Two long-standing questions regarding the use of simulation in nursing education came to the forefront during the COVID-19 pandemic: ''How much supervised clinical experience can be replaced with simulation?'' and ''What ratio should be used to count these hours?'' Within the United States, leaders and faculty at national, state, and institutional levels weighed the evidence and came to a range of decisions about how to proceed. Many of the conversations about how much supervised clinical experience could be replaced with simulation focused on the National Council of State Boards of Nursing National Simulation Study (Hayden, Smiley, Alexander, Kardong-Edgren, & Jeffries, 2014) which demonstrated high-quality simulation could be successfully substituted for up to 50% of supervised clinical experience. Although there remain inconsistencies in how policy makers apply this research (Breymier et al., 2015), it is generally accepted that some combination of supervised clinical experience, along with simulation, produces positive learning outcomes. However, there has been additional controversy around what ratio should be used to count simulation hours used to replace traditional supervised clinical hours. Several studies demonstrate simulation offers a more concentrated learning environment than traditional supervised clinical experience (Curl et al., 2016; Sullivan et al., 2019). These studies suggest simulation is twice as potent as traditional supervised clinical and it may, therefore, be reasonable to count each hour spent in simulation as two hours spent in traditional supervised clinical. Without considering what learning objectives are best addressed using which teaching strategy, there is a risk of reducing the Clinical Simulation in Nursing (2020)-, 1-2