside clinical nurses in conducting research that is precisely directed at concerns important to practice.
I have yet to see a BSN-to-PhD program that will accept any nurse who has not made a mark in the profession. Please correct me if I am wrong, but anyone can apply with clinical experience, it is the nurse who can demonstrate something “extra” that gets accepted.
God willing, I have something “extra” to demonstrate.
Assuming I am accepted into a BSN-to-PhD program in the fall of 2010, I will be 53 years old when I start and 57 when I finish. I will have, by the end of that time, 37 years of clinical experience at the bedside.
I intend to do research, and I intend to teach. And I do not intend to retire. So, if I put in my “two decades” of teaching/research I’ll be 77. If I put in three decades I’ll be 87.
Why on earth would an experienced nursing workforce who chooses to use their experience for the good of the up-and-coming generation of nurses, be considered a detriment because of their age?
The answer to Ms. Mason’s dilemma is simple: BSN-to-PhD programs should not accept nurses without at least a decade of hands on experience. Better to have a nurse educator with experience who only teaches “two decades” as opposed to a nurse educator who can teach “three or four decades” with minimal experience.