Iain Dale really needs to think harder about this:
“…when I heard this morning that the NHS was now going to insist on a degree before nurses could train, I was dumbfounded. Not all nurses are academically gifted and would want to do a degree. Does a degree in astronomy make a nurse better able to do his or job, than four years hands on training? I’d have thought not, and yet all the nursing bodies seem to approve of the policy.
[...]
UPDATE: Several commenters are pointing out that the mandatory degree is in nursing. On the face of it that has a certain logic to it, but on the other hand there are plenty of perfectly good nurses around who would struggle to get a degree. And the point about foreign nurses still stands.”
It’s amazing that even when his readers have pointed out that his silly assumption that the NHS was going to try to recruit law or applied mathematics graduates into nursing, he still ploughs on with the idea that nurses are far too stupid to get degrees and that means we shouldn’t bother trying to have a better qualified nursing force.
The thing to understand is that any nursing degree of this kind won’t be an academic degree but a purely vocational qualification that will simply better train new nurses for the job. So people good at nursing are going to get good results from the degree.
It’s not like someone with the special talents required to have potential to be an exceptional nurse is going to be told that he or she can’t become a nurse until they’ve grasped string theory or the implications of Wilsonian foreign policy.
Seeking to build a workforce of better qualified nurses is not something to be criticised.
That’s not what I was arguing as you well know. I am all in favour of nurses being better trained. ALl I was saying is that it is ridiculous to have a one size fits all requirement for everyone to have degree level qualifications.
And if you can’t see the disadvantages of that I feel very sorry for you.
Does it really surprise you he misread it that badly? I rarely read his blog, but perhaps due to his blind dislike for Labour’s policies, he can’t recognise a good idea when it jumps on him.
@ Iain,
It’s possible to see the disadvantages of a badly conceived curriculum, it’s true; but you seem to be arguing that any program would be disadvantageous — two entirely different things.
You wrote off the idea on principle, arguing that many nurses weren’t suited to an academic course and that it would just increase bureaucracy. Surely, any profession that requires a certain level of training requires a one size fits all approach, because every lawyer, nurse, doctor, fireman, accountant, etc. has to have a certain minimum level of basic knowledge before their employment commences? It’s not therefore fair to characterise the training which provides that knowledge as “bureaucracy out of control” or “government interference” or “increasing red tape”, or “one-size fits all” requirement. It’s just giving the basic knowledge required for the job.
And we both agree that improving the qualifications of nurses would be a good thing.
Where you might have added something, is considering whether it is feasible to fund, whether it will cause staffing problems, what the methods of delivery are likely to be, whether the curriculum is dictated by pen pushing box tickers or the actual needs of hospital trusts, etc. But that wasn’t your point.
@NICK
Well, here’s the point Nick: it might not be a good idea, Iain Dale might be right, but he wasn’t interested whether it was good or not: it was bad on principle. Perhaps this is the modern Conservative reaction to any government initiative (it’s government, and therefore it is by definition bad), and God knows that there’s enough reason these days to fall into that trap. But it doesn’t make it right.
As a policy wonk, a writer of consistently excellent political comment, and someone with a bit of experience in nursing, Iain could offer plenty on this subject. But he went for a lazy attack on the very concept.
It reminds the Parallax Brief of William Kristol’s message back in the Clinton Administration that it was the Republican Party’s duty not to judge Hillary’s healthcare plan on merits, but reject it “sight unseen”.