delicatefade

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 13, 2004
846
2
43
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Just got the new PPT with the Army match rates for 2007. Here's the breakdown. The number in parenthesis is the number of available spots. The second number is the number of applicants per spot.

EM (26) 1.23
FM (43) 0.80
Gen Surg (29) 1.10
Neurosurg (2) 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Urology (7) 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
IM (50) 1.06
Neuro (5) 0.60
Child neuro (1) 0
OBGYN (15) 1.13
Ortho (19) 1.95
ENT (6) 4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Path (6) 0.5
Peds (26) 0.88
Psych (14) 1.07
IM/Psych (2) 1.5
Prelim aerospace (2) 0.5
Prelim anesthesia (12) 1.42
Prelim derm (7) 1.29
Prelim optho (7) 1.14
Prelim PM&R (3) 2
Prelim preventive med (3) 0.67
Prelim radiology (15) 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Prelim rad onc (1) 0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like it was a good year to apply for rads, derm, urology, neurosurg, and rad onc.
Not so good a year for ENT and ortho.

I wonder why no interest in rad onc this year??? Looks like traditionally there have been 2 applicants per year for the one spot at WRAMC.
 

FizbanZymogen

Guitar Hero Champion
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Nov 1, 2005
511
0
D.C.
Status (Visible)
  1. Medical Student
this is very surprising. I can't believe how much this varies from year to year. If I go to USUHS I can only hope my match year is similar.
 

46&2

Member
10+ Year Member
May 8, 2004
182
7
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
There's something very odd about this whole process. I think my post will help people applying next year.

I applied to the Air Force match this year. Before we ranked our programs/specialties, we received a list of the projected number of spots for each field.

When the final results came out, however, there were some significant discrepancies between the spots they actually had and what they projected. In short, the board changed their mind in a few months.

This, I believe, can significantly affect results in the competitive fields. It's difficult (and painful) enough to apply to one specialty. Many people who apply to ENT or neurosurgery apply to general surgery as a backup, just as many who apply to rad onc have internal med as a backup. In the Air Force, you're allowed to apply to two specialties. So I wonder if these 'second choice's are included in the applicant pool. And what if a good applicant doesn't get ENT, but gets general surgery? Interesting how they would tabulate that...

The other major issue is self-selection. I know someone who would love to do EM, but with a little research knew it would be an impossibility in the Air Force (but had good chances as a civilian). It's quite possible in the small, competitive fields it's somewhat well known that the chances are slim, and some applicants competitive for a civilian spot in the real world will not even apply. So I'm very hesitant to say it's a 'good' year for neurosurgery or urology, particularly since they early match and usually require audition rotations at BOTH military and civilian hospitals.

From a personal standpoint, I was told that the Air Force didn't have enough competitive applicants for their projected general surgery spots. Oddly, there were some angry applicants because civilian institutions offered them interviews, but the AF deemed them 'non-competitive' for their standards. I hope I misheard this over the phone, since it sounds so bizarre. In any case, there were less spots than they projected. They just did what they wanted.

Finally, there's the rollercoaster of projections. This year there were 4 radiology spots in the AF. Apparently, one year, they overdid and had >10 spots. Overkill. So maybe this is a sign that next year there will be hardly any radiology spots.

So I guess the take home message is you can't trust projections if you're applying next year, and in the military everything (except some primary care) is competitive. Be very proactive (i.e. annoying) and try to find the real projections. Hands-on fields like OB/Gyn (one of the easiest in the civ world) and anesthesia are hard to enter in the military. Other fields are simply hard because there are so few positions. I wouldn't be optimistic about getting the lone rad onc spot next year; it's a serious gamble. Even those fields with less applicants (i.e. peds) could become very hard next year as they contract the spots offered. And there will also be former GMOs entering the race.




Just got the new PPT with the Army match rates for 2007. Here's the breakdown. The number in parenthesis is the number of available spots. The second number is the number of applicants per spot.

EM (26) 1.23
FM (43) 0.80
Gen Surg (29) 1.10
Neurosurg (2) 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Urology (7) 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
IM (50) 1.06
Neuro (5) 0.60
Child neuro (1) 0
OBGYN (15) 1.13
Ortho (19) 1.95
ENT (6) 4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Path (6) 0.5
Peds (26) 0.88
Psych (14) 1.07
IM/Psych (2) 1.5
Prelim aerospace (2) 0.5
Prelim anesthesia (12) 1.42
Prelim derm (7) 1.29
Prelim optho (7) 1.14
Prelim PM&R (3) 2
Prelim preventive med (3) 0.67
Prelim radiology (15) 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Prelim rad onc (1) 0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like it was a good year to apply for rads, derm, urology, neurosurg, and rad onc.
Not so good a year for ENT and ortho.

I wonder why no interest in rad onc this year??? Looks like traditionally there have been 2 applicants per year for the one spot at WRAMC.
 
About the Ads

delicatefade

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 13, 2004
846
2
43
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't post this to encourage people to apply for specialties based on this year's numbers or the latest trend in the numbers.

I think my comment about rad onc was a speculation of what would have happened if one person who was not necessarily competitive for rad onc had applied for the spot at WRAMC this year??? There weren't any other applicants, so would that person have been accepted or would they have just said "thanks but no thanks, you're not the type of applicant we are looking for."

I agree there is a great deal of self selection in military medicine. When there are 2 applicants for 2 neurosurg spots and 7 applicants for 7 urology spots it is sometimes hard to tell if there is a genuine decrease in interest this year or if another 7 potential applicants self selected because they didn't think they were competitive enough.

On the other hand, in September at WRAMC I met a student on a radiology rotation who had made a VERY LAST MINUTE change in his/her choice of specialty. Originally he/she was going into a field that could not be any more different than radiology. According to the numbers, that person was probably the 15th and final person to apply for those 15 rads spots, so indeed, this was a good year for that person to change his/her mind.
 

The White Coat Investor

Practicing Doc and Blogger
Partner Organization
15+ Year Member
Nov 18, 2002
5,195
2,391
www.whitecoatinvestor.com
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Just got the new PPT with the Army match rates for 2007. Here's the breakdown. The number in parenthesis is the number of available spots. The second number is the number of applicants per spot.

EM (26) 1.23
FM (43) 0.80
Gen Surg (29) 1.10
Neurosurg (2) 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Urology (7) 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
IM (50) 1.06
Neuro (5) 0.60
Child neuro (1) 0
OBGYN (15) 1.13
Ortho (19) 1.95
ENT (6) 4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Path (6) 0.5
Peds (26) 0.88
Psych (14) 1.07
IM/Psych (2) 1.5
Prelim aerospace (2) 0.5
Prelim anesthesia (12) 1.42
Prelim derm (7) 1.29
Prelim optho (7) 1.14
Prelim PM&R (3) 2
Prelim preventive med (3) 0.67
Prelim radiology (15) 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Prelim rad onc (1) 0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like it was a good year to apply for rads, derm, urology, neurosurg, and rad onc.
Not so good a year for ENT and ortho.

I wonder why no interest in rad onc this year??? Looks like traditionally there have been 2 applicants per year for the one spot at WRAMC.

This is an important post we can use for the next year to answer all the "How competitive is EM/ENT/Gen Surg in the army" questions. Someone please sticky it or add the info to the current stickies. It would be fantastic if someone could drum up the Navy and AF info to add to it.
 

edmadison

1K Member
15+ Year Member
Feb 28, 2001
2,078
74
Lactate > 15
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Hmm, Something is wrong with the numbers. There aren't 26 peds slots in the military and I'm almost positive they didn't match 23 either. I wonder if fellows are factored in somehow, or people applying for PGY-2 match.

Ed
 

dtn3t

Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 2, 2004
180
1
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Hmm, Something is wrong with the numbers. There aren't 26 peds slots in the military and I'm almost positive they didn't match 23 either. I wonder if fellows are factored in somehow, or people applying for PGY-2 match.

Ed

Really? I thought that the plan this year was that smaller programs (MAMC and TAMC) were each alloted 7 slots whereas the combined programs each were given 6. I Could be wrong though; you know more about what your program was expecting.
 

s42brown

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 15, 2002
298
1
Texas
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Where did you get this persentation? Seeing is believing

:cool:
 

delicatefade

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 13, 2004
846
2
43
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Usually this PPT is on the MODS website at some point. It was emailed to a bunch of us by a local recruiter.
 

UltimateDO

Goin' ho ain't easy
15+ Year Member
Apr 15, 2004
364
3
46
wherever you go there you are
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
There is a discrepancy with the numbers. One of my best friends applied Rads and matched Transitional. I have been told in the past that the applicant numbers on the ppt do not include GMOs or PGY1s doing a transitional year and reapplying. I also heard through one of the PGY3 Rad guys at TAMC that there was a late rush of interest this year. FWIW...
 

monkeybaronjr

New Member
10+ Year Member
May 18, 2006
50
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Another question about the numbers:

Of the 18 people that didn't match ortho or the 18 that didn't match ENT, what percentage got deferred and what percentage got forced into another specialty/transitional year??
 

st0rmin

Unregistered User
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Nov 4, 2005
144
0
Somewhere hot and sandy
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
There is a discrepancy with the numbers. One of my best friends applied Rads and matched Transitional. I have been told in the past that the applicant numbers on the ppt do not include GMOs or PGY1s doing a transitional year and reapplying. I also heard through one of the PGY3 Rad guys at TAMC that there was a late rush of interest this year. FWIW...

Could that be because a transitional year is required before starting your radiology residency, meaning your R-1 is transitional and R-2-5(?) is in radiology?
 

UltimateDO

Goin' ho ain't easy
15+ Year Member
Apr 15, 2004
364
3
46
wherever you go there you are
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Could that be because a transitional year is required before starting your radiology residency, meaning your R-1 is transitional and R-2-5(?) is in radiology?

What you say is correct, I should have been clearer. He matched into a non-categorical transitional year. As far as I know all of the Rads slots are for categorical interns. I would like to know however, and I will ask the my buddy the R3, how many of the slots are reserved for GMO/non-categorical intern/2nd Residency type people. The 20% number that gets bandied about means one slot is reserved but I have seen no documentation to back that up.
 
About the Ads

deuist

Stealthfully Sarcastic
15+ Year Member
Jun 14, 2004
4,536
447
Florida
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
This is an important post we can use for the next year to answer all the "How competitive is EM/ENT/Gen Surg in the army" questions. Someone please sticky it or add the info to the current stickies. It would be fantastic if someone could drum up the Navy and AF info to add to it.

The Air Force doesn't post its numbers because it doesn't want to discourage people from applying to their dream fields. I've heard on this board that 50 people apply each year to emergency medicine, but I don't know how many are medical students.
 

Mirror Form

Thyroid Storm
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
May 8, 2003
7,528
23
45
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
you have to be very careful with such stats b/c the military's match system is complex. Therefore you never know if these stats only refer to med students, but not gmo's applying for the same slots, or if the data is skewed b/c of prelim transitional years, or if the slot is a combined slot, etc etc etc.
 

DrBloodmoney

Pathology
15+ Year Member
Oct 17, 2002
362
3
At a microscope
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The numbers for path are way off. We had 9 spots and were at least 1.25 applicants per spot. We filled all 9 spots and had some (I don't know how many) civilian deferments.
 

elderjack21

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Jan 4, 2006
1,033
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
you have to be very careful with such stats b/c the military's match system is complex. Therefore you never know if these stats only refer to med students, but not gmo's applying for the same slots, or if the data is skewed b/c of prelim transitional years, or if the slot is a combined slot, etc etc etc.

That is very good to know.

But I guess in the end..you either get it or you don't, regardless of the pertentages or odds.
 

elderjack21

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Jan 4, 2006
1,033
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Didn't find all the data for all the years available on SDN so I thought I would post them. It may be out there somewhere in a better format. Presumably the number of slots each in each residency changes a little each year...so it would be tough to predict the future based off of these numbers.


SPECIALTY (Slots) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Emergency Medicine (26) 1 1.17 1.38 1.25 1.23

Family Medicine (43) 0.98 0.81 1.05 1.09 0.80

General Surgery (29) 1.04 1.44 1.35 1.29 1.10

GS Neurosurgery (2) 1 1 1 0.5 1

GS Urology (7) 1 1.67 1.67 1.57 1

Internal Medicine (50) 0.96 0.9 0.76 0.84 1.06

Neurology (5) 0.6 0.2 0.8 1.2 0.6

Child Neurology (1) 1 0 2 0 0

OB-GYN (15) 1.06 1 1.53 1.53 1.13

Orthopaedics (19) 1.68 1 1.84 1.36 1.95

Otolaryngology (6) 1.33 0.57 1.33 1.28 4

Pathology (6) 2.8 1.71 1 1.16 0.5

Pediatrics (26) 0.75 1.29 0.96 1.2 0.88

Psychiatry (14) 0.57 1 1.5 .83 1.07

SPECIALTY (Slots) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Psychiatry/IM (2) 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5

Transitional (15) 0.16 0.06 0 0.27 0.06

Prelim Aerospace Medicine (2)n/a 0.5 1 0.5 0.5

Prelim Anesthesiology (12) 1.6 1.8 1.33 1.33 1.42

Prelim Dermatology (7) 1.4 1.2 1.83 1.62 1.29

Prelim Ophthalmology (7) 1.25 1.29 1.29 1.42 1.14

Prelim Physical Medicine (3) 2.33 3.5 4.5 1.66 2

Prelim Prev. Medicine (3) 0.25 0.75 2 0.25 0.67

Prelim Radiation Oncology (1)2 2 2 2 0

Prelim Radiology (Diag) (15) 1.42 1.83 0.71 1.25 1
 

deuist

Stealthfully Sarcastic
15+ Year Member
Jun 14, 2004
4,536
447
Florida
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I cannot give you the percentages of successfully applicants for each field; the Air Force does not release those numbers. What I do have are the number of people who have matched in each area.

Anesthesiology - 8
Emergency medicine - 15
Family medicine - 44
General surgery - 20
Internal medicine - 31
Neurology - 5
Neurosurgery - 1
Obstetrics and gynecology - 24
Ophthalmology - 3
Orthopedic surgery - 5
Otolaryngology - 7
Pathology - 4
Pediatrics - 29
Radiology - 4
Psychiatry - 7
Urology - 4

71 people were selected for one-year internships. My guess is that most of them will be forced into GMO/flight surgery tours. The Air Force continues to maintain that 98% of applicants got their top pick for specialty. I just don't see how 1/4 of medical students would want to go into general practice.
 
About the Ads

LauraDO

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,205
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Medical Student
I cannot give you the percentages of successfully applicants for each field; the Air Force does not release those numbers. What I do have are the number of people who have matched in each area.

Anesthesiology - 8
Emergency medicine - 15
Family medicine - 44
General surgery - 20
Internal medicine - 31
Neurology - 5
Neurosurgery - 1
Obstetrics and gynecology - 24
Ophthalmology - 3
Orthopedic surgery - 5
Otolaryngology - 7
Pathology - 4
Pediatrics - 29
Radiology - 4
Psychiatry - 7
Urology - 4

71 people were selected for one-year internships. My guess is that most of them will be forced into GMO/flight surgery tours. The Air Force continues to maintain that 98% of applicants got their top pick for specialty. I just don’t see how 1/4 of medical students would want to go into general practice.


No that is helpful, thanks
 

BomberDoc

ex-BomberDoc
10+ Year Member
Oct 22, 2006
557
1
rectum, damn near killed 'em
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
71 people were selected for one-year internships. My guess is that most of them will be forced into GMO/flight surgery tours. The Air Force continues to maintain that 98% of applicants got their top pick for specialty. I just don’t see how 1/4 of medical students would want to go into general practice.

Those selected for one-year internship are destined to be GMO/FS. The Air Force perpetuates this lie about applicants getting their top 3 picks. These 71 poor souls will have listed Civ deferred residency and mil residency as their first 2 picks. If they didn't put a 3rd pick, the AF automatically fills in one-year internship into that slot. This way, they can claim (falsely) that 98% of people get one of their top 3 picks for GME. Liars.
 

ieatpizza

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 14, 2007
107
0
Status (Visible)
Army match 2008 stats just posted on MODS:

Specialty (slots) Applicant:Slot Ratio

Emergency Medicine (26) 1.63
Family Medicine (43) 0.58
General Surgery (29) 0.92
GS Neurosurgery (2) 1
GS Urology (7) 1.17
Internal Medicine (50) 0.75
Neurology (5) 0.33
Child Neurology (1) 0
OB-GYN (15) 1.20
Orthopedics (19) 1.84
Otolaryngology (6) 1.14
Pathology (6) 1.17
Pediatrics (26) 0.92
Psychiatry (14) 0.64
Psychiatry/Internal Medicine (2) 0.5
Transitional (15) 0.2
Aerospace Medicine (2) 0
Anesthesiology (12) 1.25
Dermatology (7) 0.57
Ophthalmology (7) 0.71
Physical Medicine (3) 3.33
Preventive Medicine (3) 0.75
Radiation Oncology (1) 2
Radiology (15) 1.67

(EDIT: For clarification, these numbers are reportedly for FYGME positions.)
 

mac61

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
Apr 11, 2006
105
2
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
So crunched some numbers and from the above data:

Applicants: 310
Slots: 316
Number of applicants who matched: 250
Number of applicants who didn't match: 60
% of applicants who didn't match: 19.3
% of applicants who did match: 80.7

I know these numbers include interns so if you assume that every intern was accepted for the residency of thier choice and the numbers were similar to last year (60 non-matched interns) that's 250 applicants (310 applicants -60 now matched interns) and 190 applicants (250 matched - 60 now matched interns) who matched:

That is a 76% medical student match.

Somebody check me, because I'm not a believer in the 75% match rate, but these numbers seem to say it might be so.
 

ieatpizza

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 14, 2007
107
0
Status (Visible)
So crunched some numbers and from the above data:

Applicants: 310
Slots: 316
Number of applicants who matched: 250
Number of applicants who didn't match: 60
% of applicants who didn't match: 19.3
% of applicants who did match: 80.7

I know these numbers include interns so if you assume that every intern was accepted for the residency of thier choice and the numbers were similar to last year (60 non-matched interns) that's 250 applicants (310 applicants -60 now matched interns) and 190 applicants (250 matched - 60 now matched interns) who matched:

That is a 76% medical student match.

I have to wonder though...if there are ~167 USUHS students, then the 250 medical school applicant assumption means there are only 83 HPSPers out there? Is that even close??

Somebody check me, because I'm not a believer in the 75% match rate, but these numbers seem to say it might be so.

I'm not going to crunch numbers, but there are definitely more than 83 HPSPers. Yes, there are 167 USUHS students, but how many of them are Army? Also, these numbers are for FYGME. I don't know for sure, but I don't think most interns (edit: interns who aren't on continuous contract) apply for FYGME spots. Most probably apply for PGY-2 spots.
 

mac61

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
Apr 11, 2006
105
2
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
I'm not going to crunch numbers, but there are definitely more than 83 HPSPers. Yes, there are 167 USUHS students, but how many of them are Army? Also, these numbers are for FYGME. I don't know for sure, but I don't think most interns apply for FYGME spots. Most probably apply for PGY-2 spots.

Guess it was too early in the morning....There are ~60 USUHS Army types, so ~180 or so HPSPers....need coffee.

I don't have any idea how applying for PGY-2 works in the Army. I was under the impression, with the exception of un-linked transitional years, all Army FYGME are straight through to PGY-2. I could definitely be wrong, but if this is the case, I don't know where the PGY-2 applicant/position ratios come from.
 

psychbender

Cynical Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 19, 2005
2,280
1,349
39
Nowhere, nowhere at all...
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Hmmm, looking at those numbers, over half of the doctors destined for GMO land are EM or Ortho hopefuls. If you add in Radiology, that brings them up to two-thirds of the GMO pool.

Also, for the Army, nearly all programs are continuous contracts, meaning everyone doesn't reapply in their intern year. So if your match says Radiology, then you got some form of prelim for PGY1 and Rads PGY2-4. Not sure how it works for those who didn't match, and were given something else for PGY1 (as in, do they have to do GMO tour afterwards, or can they reapply during internship?).
 

ieatpizza

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 14, 2007
107
0
Status (Visible)
Hmmm, looking at those numbers, over half of the doctors destined for GMO land are EM or Ortho hopefuls. If you add in Radiology, that brings them up to two-thirds of the GMO pool.

Also, for the Army, nearly all programs are continuous contracts, meaning everyone doesn't reapply in their intern year. So if your match says Radiology, then you got some form of prelim for PGY1 and Rads PGY2-4. Not sure how it works for those who didn't match, and were given something else for PGY1 (as in, do they have to do GMO tour afterwards, or can they reapply during internship?).

I realized that most programs are continuous contracts. Just wondered if some interns without continuous contracts (i.e. the ones who previously went unmatched in their desired specialty) were allowed/crazy enough to apply for PGY-1 (i.e. redo intern year) to try to get their specialty of choice. Also, are you allowed to apply to more than one specialty (i.e. ortho 1st choice, GS as a backup)? If that is the case, then they're might be less unmatched medical students than calculated, although it would be suboptimal getting your second choice in specialty.
 
1

179466

Don't look into these numbers too much. The Army always doctors them to make them as opaque as possible.

Some things you can take away are that Ortho and EM are quite competitive every year, while other specialties are considerably easier to attain (GS, for instance). You can also see the extreme paucity of PC applicants.

The transitional spots as stated (15) make me doubt the rest of the numbers. There are 15 transitionals alone at MAMC. EAMC, WBAMC, Tripler, all have their own transitional year billets, each with presumably 12-15 spots (not necessarily filled). So, take these numbers with a grain of salt.

You are right, that many GMO/FS types sloughed off from Ortho and EM. Some of these, though, might have accepted spots in other fields to guarantee continuous training. Keep in mind, the Army offered zero civilian deferments this year.

I don't think that the number of GMO/FS aspirants is 60 or more. I would estimate that about 10-15% of Army applicants head down this path, less than Navy and AF, to be sure, but a substantial number nonetheless, considering the overall number of docs.

Most Army programs offer continuous contracts. The GS programs, at least, do not. I can't really speculate further about others.

Take home message: Military medicine, no matter what the branch, opens the possibility of training interruption. This is not going to change any time soon, no matter what Congress says.

GB
 

ieatpizza

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 14, 2007
107
0
Status (Visible)
Don't look into these numbers too much. The Army always doctors them to make them as opaque as possible.

Some things you can take away are that Ortho and EM are quite competitive every year, while other specialties are considerably easier to attain (GS, for instance). You can also see the extreme paucity of PC applicants.

The transitional spots as stated (15) make me doubt the rest of the numbers. There are 15 transitionals alone at MAMC. EAMC, WBAMC, Tripler, all have their own transitional year billets, each with presumably 12-15 spots (not necessarily filled). So, take these numbers with a grain of salt.

You are right, that many GMO/FS types sloughed off from Ortho and EM. Some of these, though, might have accepted spots in other fields to guarantee continuous training. Keep in mind, the Army offered zero civilian deferments this year.

I don't think that the number of GMO/FS aspirants is 60 or more. I would estimate that about 10-15% of Army applicants head down this path, less than Navy and AF, to be sure, but a substantial number nonetheless, considering the overall number of docs.

Most Army programs offer continuous contracts. The GS programs, at least, do not. I can't really speculate further about others.

Take home message: Military medicine, no matter what the branch, opens the possibility of training interruption. This is not going to change any time soon, no matter what Congress says.

GB

All very true, except I think these numbers are pretty transparent, not opaque at all, and give you a good idea about what is and is not competitive. These numbers aren't making any promises about uninterrupted training. I think the discrepancy in transitional slots is that there are 15 undesignated transitional slots. The other transitional slots come from Anesthesia, Derm, Optho, PMR, Preventive Med, Rad Onc, and Radiology. That's my best guess, anyway.
 

The White Coat Investor

Practicing Doc and Blogger
Partner Organization
15+ Year Member
Nov 18, 2002
5,195
2,391
www.whitecoatinvestor.com
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Somebody check me, because I'm not a believer in the 75% match rate, but these numbers seem to say it might be so.

No, I think that's just about right. I mean EM was about 60% (vs 93% in the civilian world last I checked, especially among US grads) At least those of you aiming for EM are learning this now. I learned it in September of my 4th year....Luckily I had lined up one of my military rotations early enough to do well and interview well and I had grades and board scores sufficient to be one of the lucky ones. Many I knew were not so fortunate, even if they knew how the system worked.
 

The White Coat Investor

Practicing Doc and Blogger
Partner Organization
15+ Year Member
Nov 18, 2002
5,195
2,391
www.whitecoatinvestor.com
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Hmmm, looking at those numbers, over half of the doctors destined for GMO land are EM or Ortho hopefuls. If you add in Radiology, that brings them up to two-thirds of the GMO pool.

That is aligned with my experience as well. Most of the GMOs I've met in the Navy and AF wanted one of those three fields. While none are a shoe-in in the civilian match, they all have much higher match rates in the civilian match among US MD grads. I believe ortho is the lowest at around 85%, but I don't have a great source at hand.

Edit: Found some data

http://www.nrmp.org/

According to NRMP, the overall match rate was 94.2% among US allopathic seniors (20% higher than the army match). Ahhh, here's the info I'm looking for:

http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2008.pdf (page 27, figure 6)

~96% in EM
~82% in Ortho
~94% in Rads
~75% in Plastics
~76% in Derm

HPSP Applicants beware. This is the single worst surprise of the HPSP scholarship IMHO.
 

Ziehl-Neelsen

If you will it, Dude, it is no dream.
15+ Year Member
Feb 17, 2005
478
207
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Those army match numbers only take into account 4th year students applying per spot. Thus, the assessment of competetiveness is accurate for specialties like Ob-Gyn, IM, and peds where pretty much the only applicants are 4th year students, but these numbers do not adequately reflect the competetiveness for the traditionally more competetive specialties where 4th year students are competing with GMO's for spots.

Students who want these competetive residencies (ENT Optho, Derm, etc.) do a TY and serve as a GMO for a year or 3 and then apply for these spots. Of course no student can match one of these applicants (providing the applicant is not a total schmuck). Those good students who want these competetive spots, in turn do their TY and GMO tour, finally coming back to knock some other student out of the match a few years down the line. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The army nakes the stats look great by not including these GMO's in the match stats. Hence, the statistic that only 4 students applied for derm. That may be true, but I guarantee there were some GMO's who had a number of those 7 spots effectively locked up before they were ever in play.

There is honestly no rhyme or reason to it cause everything changes from year to year. Honestly, more depends on the year thay one applies than any other factor. For those that are obsessed with handicapping their competetiveness, meet as many students as you can on rotations and talk to PD's to find out the make-up of your class of applicants.
 

ieatpizza

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 14, 2007
107
0
Status (Visible)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Those army match numbers only take into account 4th year students applying per spot. Thus, the assessment of competetiveness is accurate for specialties like Ob-Gyn, IM, and peds where pretty much the only applicants are 4th year students, but these numbers do not adequately reflect the competetiveness for the traditionally more competetive specialties where 4th year students are competing with GMO's for spots.

Students who want these competetive residencies (ENT Optho, Derm, etc.) do a TY and serve as a GMO for a year or 3 and then apply for these spots. Of course no student can match one of these applicants (providing the applicant is not a total schmuck). Those good students who want these competetive spots, in turn do their TY and GMO tour, finally coming back to knock some other student out of the match a few years down the line. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The army nakes the stats look great by not including these GMO's in the match stats. Hence, the statistic that only 4 students applied for derm. That may be true, but I guarantee there were some GMO's who had a number of those 7 spots effectively locked up before they were ever in play.

There is honestly no rhyme or reason to it cause everything changes from year to year. Honestly, more depends on the year thay one applies than any other factor. For those that are obsessed with handicapping their competetiveness, meet as many students as you can on rotations and talk to PD's to find out the make-up of your class of applicants.

Note that these are numbers for PGY-1 slots. No one is saying that these numbers are for PGY-2 slots. Do GMOs apply for PGY-1 slots? I was pretty sure that they apply to PGY-2 slots. Why are people doubting these numbers so much? They seem pretty accurate to me. If you do the rough math with these numbers, about 10-20% of people aren't getting their desired specialty which seems to be accurate from most estimates. I'm not sure why people are so eager to counter the numbers when the numbers actually aren't contradictory to the fact that not everyone goes through training uninterrupted. And is it so hard to believe that optho or derm might not be competitive one year? In past years (see for yourself: https://apps.mods.army.mil/MedEd/HPSP/Powerpoint/GMEslideshow_08_files/frame.htm), the applicant:slot ratio for optho and derm have been >1 so I can see how some people in the past had to do a transitional year and maybe GMO time and then reapply. This year was just different--interests are going to fluctuate in a small match system. In fact, GMO's who are interested in derm and optho probably just got lucky because of those slots that didn't fill this year will probably go to them next year.
 
1

179466

pizza, you're an MSII right?

Did your big brother go through the military match?

I know for a fact that the Derm, ophtho and ENT numbers are skewed by incoming GMO's and docs board certified in other specialities. The army advertises "number of spots available" but fails to mention, as Ziehl points out, that many of these spots just aren't available to MS4's. If you want details, PM me.

In EM alone, between 5-6 slots per year are reserved for GMO's coming off of tours.

Don't put so much faith in numbers that the Army posts for its HPSP powerpoint presentations.

GB
 

DrBloodmoney

Pathology
15+ Year Member
Oct 17, 2002
362
3
At a microscope
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The numbers for pathology are still off. They upped the number of spots from 7 (we haven't been at 6 since 2005) to 9. I wouldn't trust numbers on anything else.
 
About the Ads
This thread is more than 13 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.