Waiving pre-reqs?

[ceg]

I am an advance practice nurse (RN with masters degree in nursing) considering med school. Does anyone know if schools will waive say, a pre-req in physics based on the fact that I have an advanced degree and already prescribe and provide patient care? I am meeting with a couple of admissions counselors but I would love to get the stupid questions out of the way first Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrMidlife]

I am an advance practice nurse (RN with masters degree in nursing) considering med school. Does anyone know if schools will waive say, a pre-req in physics based on the fact that I have an advanced degree and already prescribe and provide patient care? I am meeting with a couple of admissions counselors but I would love to get the stupid questions out of the way first Thanks!

They wouldn't waive it based on clinical experience. That has nothing to do with what physics is for: it's for jumping through a hoop because you're expected to jump through a hoop, in a pretty tough basic science subject, as an established basis of comparison for med school candidates.

They might waive it if your MCAT score is strong and you have coursework that's a reasonable substitute.

Some med schools have incredibly flexible prereqs, like Northwestern. They still require the MCAT.

Nobody is likely to question your clinical acumen, but your experience as a nurse pretty much won't allow you to cut corners in playing the premed game. One of the things they need to screen you (and all of us) for is the ability to thrive under a crushing load of basic sciences in the 1st 2 years.

There are lots of threads in this forum with guidance for nurses who want to get into med school - very useful, worth spending time on.

Best of luck to you.

 

[njbmd]

I am an advance practice nurse (RN with masters degree in nursing) considering med school. Does anyone know if schools will waive say, a pre-req in physics based on the fact that I have an advanced degree and already prescribe and provide patient care? I am meeting with a couple of admissions counselors but I would love to get the stupid questions out of the way first Thanks!

Not likely in this country. If you are contemplating applying offshore, you might be able to get them to consider your nursing.

 

[ceg]

They wouldn't waive it based on clinical experience. That has nothing to do with what physics is for: it's for jumping through a hoop because you're expected to jump through a hoop, in a pretty tough basic science subject, as an established basis of comparison for med school candidates..

I was hoping it was some fundamental basis for pharmacology and since I have already taken the courses and had prescriptive authority for some time they would deem it unnecessary. Good to know up front I guess

Thanks for the responses.

 

[jl lin]

They wouldn't waive it based on clinical experience. That has nothing to do with what physics is for: it's for jumping through a hoop because you're expected to jump through a hoop, in a pretty tough basic science subject, as an established basis of comparison for med school candidates.

They might waive it if your MCAT score is strong and you have coursework that's a reasonable substitute.

Some med schools have incredibly flexible prereqs, like Northwestern. They still require the MCAT.

Nobody is likely to question your clinical acumen, but your experience as a nurse pretty much won't allow you to cut corners in playing the premed game. One of the things they need to screen you (and all of us) for is the ability to thrive under a crushing load of basic sciences in the 1st 2 years.

There are lots of threads in this forum with guidance for nurses who want to get into med school - very useful, worth spending time on.

Best of luck to you.

Not likely in this country. If you are contemplating applying offshore, you might be able to get them to consider your nursing.

Although I am not an advanced practice RN, I'm a critical care RN with a boatload of intensive experience. I agree with two replies above.

Plus I truly don't see, at least on this site, a ton of respect and props for nurses with advanced practice experience. Such is referred to, along with the PAs, as "midlevels." I understand why--because of generally what level they practice on. At the end of the day, not a physician is not a physician.

Also from what I have heard tell from nurses, respiratory therapists, PAs and NPs in medical school and residency, it may be best to play the game and be quiet about your insights and what you know clinically.

No, I don't see people getting around jumping through all the hoops for med school. I see boths sides of this approach--why some consideration should be given or should not be given, but I also think pretty much it's good that everyone starts on the same level--even though with experience clinically, there is a development in clinical insight and judgment.

Nonetheless, my plan is to jump through the hoops and keep my mouth shut except where it's vital and where my input and insight it asked for.
I know what I know, but I also know that even with that there's a boatload I don't know or have forgotten, as I have sought to develop expertise in other areas. I hope to synthesize and apply it all to the best of my ability when the time comes. But the process is what it is, and I'm looking at it as a long one that is more military-like in nature than not. Sort of like one LOOOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG orientation/preceptor process.

I wish you the best as well.

Listen many people here seem believe that most of the general science courses required in nursing college programs--such as Gen Bio I & II, Gen Chem I & II, and Microbiology, etc are all some watered-down form of "science for nursing students." I have no idea what they may thing of the pathophys, etc. If there are programs that still do that, I don't believe that they are smiled upon by NLN, etc.

 

[The right Path]

Although I am not an advanced practice RN, I'm a critical care RN with a boatload of intensive experience. I agree with two replies above.

Plus I truly don't see, at least on this site, a ton of respect and props for nurses with advanced practice experience. Such is referred to, along with the PAs, as "midlevels." I understand why--because of generally what level they practice on. At the end of the day, not a physician is not a physician.

Also from what I have heard tell from nurses, respiratory therapists, PAs and NPs in medical school and residency, it may be best to play the game and be quiet about your insights and what you know clinically.

No, I don't see people getting around jumping through all the hoops for med school. I see boths sides of this approach--why some consideration should be given or should not be given, but I also think pretty much it's good that everyone starts on the same level--even though with experience clinically, there is a development in clinical insight and judgment.

Nonetheless, my plan is to jump through the hoops and keep my mouth shut except where it's vital and where my input and insight it asked for.
I know what I know, but I also know that even with that there's a boatload I don't know or have forgotten, as I have sought to develop expertise in other areas. I hope to synthesize and apply it all to the best of my ability when the time comes. But the process is what it is, and I'm looking at it as a long one that is more military-like in nature than not. Sort of like one LOOOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG orientation/preceptor process.

I wish you the best as well.

Listen many people here seem believe that most of the general science courses required in nursing college programs--such as Gen Bio I & II, Gen Chem I & II, and Microbiology, etc are all some watered-down form of "science for nursing students." I have no idea what they may thing of the pathophys, etc. If there are programs that still do that, I don't believe that they are smiled upon by NLN, etc.

Good post.

 

[jl lin]

Good post.

Thanx RP. I brought some of that into it; b/c this is what I've been told by others. It seems like a lot of sitting on hands. It's a shame that those with some strong clinical experience have to play it down; but I guess that is part of the game.

 

[MacVA]

Late to the game but... what does waiving physics have to do with advanced nursing experience?

 

[njbmd]

Thanx RP. I brought some of that into it; b/c this is what I've been told by others. It seems like a lot of sitting on hands. It's a shame that those with some strong clinical experience have to play it down; but I guess that is part of the game.

I entered medical school with a Ph.D in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in addition to being an RRT. Not only did I NOT have to play down anything, my colleagues welcomed my insights into clinical problems. Did I intrude on the teaching by my attendings and residents? Not in the slightest but when there was a need for my input, my teachers sought it without me having to insert my opinion and were happy that I had that experience and willing to share.

There's no "game" when it comes to learning medicine. There is either good medicine or bad medicine. My teachers were excellent and didn't need me(inexperienced in medicine) to tell them anything that they didn't know already.

 

[jl lin]

Late to the game but... what does waiving physics have to do with advanced nursing experience?

Only about 8 replies or so in here. . .read the thread.

 

[jl lin]

I entered medical school with a Ph.D in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in addition to being an RRT. Not only did I NOT have to play down anything, my colleagues welcomed my insights into clinical problems. Did I intrude on the teaching by my attendings and residents? Not in the slightest but when there was a need for my input, my teachers sought it without me having to insert my opinion and were happy that I had that experience and willing to share.

There's no "game" when it comes to learning medicine. There is either good medicine or bad medicine. My teachers were excellent and didn't need me(inexperienced in medicine) to tell them anything that they didn't know already.

Yes, but it is true. There is pretty much always a game where human dynamics are concerned. This is just part of the reality of life. And besides being told this by several folks, what is interesting is that on another premed website, a conversation discussing this very thing is archived with shared, detailed experiences. Many of those folks are now attendings or at least in fellowships.

There are times when you have to sit on your hands and tongue. That is the reality, like it or not. I will say that probably a PhD is received as that of having "more knowledge and expertise," though clinically speaking that may not be true for clinical "expertise."

One person's experences are fine. When I hear and see patterns, however, I learn to be alert and be on the look out. There are times when input may be welcomed and times when it is not. It really depends on the person learning rounds. Some people are cool that way, and others just aren't. I refer to it as the CF, coolness factor, b/c these people are secure in who they are, and they want to encourage growth and learning in others. They make rounding not tedious and painful, but interesting and even a joy. You are probably one of these people. I wish all were like you, but it's not reality. I have observed and learned, often you have to be quiet until you are addressed. There are exceptions, but you have to feel out each situation.

Personally I have been on rounds with people that make it total drudgery for everyone. Not every surgical attending or intensivist that is leading rounds is true teaching material. People sort of dot their "i's," cross their "t's," take lots of slow deep breaths, and get through it. It all depends on who is leading.

 

[DrMidlife]

Late to the game but... what does waiving physics have to do with advanced nursing experience?

Nothing, but if you're coming from a long career of delivering healthcare, with a crazy heavy load of responsibility for patient outcomes, prescribing drugs, managing staff, managing families, hiring/firing, hospital politics etc...plus you've cleaned up after a million physician blunders...and you never see physics brought to the table when a physician shines...and then you look at what it takes to go to med school, well, the prereqs seem completely unrelated to the job on the other side. Or so I'd imagine - I was an engineer, not an APN.

It's a big adjustment to be measured by test scores and hoop jumping prowess, after years of being measured by (and rewarded for) daily demonstrated competence. I'm not complaining about it, just reporting that it was a big adjustment.

 

[MegaSpectacular]

although physics doesn't apply directly to medicine, it does apply directly to thinking.

If you continue to learn how to use your mind in multiple ways you will be able to solve difficult problems later on in life.

Education.

 

[MacVA]

Nothing, but if you're coming from a long career of delivering healthcare, with a crazy heavy load of responsibility for patient outcomes, prescribing drugs, managing staff, managing families, hiring/firing, hospital politics etc...plus you've cleaned up after a million physician blunders...and you never see physics brought to the table when a physician shines...and then you look at what it takes to go to med school, well, the prereqs seem completely unrelated to the job on the other side. Or so I'd imagine - I was an engineer, not an APN.

It's a big adjustment to be measured by test scores and hoop jumping prowess, after years of being measured by (and rewarded for) daily demonstrated competence. I'm not complaining about it, just reporting that it was a big adjustment.

OK good - I was confused as my mother was an RN/ now is a NP.

I agree with you that after years of having/still maintaining a demanding job it is a kick in the face to go back and have to compete with people based solely on test scores.

Although I can see why it is important to do well in critical thinking classes and on standardized tests. Because no matter how good of a doctor one could be, if you cannot pass/ do well on tests you will never be one.

 

[njbmd]

Yes, but it is true. There is pretty much always a game where human dynamics are concerned. This is just part of the reality of life. And besides being told this by several folks, what is interesting is that on another premed website, a conversation discussing this very thing is archived with shared, detailed experiences. Many of those folks are now attendings or at least in fellowships.

There are times when you have to sit on your hands and tongue. That is the reality, like it or not. I will say that probably a PhD is received as that of having "more knowledge and expertise," though clinically speaking that may not be true for clinical "expertise."

One person's experences are fine. When I hear and see patterns, however, I learn to be alert and be on the look out. There are times when input may be welcomed and times when it is not. It really depends on the person learning rounds. Some people are cool that way, and others just aren't. I refer to it as the CF, coolness factor, b/c these people are secure in who they are, and they want to encourage growth and learning in others. They make rounding not tedious and painful, but interesting and even a joy. You are probably one of these people. I wish all were like you, but it's not reality. I have observed and learned, often you have to be quiet until you are addressed. There are exceptions, but you have to feel out each situation.

Personally I have been on rounds with people that make it total drudgery for everyone. Not every surgical attending or intensivist that is leading rounds is true teaching material. People sort of dot their "i's," cross their "t's," take lots of slow deep breaths, and get through it. It all depends on who is leading.

Be very careful with the perpetuating above types of descriptions as patternas because they are certainly not the norm. They are not condusive to the practice of good medicine under any circumstances and are far from commonplace in good teaching facilities. When I conduct teaching rounds (I can speak for my partners and my colleagues all of whom are university attending physicians), I am not trying to "blow sunshine up anyone's rear end" or "entertain you" but I am there to present the best teaching and clinical outcomes based on clinical experience and knowledge. This is not an exception but a rule in the best teaching facilities. If you find rounds "drudgery" then do something else that can entertain you as there is nothing about patient care is drudgery if you have the best interests of the patient in mind as either you do the job or you don't get it done.

 

[jl lin]

Be very careful with the perpetuating above types of descriptions as patternas because they are certainly not the norm. They are not condusive to the practice of good medicine under any circumstances and are far from commonplace in good teaching facilities. When I conduct teaching rounds (I can speak for my partners and my colleagues all of whom are university attending physicians), I am not trying to "blow sunshine up anyone's rear end" or "entertain you" but I am there to present the best teaching and clinical outcomes based on clinical experience and knowledge. This is not an exception but a rule in the best teaching facilities. If you find rounds "drudgery" then do something else that can entertain you as there is nothing about patient care is drudgery if you have the best interests of the patient in mind as either you do the job or you don't get it done.

I am thinking you are misreading my points. Drudgery IS NOT rounds depending upon who is leading them. I've worked in NO less than 8 teaching hosptials, and some of them ivy league or ivy league affiliation, while others were university-based but not ivy-league. Honestly, yes. The one that was not the ivy league was not as open and in my view enlightening--but that is based on rounds on various units. Make no mistake. In the clinical setting, we are often dealing with all kinds of personalities and dynamics, period. Some people are a joy to be on rounds with. We are excited when they lead, b/c we know it's going to be a good time for learning and discussion. NOT SO MUCH for others. Don't assume everyone leading rounds is as great at is as you or some of your colleagues are. It's just not reality. The weekends are a great example of this. It may be viewed as more relaxed, less performing and attention to teaching--but still, IT ALL DEPENDS UPON WHO IS LEADING rounds and who is there. And such is a separate issue from being on rounds primarily to help get the best plan in motion and get the patient what he or she needs. YES. That is and should be the primary focus.

I can assure you I consistsently strive to have the best interests of my patients in mind and addressed--on rounds or otherwise. But there is a bit of a tug of war at times, just as I am sensing one now, when people dig their heels in or are inflexibile. Nurses have learned to get what the patient needs in other ways sometimes. Most of us first and foremost are patient advocates. But to be sure, there are people you have to walk on eggshells with and EVERYONE knows who these people are.

I teach in college as well. There are enough issues of egomania and politics in medicine, healthcare and education. Personally I find it takes away from the primary focus, and that is/should be the patient. But we learn to deal with it, b/c the truth is the patient needs us--and we also strive to learn what we can when we can.

We all know which fellows and attendings are really there foremost to help the patient and also impart insight, wisdom, and learning. And I've been fortunate, b/c overall I feel that most of those I've worked with have been great.

Still, there are those that are just a pain in the butt at times. This is true in all fields. But there is also some percentage of people that are in this field to meet some ego need--to somehow be stroked. They may not be in touch with it, but there are times when they are about that.

What's more, I could write a best seller on some of those that put their own pride and ego before the needs of patients and others. Again, not always, thank God, or I would not have stayed in critical care as long as I have. But rest assured, those people are there, and in some ways they scare me a lot more than those that may not be as bright as others. I find their prioritizing at times close to if not out and out unethical. I have seen it and so have others. NO, it's not the norm, BUT it does happen. I think in 20 years I can speak to this. I wish it were not so. I have seen some troubling things over the years. I have also seen many good and wonderful things. But I can't deny those things that are troubling, and they should be addressed and brought out into the light of day. This is part of how we strive to improve and get better. Openness promotes improvement. Denial or suppression promotes decline.

Not everyone in medicine or healthcare is always and every minute involved in going for the ideal or to always make their top priority the patients' health interests. This is true for some nurses, physicians, and other healthcare providers. When this becomes a pattern that I see consistently see--where the health interests of the patients are put on the back burner due to ego issues, sometimes laziness, or for political interest, it is something that IS very tough to tolerate. I wish I have not seen this, but I would be a bold face liar if I said otherwise.

So, unless I have mistakenly taken what I feel are unfair and negative comments from you, I strongly resent your implications. I find them highly offensive. I never think I am on rounds to be "entertained," and the drudgery enters in when people are just going through the damned motions. That doesn't always happen, but it happens enough, and we all know it. Rounds are not always the same as they are on days during mon-fri work week. That's just not reality, and I can say this, and I have worked in many critical care units.

And it's not just the difference between the ivy league and the one that isn't. There are pediatric cc intensivists that are excellent at putting the patients first and at teaching. One woman I'm thinking of is wonderful and when I have a moment, I leave the cardiac unit and go on rounds with her in the PICU if she isn't covering rounds for both areas at that time. And she takes individual time with people, but she really cares about excellence. I respect her immensely and attend any of her presentations whenever it is feasible for me.

There are others like her as well, but there are those that can't hold a candle to her period. For those that are just going through the motions on rounds, my ears are still up and I'm paying attention. I listen to the plan and contribute where necessary. I ask questions or address concerns based on what is going on with my patient/s. Be sure of this,however, lest you further misunderstand me. If addressing an important concern annoys someone on or the one leading rounds--such that perhaps maybe they want to use the opportunity to try to make me feel like as azz--I really don't give a damn, b/c I'm a patient advocate first. If there is something that I need to have clarified or understand, I address it, period. At the same time, I will say that I have found we need to be careful about this. I'm not going to waste my time and energy getting into some kind of pizzing contests with people. It just leads to unnecessary tension and draining of energy, which I could better use to help my patients. And with some people, they can have quite a stick up their azz and be a pain in the butt. As I have stated, fortunately for me that hasn't been most of my experiences, but it can happen, and sometimes it happens more that we would like.

In this field one thing is quite true. You must carefully and wisely pick your battles. I've had a egomaniac specialist demand all kinds of idiotic things when I'm in the midst of doing something important, like drawing a vital (not routine) blood gas. His demand was an issue of pride and was no where near a priority--it was based on his pizzing contest with another intensivist. People can at times suck others dry with such lunacy.

I've seen some incredible things in 20 years working in critical care--incredible things indeed--and some of them are just plain idiotic crap. I have also had a CT surgeon yell at me when his patient was dumping 200-300cc/hr out of the chest tubes for many hours and he refused to come in and address what's going on with the patient--after dumping I don't how much blood products into the pt and getting no response from DDVAP or other things, it was totally outrageous.

I had another one tell me to just let the patient on the IABP with an augmented pressue of 50 tell me to go ahead and let the patient code as we were maxed out on Levophed. I thought the rest of the staff and I would kill ourselves trying to keep those patients alive--b/c the truth is, we literally fought long and hard to keep them alive when a few (vital) others clearly didn't have the same focus as we had. It was an ugly reality, yet there it is.

So when some folks aren't giving it the ole college try on rounds, I am not overly bummed out; b/c I'm there for my patients--and no, I don't shut the hell up like a mouse b/c I am afraid I'll get put down. It may happen--I may get condescended to, but I've gained a lot of respect by standing my ground for my patients when it is necessary to do so. And then there are times that others might mark you on their ****e list b/c you asserted for important things on the behalf of the patients. And then there are times it's a judgment call--but the judgment for me is based on the highest priority needs of the patient. And then there are times when there are many ways to approach a situation, and I'm not going to get in a struggle with someone necessarily over their approach. Again--it requires wisely picking your battles. (Now, thankfully these examples I give are NOT the norm--else, again I would not have stayed in this field, but it did help to move me into pediatrics critical care, where people are often many times more anal-retentive, and for good cause. Also I'm honestly thankful that the two surgeons I referred to are no longer working in the field. You know, I will kill myself to help a surgeon, especially when it is clear he or she is putting the patient first. But when they are practically admitting to me that they don't really give a damn, well, that puts everyone in a horrible place. And I have stood up to that and have taken the heat for it, believe me.)


I have NO idea why you would even suggest such as thing as me desiring to be entertained, etc. That is NOT at all what I was talking about. But yes, some people are more about their own ego and insecurity than others, and this is true in life in general. I wish it weren't, but we live in quite an imperfect world.

As an aside, I will say that I learned something from a cardiology unit director. He also showed me that there are times to side step direct confrontation (related to ego arguments and pizzing contests) to get what you need for you patients--that there is more than one way to skin a cat and get what the patient needs. He knew this and nurses have had to learn this for the sake of their patients. And then quite frankly you do the best that is within your realm to do and pray the Serenity Prayer. There are things I cannot control, but I am not negligent in those things that I can control Still, that director did show that you can get things done and not feed into unnecessary conflict and drama. I learned part of why he was the director of that unit that particular day b/c of his skill in this approach. Sometimes running up the middle isn't the way to get the touchdown. And at the end of the day, it's ultimately about effectively meeting the needs of the patients.

If somehow I took what you are saying the wrong way, I truly apologize; but I feel somehow condescended to and reprimanded for discussing dynamics that I know exist and that are not necessarily totally rare-to-never dynamics. What is "rare" can be relative and depend on a number of things. But no. I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most of my experiences with others have been great. It is just that there are those times when you have figure out how to get past some idiotic mentality in order to get the patient what he or she needs. This can be part of the reality shock in healthcare. Denying that it exists is counterproductive in my view.

 

[r0ckaction]

"Listen many people here seem believe that most of the general science courses required in nursing college programs--such as Gen Bio I & II, Gen Chem I & II, and Microbiology, etc are all some watered-down form of "science for nursing students." I have no idea what they may thing of the pathophys, etc. If there are programs that still do that, I don't believe that they are smiled upon by NLN, etc."[/QUOTE]

Best of luck to you (OP) in the whole process! I think that you will have a unique and extremely beneficial perspective on medicine as a whole. Don't let prereqs like physics deter you. To become an advanced practice nurse you have gotten through things much more difficult than undergraduate physics.


Although this has nothing to do with clinical experience, which i would think will prove quite valuable to you, the prereqs for med school are nothing like the courses in nursing programs as it seems jl lin was insinuating.
I helped my fiance prepare for countless tests over the past four years for her BSN at a top program (happens to be a top teaching hospital too) and her courses were very different in focus from the basic sciences I was taking.
Organic chemistry is barely touched on (basically it was only a little bit of nomenclature), nursing chemistry just doesn't look anything like general chemistry, physics isn't required, anatomy and physiology were condensed.

I'm not knocking nurses at all so don't take this the wrong way. The nursing programs are intended to accomplish a different goal... preparation for clinical nursing practice. I think her courses did an excellent job of that.

Medical school prereqs on the other hand are intended to.... prepare you for more school, not to start drips, or to memorize drug interactions and side effects.
Just like DrMidlife said;
They'll need you to take the prereqs not so you can prove your aptitude in practicing clinically, but so that there will be a (somewhat) fair way to compare your ability to take difficult science courses with other medical school applicants who also took those courses. Plus, it would be hard to take the MCAT if you have to learn physics and organic pretty much from scratch. I did enough review of those topics in preparation for the test and I had taken two semesters of each.
I would be the first to admit that my fiance was much more prepared than I would be to enter a hospital and start caring for patients, and that is what her coursework prepared her for. But she would be very quick to admit that I am much more versed in the basic sciences than her or her classmates because she saw the depth of the courses I took in comparison with theirs. The classes have different goals. Realize that you are preparing to go to school to learn (or relearn as the case may be for you) the basics, not to head directly to the wards.


jl lin you said,
"But yes, some people are more about their own ego and insecurity than others, and this is true in life in general. I wish it weren't, but we live in quite an imperfect world.....
...that director did show that you can get things done and not feed into unnecessary conflict and drama...."


If had learned that lesson you wouldn't be replying so defensively to njbmd. And you probably wouldn't have rambled on way off topic so passionately. Sounds to me like feeding into unnecessary conflict and drama because of some deep seated insecurity.

 

[MLT2MT2DO]

Listen many people here seem believe that most of the general science courses required in nursing college programs--such as Gen Bio I & II, Gen Chem I & II, and Microbiology, etc are all some watered-down form of "science for nursing students." I have no idea what they may thing of the pathophys, etc. If there are programs that still do that, I don't believe that they are smiled upon by NLN, etc.

Being someone who has taken the "heath professions chemistries" and the pre-med chemistries that chem majors take, these are watered down. In the first 2.5 weeks of OchemI everything was covered that I had learned in my Ochem/Biochem for health professions. It may have been week 5 before everything was covered from my health professional Gen Chem.

Now the biology's(A&P/pathophys/clinical micro/hematology immunology) I was required to take were actually much more in depth and difficult then Gen Bio's.

 

[jl lin]

"Listen many people here seem believe that most of the general science courses required in nursing college programs--such as Gen Bio I & II, Gen Chem I & II, and Microbiology, etc are all some watered-down form of "science for nursing students." I have no idea what they may thing of the pathophys, etc. If there are programs that still do that, I don't believe that they are smiled upon by NLN, etc."

"But yes, some people are more about their own ego and insecurity than others, and this is true in life in general. I wish it weren't, but we live in quite an imperfect world.....
...that director did show that you can get things done and not feed into unnecessary conflict and drama...."


If had learned that lesson you wouldn't be replying so defensively to njbmd. And you probably wouldn't have rambled on way off topic so passionately. Sounds to me like feeding into unnecessary conflict and drama because of some deep seated insecurity. [/QUOTE]


Have you been to college for nursing? I have. Where did you attend? Genenral Bio I and II with labs are General Bio, period. WT?
General Chem I and II are General Chem with labs, period. Again I say what the . . .

So when you take these courses in many universities, you sit in a class with bio majors, chem majors, various majors.

Usuallly O Chem is NOT required for nursing programs. I NEVER SAID IT WAS, PERIOD. Same thing with physics.

What is required? Anatomy I and II with labs. Granted NOT Gross Anatomy like in med schooL, but they ARE upper level bio courses--just like freaking Microbiology was.

There may be schools that have watered down versions of these courses that they serve up to nursing students, but National League of Nursing standards and other academic nursing organizations frown on such things nowadays.


I don't know what you are talking about, but I sure has hell know what I am talking about.

If someone attended a hospital program for RN years ago, then that may well be different.

What's more, most upper level science courses that are required at four years schools now want pathophysiology, physiology, advanced pharmacology, which will have a chemistry pre-req. And most of them nowadays have research courses, which require Statistic, which requires at least a college Algebra course or something similar. YOU CAN'T SIT IN THEM WITHOUT THE PROPER PREQS. Guess what is a should always be a prereq for A&P, microbiology, or pathophys? Uh General Bios and General Chems. I don't know where your GF went to nursing college, but apparently their standards are different from many other schools, period.

Now if you are talking about non-professional nursing programs, like for licensed practical nurses or the like, that is a whole other ball game, and they aren't college degree programs usually that I know of, but are along the lines of vocational.

 

[jl lin]

Being someone who has taken the "heath professions chemistries" and the pre-med chemistries that chem majors take, these are watered down. In the first 2.5 weeks of OchemI everything was covered that I had learned in my Ochem/Biochem for health professions. It may have been week 5 before everything was covered from my health professional Gen Chem.

Now the biology's(A&P/pathophys/clinical micro/hematology immunology) I was required to take were actually much more in depth and difficult then Gen Bio's.

If youR nursing or health professins program offered HP chemistries--watered down courses, shame on them and too bad for you. Most four years (and nowadays most two year ADN programs--at least the first semester bio and chem w/ labs) require Gen Bio I and II and Gen Chem I and II with labs--same as lower level science courses for freshman second year college students.

Just b/c that was your program, don't assume that is the standard everywhere. It isn't for professional nursing programs. What's more, you can't even sit in the A&P and micro and patho classes if you haven't HAD THE GENERAL BIOS W/ LABS AND GENERAL CHEMS.

OYFREAKING VEY!

 

[jl lin]

If had learned that lesson you wouldn't be replying so defensively to njbmd. And you probably wouldn't have rambled on way off topic so passionately. Sounds to me like feeding into unnecessary conflict and drama because of some deep seated insecurity.

If nothing else, that is a completely a NONSENSICAL (and really instigatory) statement. The topic took a turn and my reply was relevant to the other person's. I think your comment is simply meant to be ad hominem and instigatory. There are people dynamics as I described a lot, and in my view, your reply helps to demonstrate my point.

I, again, will say I'm sorry if I took njbmd's response the wrong way. As it stands I have no confirmation of this. It sounded completely condescending and it missed my point entirely. It seems she is assuming something that is completely untrue, and that is why I replied as I did. If it is otherwise, she will have to reply to it. What's more with her level of education and experience, I am sure she can completely speak to such things herself. Implying that I am on rounds to be entertained is utterly ridiculous. Some people can't teach or lead. And some people, especially those that instigate, again, demonstrate the kind of nonsense many of us have to put up with at times in the clinical environments.

 

[r0ckaction]

Just b/c that was your program, don't assume that is the standard everywhere. It isn't for professional nursing programs. What's more, you can't even sit in the A&P and micro and patho classes if you haven't HAD THE GENERAL BIOS W/ LABS AND GENERAL CHEMS.


The nursing program of which I am referring is in the "Top 20" in the most recent US News and World Report. So I would say that it's either the national standard, or (more likely) above the national standard. Those general science classes don't approach the depth of the science major courses.
Again, that's not a fault. More time ought to be spent emphasizing aspects of scientific education that relate directly to nursing instead of memorizing cytokine receptor signaling pathways or doing complex organic synthesis.

But you believe whatever you want to believe if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.....

 

[jl lin]

Just b/c that was your program, don't assume that is the standard everywhere. It isn't for professional nursing programs. What's more, you can't even sit in the A&P and micro and patho classes if you haven't HAD THE GENERAL BIOS W/ LABS AND GENERAL CHEMS.


The nursing program of which I am referring is in the "Top 20" in the most recent US News and World Report.


So what? Ulimately schools will do what they want, but all the major nursing organizations are not in support of watered down scienced for professional nursing programs--nor should they be. That certainly wouldn't fly for many strong programs on the EC!


But you believe whatever you want to believe if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.....

Yes, well tell that to many students at Rutgers, UPenn, Drexel, etc.

You really don't know all that you think you do about it.

But anything to perpetuate the false belief that nursing is an idiot profession. Whatever. I'm not doing the pizzing contest with you. I am guessing you are quite young and inexperienced.

Stands to reason if you don't take the core sciences prereqs with labs you can't get into a pathophys or other classes. If a nursing student doesn't know what a cytokine is, he or she is an idiot. You don't seem to understand that you have to learn or at least should learn many of the mechanism of actions for many things, including many drugs. Those nursing students that don't are at a great disadvantage.

Also, why don't you sit down and take the CCRN and tell me how much science there is NOT on it? Then get back to me. Yes, it is clinically based, but it will show you quite a number of things. I excelled in all sections, and I took no prep course for it.

 

[r0ckaction]

Yes, well tell that to many students at Rutgers, UPenn, Drexel, etc.

You really don't know all that you think you do about it.

But anything to perpetuate the false belief that nursing is an idiot profession. Whatever. I'm not doing the pizzing contest with you. I am guessing you are quite young and inexperienced.

Stands to reason if you don't take the core sciences prereqs with labs you can't get into a pathophys or other classes. If a nursing student doesn't know what a cytokine is, he or she is an idiot. You don't seem to understand that you have to learn or at least should learn many of the mechanism of actions for many things, including many drugs. Those nursing students that don't are at a great disadvantage.

Also, why don't you sit down and take the CCRN and tell me how much science there is NOT on it? Then get back to me. Yes, it is clinically based, but it will show you quite a number of things. I excelled in all sections, and I took no prep course for it.

I'm not sure that you actually read these posts before replying.

Nursing is anything but an idiot profession. Just as we have to fulfill certain requirements like physics to get into an accredited MD program, nursing students have to fulfill certain national requirements to obtain a BSN from a nationally accredited school.

My fiance took gen chem and gen bio courses for a year alongside everyone from molecular bio majors to chemistry majors. Unfortunately, once she decided to switch into nursing, the national standards were what forced her to take nursing oriented chemistry and biology classes. Her previous coursework would not qualify, believe me, she talked to every administer she could find to avoid having to take the nursing alternatives. This turned her 4 year BSN into a 5 year program. She had to jump through hoops just as anyone applying to med school has to take certain prereqs.

There were many critical things taught in her nursing courses that were not covered when she took the courses with the general bio/chem students. The converse was also true. It's not a question of one course being "better" than the other. It's a question of the focus of each track. The two areas are decidedly different.
She knows a great deal about cytokines, and most certainly can relate that to specific clinical manifestations much more easily than I can. However, her immunology class did not go into as much nitty gritty depth as the comparable course I took did.
In truth, I would have rather taken her course. Contextually it was more relevant in it's presentations and to be quite honest, a lot of the little details and nuances that I worked so hard to memorize are pretty hazy at this point anyways.

Congrats on your performance on the CCRN! Nursing is probably the most under-appreciated and underpaid profession around. I'm certainly not trying to detract from it in any way, shape, or form. (i'm marrying one of the smartest people i know who happens to be a nurse) After four years in the hospital I know countless incredibly brilliant and capable RNs and NPs, and most are absolutely dedicated to their patients in an inspiring way. I'm just honestly enumerating the differences, as frustrating as they might be on both sides.

The OP was wondering about being able to get around the prereqs. Unfortunately, comparing a nursing education and the premed course work is like comparing apples with oranges. One's not "better" than the other. But you certainly can't compare a student in one to a student in the other and have that be an honest comparison.

OP- go knock the socks off of physics

 

[glamqueen]

I'm not sure that you actually read these posts before replying.

Nursing is anything but an idiot profession. Just as we have to fulfill certain requirements like physics to get into an accredited MD program, nursing students have to fulfill certain national requirements to obtain a BSN from a nationally accredited school.

My fiance took gen chem and gen bio courses for a year alongside everyone from molecular bio majors to chemistry majors. Unfortunately, once she decided to switch into nursing, the national standards were what forced her to take nursing oriented chemistry and biology classes. Her previous coursework would not qualify, believe me, she talked to every administer she could find to avoid having to take the nursing alternatives. This turned her 4 year BSN into a 5 year program. She had to jump through hoops just as anyone applying to med school has to take certain prereqs.

There were many critical things taught in her nursing courses that were not covered when she took the courses with the general bio/chem students. The converse was also true. It's not a question of one course being "better" than the other. It's a question of the focus of each track. The two areas are decidedly different.
She knows a great deal about cytokines, and most certainly can relate that to specific clinical manifestations much more easily than I can. However, her immunology class did not go into as much nitty gritty depth as the comparable course I took did.
In truth, I would have rather taken her course. Contextually it was more relevant in it's presentations and to be quite honest, a lot of the little details and nuances that I worked so hard to memorize are pretty hazy at this point anyways.

Congrats on your performance on the CCRN! Nursing is probably the most under-appreciated and underpaid profession around. I'm certainly not trying to detract from it in any way, shape, or form. (i'm marrying one of the smartest people i know who happens to be a nurse) After four years in the hospital I know countless incredibly brilliant and capable RNs and NPs, and most are absolutely dedicated to their patients in an inspiring way. I'm just honestly enumerating the differences, as frustrating as they might be on both sides.

The OP was wondering about being able to get around the prereqs. Unfortunately, comparing a nursing education and the premed course work is like comparing apples with oranges. One's not "better" than the other. But you certainly can't compare a student in one to a student in the other and have that be an honest comparison.

OP- go knock the socks off of physics

r0ckaction,

I have rarely seen a post with more maturity, calmness, rationality and reason in response to a rather accusatory series of posts. Your kind of response on SDN? I'm shocked (in a good way)! You deserve a massive bout of applause for one of the most genuinely honest, yet, respectful answers to an inflammatory return that I've ever seen on these boards.

Best of luck in your pursuits for school. If you carry this kind of maturity to interviews, I have no doubt it will resonate with your interviewers.

 

[jl lin]

I'm not sure that you actually read these posts before replying.

Nursing is anything but an idiot profession. Just as we have to fulfill certain requirements like physics to get into an accredited MD program, nursing students have to fulfill certain national requirements to obtain a BSN from a nationally accredited school.

My fiance took gen chem and gen bio courses for a year alongside everyone from molecular bio majors to chemistry majors. Unfortunately, once she decided to switch into nursing, the national standards were what forced her to take nursing oriented chemistry and biology classes. Her previous coursework would not qualify, believe me, she talked to every administer she could find to avoid having to take the nursing alternatives. This turned her 4 year BSN into a 5 year program. She had to jump through hoops just as anyone applying to med school has to take certain prereqs.

There were many critical things taught in her nursing courses that were not covered when she took the courses with the general bio/chem students. The converse was also true. It's not a question of one course being "better" than the other. It's a question of the focus of each track. The two areas are decidedly different.
She knows a great deal about cytokines, and most certainly can relate that to specific clinical manifestations much more easily than I can. However, her immunology class did not go into as much nitty gritty depth as the comparable course I took did.
In truth, I would have rather taken her course. Contextually it was more relevant in it's presentations and to be quite honest, a lot of the little details and nuances that I worked so hard to memorize are pretty hazy at this point anyways.

Congrats on your performance on the CCRN! Nursing is probably the most under-appreciated and underpaid profession around. I'm certainly not trying to detract from it in any way, shape, or form. (i'm marrying one of the smartest people i know who happens to be a nurse) After four years in the hospital I know countless incredibly brilliant and capable RNs and NPs, and most are absolutely dedicated to their patients in an inspiring way. I'm just honestly enumerating the 2

We (as well as many nursing students) had to sit in the same General Bio I and II as other science majors. There were no dumbing down courses that I recall, and if there were, I would have been annoyed, and I have been a RN for 20 years.

Look for example at Rutgers cuuriculum. The requirements include General Bio I w/ lab 4 cred/semster, Gen Bio II--same, Gen Chem I--same, and Gen Chem II--same.

After that there are required courses in Microbiology, Anatomy and Physiology I and II all with labs and 4 crs/ per semester hour, which, again, at the programs I know of, you can't even get into without the General Bios and such.


Many other places have these science courses: advanced physiology, pathophysiology, advanced pharmacology. And after that a boatload of writing intensive comparative research courses.

I don't know why you continue to argue this when you are referring to one student in one program, and you don't mention the school or the program.

Thanks for taking a better approach this time, but your previous response was immature as you implied things about me that you were foolish to imply IMO.


Now if you want to continue on, fine, but remember you are relating one person in one unknown program--and even if I knew which program it was, I have no idea why they would give watered down BASIC GENERAL SCIENCE (CHEM/BIO) courses to their nursing students. It's utterly idiotic, and top 20 program or not, they need to correct that.

Stop saying water-downed General Science courses are what many or most nursing students take. It isn't so. General Chem and General Bio courses are NOT killer courses anyway. The challenge increases when you get to O Chem, Biochemistry, and Physics. And to top all of them, I'd dare say Physical Chem probably kicks all their butts, and this is not a pre-req for medical school, although it may be required for various undergrad science majors.

 

[jl lin]

r0ckaction,

I have rarely seen a post with more maturity, calmness, rationality and reason in response to a rather accusatory series of posts. Your kind of response on SDN? I'm shocked (in a good way)! You deserve a massive bout of applause for one of the most genuinely honest, yet, respectful answers to an inflammatory return that I've ever seen on these boards.

Best of luck in your pursuits for school. If you carry this kind of maturity to interviews, I have no doubt it will resonate with your interviewers.

UM. . .

. . . . Sounds to me like feeding into unnecessary conflict and drama because of some deep seated insecurity.

^ That->Totally not mature. . .at all. . .

 

[ceg]

Nothing, but if you're coming from a long career of delivering healthcare, with a crazy heavy load of responsibility for patient outcomes, prescribing drugs, managing staff, managing families, hiring/firing, hospital politics etc...plus you've cleaned up after a million physician blunders...and you never see physics brought to the table when a physician shines...and then you look at what it takes to go to med school, well, the prereqs seem completely unrelated to the job on the other side. Or so I'd imagine - I was an engineer, not an APN.

It's a big adjustment to be measured by test scores and hoop jumping prowess, after years of being measured by (and rewarded for) daily demonstrated competence. I'm not complaining about it, just reporting that it was a big adjustment.

You SO get me. Thanks for this response.

 

[ceg]

Thanks everyone for the reponses. I certainly don't think it will be detrimental to take physics, just was maybe hoping to avoid it. Thanks for all the input and interesting discussion!

 

[ceg]

. OP- go knock the socks off of physics

Thanks, hopefully I'll do that!

 

[glamqueen]

Ceg - if it helps at all - I'm a first-year, and we actually got an email from our physiology prof this year citing how we have all come to her with questions etc., and this subject matter was why we all took physics as a pre-req. A lot of the physics we had to learn for the MCAT showed up in physiologically relevant ways this year for us. When I started having to review various concepts that I had to learn for the MCAT for Hematology, for example, (in a medical context obviously), I remember yelling at my engineer husband that I never thought I'd have to deal with Reynold's number again, and here it was! Sigh. Honestly, though, if you really learn physics prior to medical school - applying it in the medical context isn't that bad. It's just more ironic. I was also one of those that thought physics was a pre-req to test the way we think.

No, that's not true. It's actually applicable to a lot of physiology that you learn.

Knowing that may help you embrace physics better. I wish I had known that.

Good luck! I'm sure you will do great! I am jealous of your clinical knowledge! I wish I had come into school with it. I tell the nurses in my class that all the time.

 

[The right Path]

I hope I can add a little clarity. I don't think the issue is the fact that premed and preRN prereqs are different. There does seem to be more uniformity in what med schools require (Eng, stats or calc, genchem I and II, orgo I and II, phys I and II, bio I and II- throw in a biochem (or not)). Not from direct comparison, but just from observation, there is more variability in preRN prereqs. For example:

I didn't have to take Biology at all. Not that I would have minded, I would have liked to, but in my circumstance while in college, I couldn't take a lot of classes for funsies. I'll get my opportunity when I do post-bacc.

If I had gone to a UC or CSU RN program, I'd be up a creek for not having taken stats. I took calc instead (cuz I like calc) which was no problemo for my leet private college(s). (Was an intercollegiate thing).

I didn't have to take physics and I would never consider it a funsie extracurricular either. But I guess I gotta face the music and get 'er done, now that I want to go to med school.

I know there was a chem requirement, but I actually don't know/remember what it was. I took gen chem I and II because I like chem, fit my schedule well, and had a lot of units. It seemed to satisfy whatever requirement/s there were.

I also had to take human anatomy, human physiology, and microbiology (my favorite classes of all ). Those were required for the RN program, but they are not required (nor apparently recommended for med school). They'll be taken there again anyway.

Now the issue that I think gets people's underoos all bunched tight is the claim that these science RN prereqs are "kinnygarten adapted" classes. In my program, no, these classes were not the EZchem 101 for those who can only aim to be "just a nurse". They were the same classes taken by students in science majors, pre-meds etc.

However, there are nursing programs (and I have no idea whether or not is the majority or minority) that do have more lax prereqs, and by that I mean that they can be fulfilled by much less rigorous courses that are specifically geared for application rather than theory (I suppose). Of course those types of classes will not qualify for satisfying a premed prereq. Are they adequate in properly educating RNs? I am in no position to evaluate that, although I do admit that it is kind of a matter of pride (for what that's worth!) to have taken the real deal rather than chemistry-lite as some have described.

It is annoying (when it does occur) to have someone jump right off the bat and assume because I am a nurse that all my undergrad science work is the mickey mouse version of the real thing. The validity of my science courses isn't the issue at all. It's the fact that they are not the same courses as premed prereqs. It's like an apples an oranges kind of thing. So like any other nonpremed undergrad degree, I have to fill in the missing classes with a post bacc program. And it really isn't that big of a deal. I sure am glad that I did the gen chem I and II in undergrad though! It makes less work (and tuition) for me now.

As a side note:

"Unfortunately, once she decided to switch into nursing, the national standards were what forced her to take nursing oriented chemistry and biology classes. Her previous coursework would not qualify, believe me, she talked to every administer she could find to avoid having to take the nursing alternatives. This turned her 4 year BSN into a 5 year program"

That is the suck! What did the "nursing" classes have that the regulars didn't? Good grief!

 

[jl lin]

I hope I can add a little clarity. I don't think the issue is the fact that premed and preRN prereqs are different. There does seem to be more uniformity in what med schools require (Eng, stats or calc, genchem I and II, orgo I and II, phys I and II, bio I and II- throw in a biochem (or not)). Not from direct comparison, but just from observation, there is more variability in preRN prereqs. For example:

I didn't have to take Biology at all. Not that I would have minded, I would have liked to, but in my circumstance while in college, I couldn't take a lot of classes for funsies. I'll get my opportunity when I do post-bacc.

If I had gone to a UC or CSU RN program, I'd be up a creek for not having taken stats. I took calc instead (cuz I like calc) which was no problemo for my leet private college(s). (Was an intercollegiate thing).

I didn't have to take physics and I would never consider it a funsie extracurricular either. But I guess I gotta face the music and get 'er done, now that I want to go to med school.

I know there was a chem requirement, but I actually don't know/remember what it was. I took gen chem I and II because I like chem, fit my schedule well, and had a lot of units. It seemed to satisfy whatever requirement/s there were.

I also had to take human anatomy, human physiology, and microbiology (my favorite classes of all ). Those were required for the RN program, but they are not required (nor apparently recommended for med school). They'll be taken there again anyway.

Now the issue that I think gets people's underoos all bunched tight is the claim that these science RN prereqs are "kinnygarten adapted" classes. In my program, no, these classes were not the EZchem 101 for those who can only aim to be "just a nurse". They were the same classes taken by students in science majors, pre-meds etc.

However, there are nursing programs (and I have no idea whether or not is the majority or minority) that do have more lax prereqs, and by that I mean that they can be fulfilled by much less rigorous courses that are specifically geared for application rather than theory (I suppose). Of course those types of classes will not qualify for satisfying a premed prereq. Are they adequate in properly educating RNs? I am in no position to evaluate that, although I do admit that it is kind of a matter of pride (for what that's worth!) to have taken the real deal rather than chemistry-lite as some have described.

It is annoying (when it does occur) to have someone jump right off the bat and assume because I am a nurse that all my undergrad science work is the mickey mouse version of the real thing. The validity of my science courses isn't the issue at all. It's the fact that they are not the same courses as premed prereqs. It's like an apples an oranges kind of thing. So like any other nonpremed undergrad degree, I have to fill in the missing classes with a post bacc program. And it really isn't that big of a deal. I sure am glad that I did the gen chem I and II in undergrad though! It makes less work (and tuition) for me now.

As a side note:

"Unfortunately, once she decided to switch into nursing, the national standards were what forced her to take nursing oriented chemistry and biology classes. Her previous coursework would not qualify, believe me, she talked to every administer she could find to avoid having to take the nursing alternatives. This turned her 4 year BSN into a 5 year program"

That is the suck! What did the "nursing" classes have that the regulars didn't? Good grief!

Yes it seems like some number of programs changed things up, and I don't know if it had anything to do with the "nursing shortage" or not.

It seems like some programs are giving people watered down choices, even though many end up simply sitting in the General Bio I and II, General Chem I and II. They wave some of them in for the Micro, A&P, etc if they have taken them. This is totally idiotic. And it's one more reason I am glad to switch out of the field. There are just too many inconsistencies. At least the core requirements for med school are pretty much uniform.

I took the general sciences that other science majors took, b/c no one suggested otherwise to me, and they seemed reasonable. Now I will take some of them again, b/c it has been so long. Personally, I am glad to do it.

I just don't think we can make a broad assumption that nursing students don't take some of the same general sciences, b/c it is just not true. And if I had any say at some of these schools, I would change this immediately. If you can't pass a General Bio course or a General Chem course, really, that is a problem.

I read the recent overview for some schools' nusing programs. Apparently the way they are working it is that you can pay and take their particular science courses for their program OR you must transfer in the General Bio I and II, General Chem I, etc. That's nice. The first choice gets the program some more money. At the end of the day, that is a HUGE part of what higher education is about--making money. It is a business just like anything else.

Again I say it's an embarassment if all health science students can't at the very least take and pass General Bio I and II and General Chem. And in theory at least, you are NOT supposed to even take the A&P I and II or the Microbiology or Pathophy w/o those General science courses.

Yea, you know trp, I would seriously change some things for nursing if I were some big wig at something like the ANCC.

 

[MLT2MT2DO]

If youR nursing or health professins program offered HP chemistries--watered down courses, shame on them and too bad for you. Most four years (and nowadays most two year ADN programs--at least the first semester bio and chem w/ labs) require Gen Bio I and II and Gen Chem I and II with labs--same as lower level science courses for freshman second year college students.

Just b/c that was your program, don't assume that is the standard everywhere. It isn't for professional nursing programs. What's more, you can't even sit in the A&P and micro and patho classes if you haven't HAD THE GENERAL BIOS W/ LABS AND GENERAL CHEMS.

OYFREAKING VEY!

Not MY PROGRAM, every program in my state is that way. Most schools that have health profession majors don't require Gen Bio I/II and Gen Chem I/II but a quicker overview that isn't nearly as intense on the Chems. Likewise; pre-reqs for courses are determined by schools. Having to have Bio I/II before A&P.

I don't seem the one to be putting everything in a nice little nutshell.

Maybe this wasn't the way it was when you went through college, but look back at your own college, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the case now.

 

[jl lin]

Not MY PROGRAM, every program in my state is that way. Most schools that have health profession majors don't require Gen Bio I/II and Gen Chem I/II but a quicker overview that isn't nearly as intense on the Chems. Likewise; pre-reqs for courses are determined by schools. Having to have Bio I/II before A&P.

I don't seem the one to be putting everything in a nice little nutshell.

Maybe this wasn't the way it was when you went through college, but look back at your own college, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the case now.

Yes. Discussed above. Even if that is the case, many choose to take the General Sciences that others take. It just makes sense, except for the student that has no confidence in taking these courses. I think you'd agree that General Bio I and II and General Chem are NOT mind-altering courses to take, anyway. There is no reason for them to offer anything else, except to make some more money for their own programs and to ecourage more people without a sense of confidence to apply.

At any rate, I've lost interest in this. People are free to think what they want. But we know what happens when we assume.

Don't assume some nurse doesn't necessarily have a decent insight into General Chem or Bios. It may or may not be true.

Also some nurses were pre-med, but after looking at how long they'd be stretching out a medical school ed-->career, well, they opted to have a family first. And for that, nursing offers them much more flexibility, but that is a differnt topic. My point is, many of these had already taken many of the same sciences courses before they changed their major. You hear this a lot in nursing, so don't assume everyone has some watered down version of chemistry or biology.

In my view, as I have already stated, anyone that is in allied health should, bare minimum, be required to take and pass a General Bio I, II, and General Chem I and II for science majors, period. I think some programs think they will lose applicants if they did this. It's a shame. Bottom line-- it's silly to generalize.

And even if what you say is so in Idaho (no rhyming intended), it doesn't mean all nursing students there or elsewhere followed what was in the program. Many of them may have taken general sciences courses prior to applying or matriculating into their nursing programs.

Now, peace, and let's be done with this.