Im a Amedd Recruiter!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
SSGAmeddRcr said:
Ok..To answer the residency scandal:oops:..The fact is the Army(not navy or AF) last year had a 97% match rate for the students top 3 choices. Not their first choice. Its unfortunate that ill-informed recruiters are giving the wrong facts. Im not sure what the match rates for the AF and Navy are? I believe they have to be a lot lower seeing that they do not have the vast number of medical facilities as the Army. Truth be told, I hear and read about 10 AF and Navy HPSP horror stories to every 1 Army. Like stated in the previous post, Im not here to debate military medicine or be an advocate of it, just here to answer any questions and to gain an insight to military medicine and docs.
Click to expand...

there are lies, damn lies, and government-supplied statistics.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Ok..To answer the residency scandal..The fact is the Army(not navy or AF) last year had a 97% match rate for the students top 3 choices.
Click to expand...

Please stop using statistics in this way, because it makes you sound like a used car salesman. Sure, the Army has a higher match rate and is better than the AF and Navy as far as GMO's go. But take a look at what "getting one of your top three choices" in the Army really means. Outside of a few subspecialties, deferment to civilian residency is rare in the Army. So for the most part, the hundreds of civilian programs from Johns Hopkins to State U. are immediately eliminated as choices for Army HPSP students. Now take a look at the number of programs to choose from in the Army match for each specialty.

Neurosurg, Rad Onc, Occ Med: 1
Derm, Psych, Neurology: 2
EM, Optho, Path: 3
OB/GYN, ENT, Peds, Rads, Urology: 4
Gen Surg, IM, Ortho: 6
FP:7

For most specialties, there are only 3-4 programs available and you are forced to rank all of them. So what exactly does it mean when someone matches at their third choice in EM? It means they got their absolute last choice of all residency programs available. What does it mean if you got your second choice for neurosurgery?--It means you are going to GMO land.

It's typical of the way the military offers you choices: "We're going to let you pick whatever you want from among these five assignments--and we guarantee that you'll get one of your top five."

Hey, I agree that the Army residency match is better than the AF or Navy, but please stop throwing around that 97% number like it's some big deal.
 
mitchconnie said:
Please stop using statistics in this way, because it makes you sound like a used car salesman. Sure, the Army has a higher match rate and is better than the AF and Navy as far as GMO's go. But take a look at what "getting one of your top three choices" in the Army really means. Outside of a few subspecialties, deferment to civilian residency is rare in the Army. So for the most part, the hundreds of civilian programs from Johns Hopkins to State U. are immediately eliminated as choices for Army HPSP students. Now take a look at the number of programs to choose from in the Army match for each specialty.

Neurosurg, Rad Onc, Occ Med: 1
Derm, Psych, Neurology: 2
EM, Optho, Path: 3
OB/GYN, ENT, Peds, Rads, Urology: 4
Gen Surg, IM, Ortho: 6
FP:7

For most specialties, there are only 3-4 programs available and you are forced to rank all of them. So what exactly does it mean when someone matches at their third choice in EM? It means they got their absolute last choice of all residency programs available. What does it mean if you got your second choice for neurosurgery?--It means you are going to GMO land.

It's typical of the way the military offers you choices: "We're going to let you pick whatever you want from among these five assignments--and we guarantee that you'll get one of your top five."

Hey, I agree that the Army residency match is better than the AF or Navy, but please stop throwing around that 97% number like it's some big deal.
Click to expand...

It's not misleading if you explicitly say that you won't be able to do a civilian residency. The 97% thing just means that a lot of people got their specialty of choice, which might be more important to some people than where they train. I bet if you look at applicant stats, that it's actually probably easier to get an Army residency than a civilian residency in certain specialties (i.e. neurosurgery, derm), but then again, it's volatile from year to year because the Army is small compared to the entire nation.

Conclusion: All of you people who were led to believe that you would get civilian residency were duped.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
ieatpizza said:
It's not misleading if you explicitly say that you won't be able to do a civilian residency. The 97% thing just means that a lot of people got their specialty of choice, which might be more important to some people than where they train. I bet if you look at applicant stats, that it's actually probably easier to get an Army residency than a civilian residency in certain specialties (i.e. neurosurgery, derm), but then again, it's volatile from year to year because the Army is small compared to the entire nation.

Conclusion: All of you people who were led to believe that you would get civilian residency were duped.
Click to expand...

I almost didn't look at a thread started by a recruiter but...

a couple of comments.

First the idea that this statistic means anything is ridiculous. Of your 97%, how many had a fall-back listed in #3. IE...derm, derm, FP. I'm not sure I believe the number to begin with but I'd want to see what people ranked. Also, residency choice is a self-selected process. People who don't think they will be competitive don't apply for competitive residencies.

Second, it drives me nuts when recruiters make comments like "my service is fine, the AF is AFU." Shows a lack of professionalism and just isn't true.
 
Gastrapathy said:
I almost didn't look at a thread started by a recruiter but...

a couple of comments.

First the idea that this statistic means anything is ridiculous. Of your 97%, how many had a fall-back listed in #3. IE...derm, derm, FP. I'm not sure I believe the number to begin with but I'd want to see what people ranked. Also, residency choice is a self-selected process. People who don't think they will be competitive don't apply for competitive residencies.

Second, it drives me nuts when recruiters make comments like "my service is fine, the AF is AFU." Shows a lack of professionalism and just isn't true.
Click to expand...

I agree. 97% sounds too high, and of course, any such number isn't going to take into account if the 3rd choice was actually not their desired specialty. How does the Army match work though? Do you have to rank a third program if your desired specialty has less than three locations? I thought you didn't.

Anyway, any match statistics are going to reflect self-selection, so any military match statistics aren't going to be special in this respect. Even on the civilian side, the derm match rate is 60% and that's self-selected. It's more important to determine what specialties you may be interested in (might be hard to gauge before med school, of course, but some people have somewhat of an idea--i.e. definitely not surgery or rads), and look into how competitive it is each year, consistent or variable, and then make a decision from there. Notwithstanding all the other major problems of military medicine, I just dislike it when people try to scare people away from considering HPSP, when in certain instances (i.e. certain less competitive specialties), they will actually get the specialty that they want without spending time as a GMO.
 
SSGAmeddRcr said:
If they do not get one of their 3 military residencies, then the Army will let them do a civilian residency
Click to expand...

This is not necessarily true. Or if it is, it's a radical change of policy (i'm highly skeptical of that). Recruiters have ALWAYS stated that if you don't match into your desired "specialty" in the military, then you'll get deferred to the civilian match. But this is not written down in any official military document.

And let's be frank, if the military has 10 people applying for PMR, and they only project a need a for 4, WTF would they deferr ten people out to do PMR????? Nope, it's GMO time.
 
ieatpizza said:
The 97% thing just means that a lot of people got their specialty of choice,
Click to expand...

Since some of the competitive specialties have less than three residencies in the military, it actually doesn't even mean that.
 
One more problem with the current stats scandal is that the army has always tried to confuse the difference b/w applying to a pgy2 residency slot, and applying to an internship that is part of a residency program. Back in the days of transitional years, they say they had a 1 to 1 applicant/acceptance ratio for their pgy2 slots of some competitive specialites. Oh, but they forget to mentiont that there were 5 to 1 applicants/slot for the internship that led into the pgy2 slot.

DON'T BE NAIVE! If the stats sound too good to be true, they aren't true. And no, there is no way we have a consistent 97% acceptance rate for neurosurg or derm.
 
Mirror Form said:
One more problem with the current stats scandal is that the army has always tried to confuse the difference b/w applying to a pgy2 residency slot, and applying to an internship that is part of a residency program. Back in the days of transitional years, they say they had a 1 to 1 applicant/acceptance ratio for their pgy2 slots of some competitive specialites. Oh, but they forget to mentiont that there were 5 to 1 applicants/slot for the internship that led into the pgy2 slot.

DON'T BE NAIVE! If the stats sound too good to be true, they aren't true. And no, there is no way we have a consistent 97% acceptance rate for neurosurg or derm.
Click to expand...

The numbers I see posted are for PGY-1, not PGY-2, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Haven't they transitioned everything so that you are now pre-selected and don't have to reapply for PGY-2? Do they still save a couple of PGY-2 spots a year for certain programs or do these positions just open up when they don't fill all their spots at PGY-1?
 
Mirror Form said:
One more problem with the current stats scandal is that the army has always tried to confuse the difference b/w applying to a pgy2 residency slot, and applying to an internship that is part of a residency program. Back in the days of transitional years, they say they had a 1 to 1 applicant/acceptance ratio for their pgy2 slots of some competitive specialites. Oh, but they forget to mentiont that there were 5 to 1 applicants/slot for the internship that led into the pgy2 slot.

DON'T BE NAIVE! If the stats sound too good to be true, they aren't true. And no, there is no way we have a consistent 97% acceptance rate for neurosurg or derm.
Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that there is a 97% acceptance rate for neurosurg or derm, but I hardly believe that they are more competitive in the Army than they are in the civilian match in terms of pure applicant strengths and stats.
 
ieatpizza said:
Haven't they transitioned everything so that you are now pre-selected and don't have to reapply for PGY-2? Do they still save a couple of PGY-2 spots a year for certain programs or do these positions just open up when they don't fill all their spots at PGY-1?
Click to expand...

That's what the army has been transitioning toward. However, there was somewhat of a backlash b/c there were many gmo's out there who were getting screwed. So now some pgy2 slots are being set aside for gmo's. For example, in my specialty, not all of our "pgy1 slots" were filled last year, yet there were more med student's applying for those pgy1 slots then slots, and some didn't match. That's b/c they want to leave some open, so they have pgy2 slots to offer to the gmo's out there.

ieatpizza said:
The numbers I see posted are for PGY-1, not PGY-2, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

My point is that the military has been giving us BS stat's on their match for years. The stats I was given when I was applying were so ridiculously dishonest that it was sickening. i still matched in the specialty I wanted. And I do think that that your chances of getting your specialty of choice within the army are pretty good. But, when the Army comes out with more "great stats," I'm not about to believe them.
 
My question is this: do recruiters lie deliberately or are they just misinformed and too lazy to look up the details. Either way, you do applicants an incredible disservice when you trot out typical bull**** like ""97% of applicants get one of their top three choices."

Maybe the pre-meds and first years who live at this site and exhort the rest of us to greater feats of selflessness will buy it, but I won't.

I am a soon-to-be Army GMO/FS. Didn't match in my specialty, and was DENIED the chance to match civilian. >10 interviews cancelled. HPSP wannabees beware.

Try this one on for size. This year, according to the OTSG (per a 16 DEC conversation I had with them) NO civilian deferments were given in the Army.

Shouldn't take a rocket scientist, then, to figure out where Army GMOs come from. The pool is filled with those who didn't match in the competitive specialties and weren't allowed to try civilian. Unless urology/ortho aspirants wanted to do family med and neurology. Incredibly, this choice was offered pre-match time by the OTSG as a way of inducing people to switch preferences and fill out the non-competitive specialties.

The GMO pipeline also gets fed from residency dropouts/kickouts. I knew a resident who got a DWI and guess where she's headed.

Finally, at least some Army surgery programs still operate pyramidally. That means that 6-7 residents might start but only 4 get a continuous contract post-PGY I. Guess where the other two go?

Long story short, GMO/FS is alive and well and in the Army. True, the straight through percentages are better than Navy/AF. But the number of Docs :thumbdown: is also much larger. With Army HPSP continuing to be woefully underfilled, I believe the pool will only get bigger.

Join the Army to serve. Realize the risks inherent, including interruption of training. DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING recruiters tell you. They are salesmen, and poor ones at that.

If anybody wants honest info, talk to AD docs, grade O-4 or below. If you want advice from my ltd perspective, as a newly graduated Allopathic doc who's been through the match (half of it) etc PM me.

Recruiter, stop with the lies and subterfuge.
 
The military has a 97% satisfaction rate (of the 1% of physicians who are retained). :)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Tired said:
The vast majority of specialties have at least 3 training locations. If 97% of applicants get one of their top 3 choices, and we assume that basically everyone lists all the training sites in the specialty they want, then the 97% number essentially represents the number of students who get into the specialty of their choice. That's not bad.
Click to expand...
So you believe the 97% placement stat? It runs counter to everything I've heard.

Incidentally, the only time I hear this statistic is from Army recruiters. NEVER from anyone active duty in the process itself. I've spoken to two EM docs, neither of whom went straight through.

Look at the reported data of the number of applicants per position. Only in a few specialites (the usual suspects) is there a 1:1 or less. Most competitive specialties it's 1.5:1 or 2:1.

If the Army gives out few (or none, according to GMObound) deferrments, the rest of the applicants are GMOing.

I'll view the 97% stat with suspicion until someone explains it to me. The math simply doesn't add up. And the only one trumpeting it on this site is a recruiter who claimed there were no Army GMOs to begin with. From all the GMOs piping in, I'll believe reality instead of something that just looks really sweet.
 
Does anyone know where to find out how many GMO positions are allocated in the whole wide Army? For that matter, how many GMOs are in the Army? What about number of multi-tour GMOs? What about GMOs who are currently deployed? What about GMOs who applied for silly competative residencies who haven't figured out that the 2.3 GPA ain't gonna get neurosurg yet continue to apply until they've GMOd thier commitment?

These numbers would likely give some insight to how many medical students (as opposed to applicants) get to be a part of that 97%.

Further, I can't imagine that all those EM applicants who didn't get to be part of the 97% weren't coaxed into filling the 30% (swag #s) of FP slots that remained outside of the 97%.

Someday when I'm in charge.....
 
notdeadyet said:
So you believe the 97% placement stat? It runs counter to everything I've heard.

Incidentally, the only time I hear this statistic is from Army recruiters. NEVER from anyone active duty in the process itself. I've spoken to two EM docs, neither of whom went straight through.

Look at the reported data of the number of applicants per position. Only in a few specialites (the usual suspects) is there a 1:1 or less. Most competitive specialties it's 1.5:1 or 2:1.

If the Army gives out few (or none, according to GMObound) deferrments, the rest of the applicants are GMOing.

I'll view the 97% stat with suspicion until someone explains it to me. The math simply doesn't add up. And the only one trumpeting it on this site is a recruiter who claimed there were no Army GMOs to begin with. From all the GMOs piping in, I'll believe reality instead of something that just looks really sweet.
Click to expand...

Just for experimental purposes, I did some number crunching:

Slots Ratio Unmatched
2007
ER 26 1.23 5.98
GS 29 1.1 2.9
IM 50 1.06 3
OBGY 15 1.13 1.95
Ortho 19 1.95 18.05
ENT 6 4 18
Psych 14 1.07 0.98
IMPsy 2 1.5 1
Gas 12 1.42 5.04
Derm 7 1.29 2.03
Ophth 7 1.14 0.98
PMR 3 2 3
SUM 62.91

2006
ER 26 1.25 6.5
GS 29 1.29 8.41
Uro 7 1.57 3.99
OBGY 15 1.53 7.95
Ortho 19 1.36 6.84
ENT 6 1.36 2.16
Gas 12 1.33 3.96
Derm 7 1.62 4.34
Ophth 7 1.42 2.94
PMR 3 1.66 1.98
Rads 15 1.25 3.75
SUM 52.82

Again, this is just playing around with numbers. I'm not contending any validity here. So, assuming the numbers on MODS is correct 63 people did not match in their first specialty in 2007 and 53 did not match in their first specialty in 2006. The number is probably lower though because this does not count civilian deferments, and it's possible for someone to apply to two different competitive specialties at once, match into one and not the other.
 
Tired said:
I'm a little suspicious of it as well. My only real point was that saying, "97% means nothing" is silly, because it means that most students are getting the specialty they want, even if the training locales are not ideal.

I do recall NavyFP saying that for us, the percentage of students getting into their specialty of choice was on the order of 80-90%. Perhaps he could weigh in again and tell me if I recall this correctly.

I still would be interested to know how many students in the NRMP match get what they want.
Click to expand...

Here are some stats that someone compiled on the NRMP:

http://medliorate.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/top-10-most-competitive-residencies/
 
ieatpizza said:
I'm not trying to sell you on HPSP. I'm just saying it's about weighing the uncertainty. For me there is little to no uncertainty. For others, it's too much to risk. The bad part is when people don't know that they are taking on risks.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and that is the problem I have with military medicine/the HPSP program. When people actually understand the risks, they almost always don't sign up. Obviously this is bad for military medicine, so it is to the benefit of military medicine to make things as opaque as possible. Being part of military medicine, I can understand why we do this, but it doesn't make it fair to the applicant.
 
mrd5003 said:
Does getting great grades in med school, great board scores, and excellent letters of recommendation from military docs during clinical rotations (or internship) improve a HPSP student's chance of matching into a desired military internship and then residency program? t
Click to expand...

Yes. But not as much as prior service, including a GMO tour. According to military match protocol, a mediocre medical student who completed an internship and a GMO tour is way more attractive than you are despite your 280s on the USMLE, your impressive LORs, and your straight As. Sorry, that's just the way it works. And being from a DO school probably doesn't help much either. Most of the docs I know who were screwed out of straight through training were DOs, but I don't know of any systematic bias against them that is actually written down anywhere.
 
psychbender said:
From what I hear (admitedly, mostly from this site and some folk at WAMC), its more of a "I didn't match" or "I didn't want what the Army'd give me" type situation, rather than the "awww crap, you mean I have to do this **** for 2 years first?!"
Click to expand...

WTH is the difference? If the match rate is 50%, not matching means "you mean I have to do this **** for 2 years?"
 
ieatpizza said:
Here are some stats that someone compiled on the NRMP:

http://medliorate.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/top-10-most-competitive-residencies/
Click to expand...



Thanks for the great link, here's the meat of it:

Rank Specialty US Applicant Match Rate
1. Dermatology 61%
2. Plastic Surgery 63%
3. Transitional Year 73%
4. Orthopaedic Surgery 80%
5. Radiation Oncology 82%
6. Otolaryngology 82%
7. Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 89%
8. Obstetrics & Gynecology 89%
9. Surgery-General 90%
10. Radiology-Diagnostic 91%

EM falls in there around 93% as I recall. The year I matched into EM in the AF the military match number was ~50%. Beware.
 
Tired said:
I do recall NavyFP saying that for us, the percentage of students getting into their specialty of choice was on the order of 80-90%. Perhaps he could weigh in again and tell me if I recall this correctly.
Click to expand...

I would buy that 80% get their specialty of choice. (which is much different than residency of choice) Of course, that may mean after a GMO tour. 0% of Navy EM medical student applicants match directly into a military EM program. They all do GMO tours (although from time to time a few are deferred straight through.)
 
Here is a little tidbit of info from the USAFP to Navy FP's in the winter 2008 newsletter. It is an interesting solution to the problem with recruiting. The solution - Get current docs to do the recruiting and PAY them to do it. Any thoughts? :confused:

http://www.usafp.org/Word_PDF_Files/2008-Winter-Newsletter.pdf page 13

"Those who wish to assist local recruiters at their alma mater
medical schools, undergraduate schools, pre-med clubs, etc. can
also be funded for trips to speak at these venues. The Physi​
​
cian
Recruiter Assistance section of the NKO Medical Corps​

Web site has been updated with presentations, FAQs, and contact
information relating to Medical Corps Accession Programs
(HPSP), Navy GME, as well as general career information. Officers​
attending conferences while on orders are expected to wear
the appropriate Navy uniform throughout the conference. At
meetings where recruiters are present, identify and make your​
​
self
available to those recruiters. There is a Recruiting Incentive​

Program that pays $2,000 for physicians recruited, as well as a
Navy Achievement Medal for any two officers recruited. The
message has gone out to the commands to support this effort
even at the cost of decreased productivity. The executive officers
of involved MTFs have been tasked to identify a liaison with local
recruiting commands and to assign junior medical officers
to recruiting augmentation duty as the need demands. This is
something everyone should aggressively pursue and include in​
their fit reps."
Bruce Stinnett, M.D.
 
ActiveDutyMD said:
Yes. But not as much as prior service, including a GMO tour. According to military match protocol, a mediocre medical student who completed an internship and a GMO tour is way more attractive than you are despite your 280s on the USMLE, your impressive LORs, and your straight As. Sorry, that's just the way it works. And being from a DO school probably doesn't help much either. Most of the docs I know who were screwed out of straight through training were DOs, but I don't know of any systematic bias against them that is actually written down anywhere.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing.
 
ieatpizza said:
Just for experimental purposes, I did some number crunching:
...

So, assuming the numbers on MODS is correct 63 people did not match in their first specialty in 2007 and 53 did not match in their first specialty in 2006.
Click to expand...
I don't know why this data would be seen as good news. According to what you've posted here, as you said, 63 people did not match. And according to GMOBound, this year there were no civilian deferments.

If you count up the totals, that means 190 folks matched into the 190 slots with 63 people who did not match. This is a match rate of 75%. This is nowhere near the 97% that's being tossed around.

<shrugs> Maybe my math is all wet. But from my read, that's a fair number of GMOs. WAY less than Navy and AF, but I wouldn't say a 25% is anything to sneeze at.
 
Kingfisher said:
Here is a little tidbit of info from the USAFP to Navy FP's in the winter 2008 newsletter. It is an interesting solution to the problem with recruiting. The solution - Get current docs to do the recruiting and PAY them to do it. Any thoughts? :confused:​
Click to expand...

And then, if the med students you sign up become military physicians and go out and recruit more medical students, you get a bonus for that too, right? I've seen that model. They use it at Amway.​
 
OK, AMedd recruiter, I need to know if the army and I have mutual interests. I completed one transitional year of a residency program in 1999. Since then i have been out of medicine because of a seriously ill child. I now wish to reenter medicine and complete a residency ASAP. I am going to be 45 years old in May. I have passed all three steps of the USMLE. Would the army be interested in me? I want to do family practice.
 
notdeadyet said:
I don't know why this data would be seen as good news. According to what you've posted here, as you said, 63 people did not match. And according to GMOBound, this year there were no civilian deferments.

If you count up the totals, that means 190 folks matched into the 190 slots with 63 people who did not match. This is a match rate of 75%. This is nowhere near the 97% that's being tossed around.

<shrugs> Maybe my math is all wet. But from my read, that's a fair number of GMOs. WAY less than Navy and AF, but I wouldn't say a 25% is anything to sneeze at.
Click to expand...

I never said this was good news. You're assuming a lot of things about my posts that I'm not actually saying. So, I'll say it again: You probably shouldn't do Army HPSP if you have your heart set on a specialty that has an applicant to slot ratio of >1 (unless you're a superstar), but if you're thinking about a specialty that has an applicant to slot ratio of <1, it's not a bad idea to at least consider it. And note that I said "consider it," not signupforitHOORAYitstheawesomest.

Also, there are more than 190 slots. I only listed specialties that had a >1 applicant to slot ratio.
 
ieatpizza said:
I never said this was good news. You're assuming a lot of things about my posts that I'm not actually saying.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I misunderstood. You mentioned earlier that you thought most GMOs were actually residency trained and you mentioned the 97% of HPSP getting their first three choices as if you thought this was correct, when the data you posted seems to actually say that 25% of HPSP doesn't get their specialty at all, at least not until after a GMO tour. If the disconnect was between my ears, my bad.
ieatpizza said:
You probably shouldn't do Army HPSP if you have your heart set on a specialty that has an applicant to slot ratio of >1 (unless you're a superstar), but if you're thinking about a specialty that has an applicant to slot ratio of <1, it's not a bad idea to at least consider it.
Click to expand...
I agree, with a few caveats:

1. That you don't change your mind on specialty. Most medical students end up pursuing a medical specialty different from the one they intended when they began medical school. This is the big danger of HPSP. While you may think you want FP when you sign for HPSP, you may later decide on EM. You've unknowingly gone from straight through training to the very real possibility of adding another two years to your Army commitment.

2. That the Army doesn't change its needs in the four years from the time you sign to the time you start residency. From my understanding, the competitiveness of specialties varies pretty radically from year to year. A lot of this will be luck of the draw.

3. I'm not sure being a "superstar" helps a whole lot. You can have a great degree and top notch Step 1, but a GMO coming back will take your residency slot quicker than you can say AOA. This comes from active duty folks. If I've been misinformed, someone correct me.
 
You're right--these are all appropriate caveats to consider when thinking about the decision to sign or not.

notdeadyet said:
I agree, with a few caveats:

1. That you don't change your mind on specialty. Most medical students end up pursuing a medical specialty different from the one they intended when they began medical school. This is the big danger of HPSP. While you may think you want FP when you sign for HPSP, you may later decide on EM. You've unknowingly gone from straight through training to the very real possibility of adding another two years to your Army commitment.
Click to expand...

Some students do change their minds, but some have a pretty good idea about what they want to do. They might be wrong about what they think they want to do, but a lot of medical students, from my experience, may have some experience or know themselves well enough to know what they will want to do. It depends on the person.

notdeadyet said:
2. That the Army doesn't change its needs in the four years from the time you sign to the time you start residency. From my understanding, the competitiveness of specialties varies pretty radically from year to year. A lot of this will be luck of the draw.
Click to expand...

This is also right on, which means you should weigh in your decision the variability of the specialties you are interested in. Some specialties, the ones with a greater number of slots, do not vary wildly from year to year in terms of competitiveness. If you're interested in ones that vary a lot from year to year, you may not want to consider Army HPSP.

notdeadyet said:
3. I'm not sure being a "superstar" helps a whole lot. You can have a great degree and top notch Step 1, but a GMO coming back will take your residency slot quicker than you can say AOA. This comes from active duty folks. If I've been misinformed, someone correct me.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, these numbers are for PGY-1 slots, not PGY-2 slots. So you are not directly competing with GMOs, although there may be less PGY-1 spots that year for that specialty which will go to a GMO applying for a PGY-2 slot the next year. And yes, I do believe performance does matter. Residency directors have to work with these graduates so of course they want the best students to be in their program. And obviously, the competitiveness for the HPSP scholarship isn't so impressive right now, so how you think you "measure up" to other HPSP and USUHS students does matter. This is all about accurate self-assessment, which can be rather fuzzy sometimes.
 
ieatpizza said:
From what I understand, these numbers are for PGY-1 slots, not PGY-2 slots. So you are not directly competing with GMOs, although there may be less PGY-1 spots that year for that specialty which will go to a GMO applying for a PGY-2 slot the next year.
Click to expand...
Ah, you are right. The GMO trumping would only happen for PGY-2. It wouldn't really be relevant for PGY-1 slots. Good catch.
 
Since it got started, I have been watching this thread closely. The OP is gone, at least as of 37 posts ago. Not that I care, as even though I am one of the "pro-military" guys on here, I share with everyone on this site the lack of love lost for recruiters. I just thought it was funny. :)
 
Interesting how quickly our recruiter friend got scared away. And for the record, I'm pro-military but anti-milmed.
 
BomberDoc said:
Interesting how quickly our recruiter friend got scared away. And for the record, I'm pro-military but anti-milmed.
Click to expand...

Im still here...just very busy, Im taking classes for my Masters, I have a 7 week old daughter and a recruiter... This is a interesting discussion, kind of off topic from the threads original purpose...but I am learning more and getting a better insight into what you good Docs think and do..:)
 
SSGAmeddRcr said:
Greetings all! Like the title says Im a Amedd recruiter and mostly recruit HPSP. I joined this forum to answer questions and gain insight into military medicine and military docs. I am currently stationed in New Jersey and cover most of NJ.(UMDNJ, Rutgers, Seton Hall). Look forward to chatting with all of you!

SSG Clevenger
Click to expand...

I think the age cutoff for the military now is 40...right? Is that true for military medicine?
 
2. That the Army doesn't change its needs in the four years from the time you sign to the time you start residency. From my understanding, the competitiveness of specialties varies pretty radically from year to year. A lot of this will be luck of the draw.
Click to expand...
From what I&#180;ve been told this is actually the biggest draws of the Army, and the biggest reason to avoid the AF. The Army can&#180;t change their needs from year to year to the same extent as other services, because one of the needs that they have to fill is the need to keep their Army residencies full. When residencies stop getting residents they lose accredidation, so the fact that the Army sends the majority of their HPSP students through Army residencies means there&#180;s some reliable continuity (it also means you&#180;ll basically never have a chance for a civilian deferment, but there are tradeoffs to everything). On the other hand AF, which relies much more heavily on civilian deferments for the same specialties can change their needs much more drastically, making some specialties relatively easy one year (anyone who can get a civilian residency is free to do it) and as hard as neurosurgury the next. Navy is somewhere in the middle. Active duty docs please correct me if I&#180;m misinformed.

Also, Bomberdoc, love the new Avatar. Let us know how civilian residency goes.
 
Doowai said:
I think the age cutoff for the military now is 40...right? Is that true for military medicine?
Click to expand...

Officially it is 42...Waiver's all always given though...We just put a 62 yo OB doc in the reserves last month...It took about 3 months for his age waiver to get approved though. Rule of thumb is under 59, but there are always exceptions.
 
73BARMYPgsp said:
Since it got started, I have been watching this thread closely. The OP is gone, at least as of 37 posts ago. Not that I care, as even though I am one of the "pro-military" guys on here, I share with everyone on this site the lack of love lost for recruiters. I just thought it was funny. :)
Click to expand...

Im here LT!!!
 
BomberDoc said:
Interesting how quickly our recruiter friend got scared away. And for the record, I'm pro-military but anti-milmed.
Click to expand...

curious...Why the name bomberdoc? Did you fly bombers in the AF? My father is a retired b-52, b-1 navigator.
 
SSGAmeddRcr said:
Im here LT!!!
Click to expand...

Alright fine. Here goes-- As a former NCO myself, I have to say/ask these things. From the time I started processing through even right now, it seems like the Army has NEVER IN OVER 200 years directly commissioned a medical officer. Even the simplist information (like what is a Senate Scroll or why hasn't my school been paid tuition yet?) were things I had to come HERE to find out the answers to. Is USAREC the proverbial "Mr. Short Term Memory" like from the old SNL sketch? Why is EVERYTHING a DEEP DARK SECRET--especially the stuff that is going to make or break the deal for so many would-be Army docs? I am prior service, and as such have lots of friends on active duty, many of them clinical psychologists, so I was able to rattle enough cages when I really got angry with the slow trickle of BASIC information. What about all these guys (and gals) who constantly come on here asking the SAME OLD QUESTIONS about where are my orders/how do I know if I got selected/what is the status of my application? YOU, SSG are an Active Duty NCO, the motto of whom is "NCO's Make it Happen." I know--I went to PLDC and BNCOC and yell it out every time we came to attention. "Making it happen" meant something to me as a SGT. When a green, know nothing new recruit calls up on the phone asking questions that you don't know the answer to, FIND OUT and call them back. Don't act like the Army is doing them a favor for existing. That is my "question."
 
73BARMYPgsp said:
Alright fine. Here goes-- As a former NCO myself, I have to say/ask these things. From the time I started processing through even right now, it seems like the Army has NEVER IN OVER 200 years directly commissioned a medical officer. Even the simplist information (like what is a Senate Scroll or why hasn't my school been paid tuition yet?) were things I had to come HERE to find out the answers to. Is USAREC the proverbial "Mr. Short Term Memory" like from the old SNL sketch? Why is EVERYTHING a DEEP DARK SECRET--especially the stuff that is going to make or break the deal for so many would-be Army docs? I am prior service, and as such have lots of friends on active duty, many of them clinical psychologists, so I was able to rattle enough cages when I really got angry with the slow trickle of BASIC information. What about all these guys (and gals) who constantly come on here asking the SAME OLD QUESTIONS about where are my orders/how do I know if I got selected/what is the status of my application? YOU, SSG are an Active Duty NCO, the motto of whom is "NCO's Make it Happen." I know--I went to PLDC and BNCOC and yell it out every time we came to attention. "Making it happen" meant something to me as a SGT. When a green, know nothing new recruit calls up on the phone asking questions that you don't know the answer to, FIND OUT and call them back. Don't act like the Army is doing them a favor for existing. That is my "question."
Click to expand...

As you know, NCOs do make it happen....Unfortunatley as a Amedd recruiter we are only the middle man in between you and USAREC and Amedd. As a recruiter you get treated worse than a private by USAREC and your chain of command, that goes for regular and Amedd recruiters. Hey bro, I do my best to keep my future officers informed and in the know. Im sorry that you and others on this website have had a bad experience. Hey man, one of the reasons I joined this website is to help and share any information that I had that would be useful to you. Healthcare recruiting is getting better though, before you only had prior NPS(regular) recruiters that were put in healthcare recruiting positions. Within the last 2 years, they are putting 68 series(medical) soldiers as healthcare recruiters instead of the old hardened career recruiters. Hopefully the change to 68 series recruiters will help.
 
is that they are not physicians and don't understand many of the nuances associated with medical education. Most have not even worked in a military treatment center. Also, once they get you to sign up, you have no further contact with them, therefore there is no long-term accountability on their part for the misery that is associated with military medicine. I don't think that recruiters should have any role in the process of a pre-medical student's assessment of military medicine as an option for paying for medical school.

If you are a potential HPSP/USUHS student, don't waste time talking to recruiters. Take the time and invest the money to go to a military treatment facility and talk with actual active duty physicians. This is the only way to begin to get an idea about what you are about to get yourself into. If you are persistent and sincerely interested, you will find many military docs that are willing to talk to you and give you advice about their experience with mil med. Once you have signed up, it is too late to turn back, you are stuck for better or for worse. Weigh this decision very carefully, and as many have said before, do NOT do it for the money. Not worth it.
 
SSGAmeddRcr said:
Officially it is 42...Waiver's all always given though...We just put a 62 yo OB doc in the reserves last month...It took about 3 months for his age waiver to get approved though. Rule of thumb is under 59, but there are always exceptions.
Click to expand...

I feel bad now I never did any military service. My dad was a pilot who got shot down and then a POW. He actually loved being in the military but did not want us to do it. I can understand - I did alot of contact sports growing up and had several fractures and a shoulder dislocation. I loved it but steered my son into non-contact sports like swimming.

I believe I could ace any physical training or test they have. Chronologically I helped invent dirt, but physiologically I am still pretty good.
 
SSGAmeddRcr said:
curious...Why the name bomberdoc? Did you fly bombers in the AF? My father is a retired b-52, b-1 navigator.
Click to expand...

I became a flight doc in a bomber squadron when the AF screwed me and 25-30% of my year group by dumping us into GMO/FS billets. Just don't perpetuate the lie that 97% of people get their top choice of residency. That is the single most insulting piece of garbage that is spewed by recruiters. I understand you have a job to do and that your job is to get med students to sign up. Please understand that I and many like me consider it our duty to spread truth and make your job harder. This isn't out of any personal dislike, it is institutional dislike.
 
Tired said:
I'm a little suspicious of it as well. My only real point was that saying, "97% means nothing" is silly, because it means that most students are getting the specialty they want, even if the training locales are not ideal.

I do recall NavyFP saying that for us, the percentage of students getting into their specialty of choice was on the order of 80-90%. Perhaps he could weigh in again and tell me if I recall this correctly.

I still would be interested to know how many students in the NRMP match get what they want.
Click to expand...

Sorry, missed this on the first go around.

For the Navy Match last year 75% got their number 1 choice and 92% got one of their top 3 choices. With the exception of those seeking a full deferment (which had to be #1 last year) and didn't get it, this would mean the vast majority got their initial specialty since the Navy typically has 3 spots for most programs and you had to rank all three.

Some will argue that the #3 choice was really thier millionth choice and for those I would say you should not have joined to begin with. The big three are all pretty equivalent. Where they are located can have its own appeal, but the programs themselves will all give decent training.

For Navy at least, joining with the plan of a full deferment is foolish. Considering there are a max of 360 graduates (300 HPSP, 50 USUHS, 10 fudge) that would mean well less than 1 in 3 will get a deferment and that is under the most optimal conditions. There are typically 40ish full deferments which would make it more like 1 in 7 (300ish grads).

So the moral of this story is and has always been, join because you want to be a member of the service you are joining and want to participate in thier Graduate Medical Education. To do otherwise will likely lead to a unrealized expectations and a less than pleasant time in uniform.
 
Doowai said:
I feel bad now I never did any military service. My dad was a pilot who got shot down and then a POW. He actually loved being in the military but did not want us to do it. I can understand - I did alot of contact sports growing up and had several fractures and a shoulder dislocation. I loved it but steered my son into non-contact sports like swimming.

I believe I could ace any physical training or test they have. Chronologically I helped invent dirt, but physiologically I am still pretty good.
Click to expand...

There are several over 50 types entering the Navy this year. I hear one 59 year old is going to flight surgery training.

And I have seen dirt younger than my kids on the Big Island of Hawaii.:laugh:
 
What are the board first time pass rates for army residencies? The air force numbers I was sent said they had a 98% first time pass rate. Taht can't be true?
 
Stillwaters said:
What are the board first time pass rates for army residencies? The air force numbers I was sent said they had a 98% first time pass rate. Taht can't be true?
Click to expand...

Those numbers are probably accurate. My residency had similar numbers and the military residencies teach to the test much more than mine did. Board pass rates have little to do with quality of GME, but I suppose if I was in a residency with a pass rate under 85% or so I'd start thinking about that a little more.
 
NavyFP said:
Some will argue that the #3 choice was really thier millionth choice and for those I would say you should not have joined to begin with.
.
Click to expand...


Pre-meds have a hard time thinking about this, and recruiters don't know anything about it. Most of us didn't know what we wanted out of our residency until midway through MSIV. The system is set up to make docs unhappy. Recruiting should be done among MSIVs and residents, not pre-meds. Of course, if they did that there wouldn't be very many recruits, but that's another story.
 
Stillwaters said:
What are the board first time pass rates for army residencies? The air force numbers I was sent said they had a 98% first time pass rate. That can't be true?
Click to expand...

It probably is. Word is that my program hasn't had a written board failure in 10+ years, and only a single oral board failure in that time (with a pass on his 2nd attempt).

Military residencies typically have very high board pass rates. Written exams tend to be heavily emphasized (cynics would say a set of high scores help offset other negatives seen by the RRC, such as high staff turnover, relatively low acuity, not much research). Others argue that for surgical specialties, case load + study time is a zero sum game - this may mean that the lighter case load seen by some military residents translates into more time to read. Military residents are universally forbidden to moonlight - perhaps some civilians work the local ER or stay late to the detriment of reading. Military residencies have no FMGs, who count for a disproportionate number of board failures. Military residents are usually older, so insert some statement about maturity or life stability affecting academics if you believe it.

And of course we've all read some ugly stories about some civilian programs which view residents as cheap labor and keep them late each night, and care little about their academic progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Neutropix
HPSP Airforce Recruiter Contact Information
Replies
1
Views
862
armytrainingsir
armytrainingsir
ValeRx
Army FY22 AMEDD Board
Replies
29
Views
4K
ValeRx
ValeRx
T
Can someone give me information on AMEDD and medical school?
Replies
2
Views
1K
DeadCactus
D
M
Army HPSP recruiting, retention?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Carcassonne
Carcassonne
C
Recruitment woes
Replies
11
Views
2K
Correlate Clinically
C
Top