It's not cricket: The Ashes of nursing education Linda Shields a,b, ⁎, Christine Purcell c , Roger Watson d a Curtin University and Child and Adolescent Health Service, Perth, Western Australia, Australia b Medical School, University of Queensland, Australia c School of Nursing & Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia d School of Nursing & Midwifery, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK summary article info Article history: Accepted 16 December 2010 Keywords: Nursing education Standards Science education The aim of this short discussion paper is to engender debate about the downturn in intellectual standing of nursing courses in Australia, where entry standards to nursing courses, and pass marks are being lowered to cater to the needs of health services for pairs of hands. We give examples of indicators of declining standards and reference them to the state of nursing education in the United Kingdom. We hope for debate and argument, and critical discussion, that might lead to a reassessment of nursing education in both countries. Crown Copyright © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Recently, one of us was invited to apply for a head of school position at one of Australia's largest and most prestigious schools of nursing and midwifery. At interview, she presented (on request) her vision of that school for the next three years. First, she stated that a unique opportunity existed to create a school with the highest standards. Only high school leavers with the highest university entrance scores should be accepted and, if others wanted another entry pathway, they must be required to complete a year's study to bring them up to the same standard, ensuring that all began from the same level. She cited the degree courses at the Universities of Manchester and Birmingham, who do just that, and whose applica- tions for enrolment are consistently oversubscribed in excess of 100%. In answer to a question about how to bridge the gap between clinical and academic nursing salaries (in Australia, academic salaries fall below those of clinical colleagues and recruitment into the academic workforce is difficult), she replied that the only solution was to provide significant subsidies to nursing salaries, similar to those for medicine and dentistry. Towards the end of the interview, the CEO from the local health service (which is the university's main customer for nursing students) leant forward and asked “Do you mean to tell me that you believe only people with the highest level of intelligence make good nurses?”. It was at this point that she made the decision to withdraw her application for the position. This example highlights the thinking that pervades those who educate (and administer education) and employ nurses these days. Universities, who are constantly trying to ‘churn out’ nurses to meet the demands of industry, are under constant pressure to drop standards, lower entrance criteria and pass underachieving students. As senior nurses, we are concerned at the lowering of standards, particularly because there is good evidence that a highly educated nursing workforce reduces patient and hospital mortality (Aiken et al., 2003). In our view, there are two components that are vital for the complete education of a nurse who meets standards for registration — a sound basis in science and a strong ability to think critically. Both these should underpin any nursing degree. Two of us (CP and RW), while nurses, also are scientists, with PhDs in physiology and biochemistry, respectively; who, unsurprisingly, have taught science to nurses for over 20 years. In nursing, biological sciences can be taught in a way that integrates and is relevant to clinical practice. Many students do well with this, and are motivated and capable of achieving high professional standards. However, recent events cause us to reflect on the downturn of standards in nursing education, and their results. Teaching has become governed by the lowest achieving students (of which there are many). Retention of students has become the driving philosophy, an even bigger challenge given that we accept students with very low entry scores. This stifles any creativity and means having to teach to the lowest common denominator, though students still complain that the work is too hard and science lecturers are questioned by the university about what they did to support failing students. One must question why students fail their university course work and yet always pass on clinical practice (Watson, 2002). In some Australian universities, students rarely fail their clinical practicum despite the fact that they may be failing course work. Consequently, students consistently question the relevance of theory because they argue they are not called on to use theoretical knowledge in clinical work. They rationalise that if they can pass clinical then they can be a ‘good nurse’, and at times use this rationale in appealing their grade Nurse Education Today 31 (2011) 314–316 ⁎ Corresponding author. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia, 6845, Australia. Tel.: +61 08 9266 1925; fax: +61 08 9266 2959. E-mail address: l.shields@curtin.edu.au (L. Shields). 0260-6917/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.015 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Nurse Education Today journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nedt