Infantry Officer versus Med School?

[q123]

---

Members do not see this ad.

It's pretty tough to pull the 173rd (In Vicenza). Even if you are there, you most likely will spend most of your time deployed. It's an airborne unit and rapidly deployable.

You won't be considered for Vicenza unless you can complete Ranger School. Statitically, only half of the people that try that are able to finish.

Your best bet, is to get a good duty assignment (i.e. Hawaii where I was stationed), complete Ranger School, and then wait for one of your Infantry Officer buddies to crap out of Ranger School and trade him for it.

It happens all the time, but you'll have a hard time doing it if your duty assignment is Ft. Hood Texas or Ft. Riley Kansas. So when you are picking duty stations, put Vicenza first, but put other good tradible options 2nd and third.

Yes, i wouldnt count on Vicenza. Though there is a non-zero chance to get it. And even if you're deployed a lot, you can see so much of Europe if it's your home base... But I mentioned it because army has more than Ft Hood. You have hawaii, a base in washington state, colorado, in alaska, so there are a few options.
So do you make a dream sheet of 3 choices while in OCS and then you go through iobc, airborne, ranger before being shipped to your base, and while in those schools, you have a chance to trade? Are your chances of getting 1st or 2nd choice much higher if you get the best pft score in ocs, or is it purely luck?

 

[Old Grunt]

There is nothing simple about it as far as I can see. If you enjoyed your time then fine. If you think you are a better person for what you did in the military and what you were subjected to fine. I don't see how you can say its not important to consider the reasons for fighting, though. What does it mean to "serve your country"? Does it mean to kill when told to kill and to die for whatever reason the temporary administration deems worthy? This type of blind "patriotism" is very dangerous in my opinion and I can point to various historical occasions that prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The military (at least should) exists outside of the realm of politics. I personally can't stand George W. Bush, but as a soldier I was obligated to follow his orders, because he was the duly elected President of the people. We are all subordinate to the laws of this nation, which are enforced by an executive branch that is temporary in nature.

The oath soldiers take is to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. That means we kill, and sometimes are killed by, those who we deem as a threat to our way of life. Blind patriotism is indeed very dangerous. However, history has generally proved that it is more dangerous when it infects civilians and not soldiers. A good book on this is "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer.

The military is really just a tool that a country uses. It is at the mercy of the civilians it serves and relies on them to use it in a prudent and decent manner. Most of the Wehrmacht were not Nazis, but they were all turned into Nazis by the German people.

That being said, the tool is necessary. The nature of mankind is inherently evil and brutal. A glance through history will demonstrate the cruelty inflicted upon weaker nations by stronger nations. We have the luxury of relatively peaceful and comfortable existences today. If we weren't ready to destroy our enemies, that would all be gone and we would quickly see that pacifism is a luxury afforded to others by warriors.

I can understand if this is an emotionally charged topic for you but I expect you've had these conversations before and I trust that I haven't rubbed you the wrong way. I respect you and what you've been through. Please don't interpret my words as an attack on who you are.

Not at all. I am an adult and am perfectly capable of discussing such matters in a mature and level manner. In fact, it's a conversation I wish more people would have.

You'd be surprised to find out that we probably share many of the same beliefs and opinions.

 

[q123]

That's kind of a silly statement.

I had a blast when I was in the Army. Often times life was great. Sometimes it sucked. Even in combat it was generally 95% boredom and 5% sheer terror. As a bachlor LT, I lived on the beach on the North Shore of Hawaii and generally spent my weekends at Waimea Bay or Sunset Beach watching Kelly Slater rip it up (when a swell was in). Gotta admit, I had a pretty good time doing that.

Many people enjoy serving and wouldn't want to do anything else. If it was a complete suck-fest, then no one would do it.

Med School will be fun at times and sometimes it will suck as well. Nothing in life is black or white.

damn that's nice.

 

[8744]

It's not false at all. Unless your own interests change. There are plenty of people who serve before going to medical school. Look at Panda Bear.

I was a Marine Infantryman, enlisted and not an officer, and I rise in support of anyone who wants to do a little military service, especially in the pointy end of the military, before medical school. I don't see the need to be an officer either as the Army and the Marines offer plenty of opportunity for responsibility, training, and action to anyone who wants them and the selection path for officers is a lot of trouble to go through if all you want to do is serve for a brief period and then move on.

As for the motivations of the OP for joining, criticising them is a little like criticising the motivation people have for going to medical school. Just as money, prestige, and respect are perfectly decent reasons for wanting to be a doctor, adventure, travel, and action are perfectly decent reasons for wanting to be in the Infantry especially during times of war. I know a few Marine veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and none of them wish they had stayed home and "shovelled **** in Louisiana."

We do not want the intellectual elite of the country to become too effete to risk their precious lives or even a few years of their careers in the military. A standard enlistment is only four years, after all.

 

[Wylde]

Going into combat is not "fun." That's disrespectful to all miltary personnel. If this post is "for real" I may answer, but until then, no. This is disgusting. 👎

"fun" does not have an absolute definition.

People who go to into the armed services can get "fun" and gratification out of serving their country and feeling self-worth. If someone is honestly considering going into the armed services, how can you tell them THEY are being disrespectful towards service men when the thought has probably not even crossed YOUR mind.

 

[Old Grunt]

Refugees.

I figured as much.

The real question though is "Refugees from whom (or who or whatever)".

 

[q123]

I would speculate that they were close to the Soviets and fled the country after the Taliban took over. That could be completely wrong, but it would be my guess.

I was out in the country. The Russians didn't spend a lot of time chatting up the Afghans there. They mostly spent their time shooting at them and chasing them with tanks and were universally hated. It might have been different in Kabul and other cities. You should ask them how they ended up in Canada.

On that note, one of the funniest things I experienced in Afghanistan was getting introduced to this old Muhajadeen. He was famous for "killing more Russians than Chernobyl", and that's exactly how the Afghans introduced him.

actually Russians built hospitals and any other infrastructure that is still left there was built by USSR. USA built nothing. That's why USSR fell, it was too humane and liberal in the latter years. Under Stalin, Mujahed who used his kids to place ied's would be quickly rounded up. In northern afghanistan there was much less trouble than in kandagar and paki border areas. But it doesnt matter to me, infantry officers are not diplomats. If i were there, i would try to be respectful but not to get close to anybody.

 

[Old Grunt]

We do not want the intellectual elite of the country to become too effete to risk their precious lives or even a few years of their careers in the military. A standard enlistment is only four years, after all.

Unfortunately, it has already happened to a large extent.

While I don't think that military service should be a requirement to be a civilian leader, I think it's a shame that so many people who have committed our servicemen to combat did not serve in the wars of their days, and often times actively evaded combat.

I heard a MOH recipient say once "you won't find the Rockefeller children in the Army anymore". He was correct.

Other than that, I would note that a standard enlistment is eight years (four active, four reserves). Nobody used to count the IRR time as counting, but it certainly does now.

 

[Old Grunt]

Yes, i wouldnt count on Vicenza. Though there is a non-zero chance to get it. And even if you're deployed a lot, you can see so much of Europe if it's your home base... But I mentioned it because army has more than Ft Hood. You have hawaii, a base in washington state, colorado, in alaska, so there are a few options.
So do you make a dream sheet of 3 choices while in OCS and then you go through iobc, airborne, ranger before being shipped to your base, and while in those schools, you have a chance to trade? Are your chances of getting 1st or 2nd choice much higher if you get the best pft score in ocs, or is it purely luck?

Duty stations are generally handed out in this order: West Pointers, ROTC, OCS. You are at the bottom of the pecking order.

You can trade at your OBC though if you can find someone that wants to do so as well. As I noted, many young officers lose their slots to certain units if they can not complete Ranger School.

You will go to Airborne before or after IOBC and Ranger after. Those schools are all at Ft. Benning, so they give you a crack at them while you are on station before they ship you off.

I am not terribly informed about OCS (I was ROTC), so I won't give you any misinformation there other than to say vet everything your recruiter tells you carefully.

The two year option for medical school obligates you to military service since I believe it is a health service scholarship that you compete for. You so not have to go to the Uniformed Health Services medical school.

 

[Doctor]

I inserted this sentence to characterize my personality. There is no doubt that a lot of students in med school "have ADHD". If I am faced with a choice to get bad grades(and end up in a specialty that i dislike) or to get addicted to adderall, i'll choose the former. If I spend even 2yrs taking a pill every day so i could sit in the library 24hrs/day instead of going out and going to the gym, my health will be 100% unsatisfactory. In Iraq, there is only a small chance to get killed or crippled. Small meaning <10%.

I see. That's great logic. So you'd rather have a 9.9% chance of being killed or maimed (not dangerous by your standard) than a 100% chance of studying too much on Adderall (very dangerous your standard).

BTW, most specialties aren't even that competitive that you need drugs to get A&#937;A, etc.

 

[q123]

Good required reading from the Marine Corps Reading list: "One Bullet Away", "Making The Corps", "Rifleman Dodd", and "Fields of Fire" and the first four books that most officer candidates end up reading

"Generation Kill" and "Fiasco" are also good reads about Iraq, from reporters, if you want to know what you're getting into.

armyocs.com is your reference site for their officer candidate school. Similitar sites exist for all other services (marineocs.com, etc).

Also look on the military medicine boards here to see if you want to try HPSP scholarship. Not necessarily a good financial deal, but maybe a good compromise.

If you don't mind me asking, why the Army specifically? You should know that they've been taking in a pretty low quality of recruits lately (older, criminal records, poor English skills), and as an officer you're going to end up responsible for their actions. I'm not talking about the average, of course, but the extremes of what they'll accept are getting pretty low. In a platoon of 40 you're going to get someone in the bottom 5%, and your career will hinge on his decisions. In contrast the Marines, Navy, and Airforce have all been making recruiting targets without adjusting their standards downwards.

Finally be aware that you don't get your choice of service as an officer. You can get through OCS, bcome an officer, and then spend 4 years in the asscrack of Georgia as an adjunct or a supply officer regardless of how badly you wanted that infantry spot.

Thank you. I will look at those books in May. I have already found army and marine ocs forums and read a bit about job descriptions. Yes i've read the military forum here. And despite all the criticism it gets, if i am 100% sure on becoming a dr, i will 100% do hpsp.
I still havent decided on Army vs Marines. Right now it is more about med school versus military ocs. It seems army infantry and marine infantry have a lot in common. But in the army, i doubt i would end up as a "supply officer" because i can kill their pft. While in the marines you do 6months of tbs without knowing where you'll end up. And it seems that marines all fight for schools like "airborne", while in the army you are almost required to do airborne+ranger(some officers dont want to attend it, unlike in marines). Out of curiousity, i wonder how long is the process of getting into marine ocs, as compared to an army ocs?

 

[Drogba]

The military (at least should) exists outside of the realm of politics. I personally can't stand George W. Bush, but as a soldier I was obligated to follow his orders, because he was the duly elected President of the people. We are all subordinate to the laws of this nation, which are enforced by an executive branch that is temporary in nature.

The oath soldiers take is to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. That means we kill, and sometimes are killed by, those who we deem as a threat to our way of life. Blind patriotism is indeed very dangerous. However, history has generally proved that it is more dangerous when it infects civilians and not soldiers. A good book on this is "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer.

This is a fluid categorization. Civilians become soldiers. We may all be subordinate to the laws of this nation but the laws of this nation cannot compel me to kill.

The military is really just a tool that a country uses. It is at the mercy of the civilians it serves and relies on them to use it in a prudent and decent manner. Most of the Wehrmacht were not Nazis, but they were all turned into Nazis by the German people.

This is what I am talking about. You are ceding your life to the administration (which I guess you could argue a reflection of the "people" though at the end of the day we don't vote on wars or when to end them). More importantly you are ceding your autonomy and with it the choice to not kill or not be killed. That doesn't mean you've given up the responsibility of those actions though in my opinion.

That being said, the tool is necessary. The nature of mankind is inherently evil and brutal.

This is a philosophical discussion that could take a while to discuss on its own merit. Conscience and consciousness are also inherently human which means we can transcend our biological programming, thats what distinguishes us from all other life (as far as we know). I could possibly agree in the most trying of circumstances are psychology is so utterly broken down that we will revert to biological impulses but as humans we have strived to build a society where people aren't forced to do that regularly.

A glance through history will demonstrate the cruelty inflicted upon weaker nations by stronger nations. We have the luxury of relatively peaceful and comfortable existences today. If we weren't ready to destroy our enemies, that would all be gone and we would quickly see that pacifism is a luxury afforded to others by warriors.

Progress is another feature that defines humanity, what is historically true need not always be the case. I don't contest that we've needed the protection of those willing to enforce their will with violence in the past, nor that we will not need it in the future. The causes of war are much more complex than preventing physical transgressions by other nations though; hardly a war has ever been fought that was not about resources. Sometimes it feels that the army does more to protect national lifestyle than national life.

Not at all. I am an adult and am perfectly capable of discussing such matters in a mature and level manner. In fact, it's a conversation I wish more people would have.

I'm glad to hear this and frankly this is what I expected I just want to make sure I am being adequately sensitive to what is an important and for some people personal issue.

You'd be surprised to find out that we probably share many of the same beliefs and opinions.

I don't think everyone in the army is evil/politically conservative/brainwashed/add platitude of choice here. Judging from your posts that I've run across I can see that you are a thoughtful human being. I would not be incredibly surprised to find out that we share the same beliefs.

 

[q123]

Duty stations are generally handed out in this order: West Pointers, ROTC, OCS. You are at the bottom of the pecking order.

You can trade at your OBC though if you can find someone that wants to do so as well. As I noted, many young officers lose their slots to certain units if they can not complete Ranger School.

You will go to Airborne before or after IOBC and Ranger after. Those schools are all at Ft. Benning, so they give you a crack at them while you are on station before they ship you off.

I am not terribly informed about OCS (I was ROTC), so I won't give you any misinformation there other than to say vet everything your recruiter tells you carefully.

The two year option for medical school obligates you to military service since I believe it is a health service scholarship that you compete for. You so not have to go to the Uniformed Health Services medical school.

Thanks!

 

[Old Grunt]

actually Russians built hospitals and any other infrastructure that is still left there was built by USSR. USA built nothing. That's why USSR fell, it was too humane and liberal in the latter years. Under Stalin, Mujahed who used his kids to place ied's would be quickly rounded up. In northern afghanistan there was much less trouble than in kandagar and paki border areas. But it doesnt matter to me, infantry officers are not diplomats. If i were there, i would try to be respectful but not to get close to anybody.

I've got $2.3 million dollars worth of receipts that disagree with you're assessment that the USA is not building anything.

For whatever the Russians did or built in Afghanistan, it was for nought, the Afghans dispise them and the tales of soviet brutality are still told throughout the land. Along with the rubble of Karez's, schools, houses, clinics, and other things that were destroyed by the Russians.

Infantry officers are absolutely diplomats. You should also research how the United States is approaching asymmetrical warfare before you sign anything. It is most likely different than what you expect, and it might not be what you want to do.

My unit spent most of it's time doing humanitarian assistance and reconstruction. We rarely did combat missions.

 

[q123]

I see. That's great logic. So you'd rather have a 9.9% chance of being killed or maimed (not dangerous by your standard) than a 100% chance of studying too much on Adderall (very dangerous your standard).

BTW, most specialties aren't even that competitive that you need drugs to get A&#937;A, etc.

i dont care what is the source of the problem, but if i get diabetes, insomnia, prolonged depression, or any other condition that makes me weak, i wouldnt want to live. no one argues that you can get hurt in the military. but if you think that med school is such a safe environment, you're wrong. there are a lot of med school graduates who look like they're 50yo or who have mental problems.
based on your post, it seems that you have no problem with studying on adderall(you do know that you're not supposed to work out while on adderall?). so you probably wouldnt have any trouble with just studying for 13years (past undergrad) just to reach your goal. I on the other hand become depressed just at the thought of starting my career at 40yo.

 

[Drogba]

i dont care what is the source of the problem, but if i get diabetes, insomnia, prolonged depression, or any other condition that makes me weak, i wouldnt want to live.

What an attitude to have as a prospective caregiver.

no one argues that you can get hurt in the military. but if you think that med school is such a safe environment, you're wrong. there are a lot of med school graduates who look like they're 50yo or who have mental problems.
based on your post, it seems that you have no problem with studying on adderall(you do know that you're not supposed to work out while on adderall?). so you probably wouldnt have any trouble with just studying for 13years (past undergrad) just to reach your goal. I on the other hand become depressed just at the thought of starting my career at 40yo.

It doesn't sound like you are very ambivalent about what you want to do then.

 

[q123]

I've got $2.3 million dollars worth of receipts that disagree with you're assessment that the USA is not building anything.

For whatever the Russians did or built in Afghanistan, it was for nought, the Afghans dispise them and the tales of soviet brutality are still told throughout the land. Along with the rubble of Karez's, schools, houses, clinics, and other things that were destroyed by the Russians.

Infantry officers are absolutely diplomats. You should also research how the United States is approaching asymmetrical warfare before you sign anything. It is most likely different than what you expect, and it might not be what you want to do.

My unit spent most of it's time doing humanitarian assistance and reconstruction. We rarely did combat missions.

Well I can say that I dont care if Afghans despise me. Reconstruction(which is probably better than combat) still doesnt mean that I have to like them. If they tell me about russian brutality, I will just be one of those people who doesn't buy it.

 

[AnesthesiaMD]

exactly. there is a very good chance to be deployed for 15months, and even if you dont go into combat, it is a bit like prison... but that's part of the job. but i'd like to compare the lifestyle of an infantry officer when not deployed compared to that of a med student. army has an infantry base in Visenza, Italy but there is no guarantee to get it. But it would be sweet.

as tough as med school is and all the blood, sweat, and tears that go into it, it pales in comparison to being deployed to a combat zone such as in Iraq.

 

[q123]

It doesn't sound like you are very ambivalent about what you want to do then.

But medicine is a nice career though... It would be just nicer if i could start it at 25.

 

[q123]

as tough as med school is and all the blood, sweat, and tears that go into it, it pales in comparison to being deployed to a combat zone such as in Iraq.

there are plenty of people who returned from Iraq without being crippled or mentally disturbed. but people who havent been to med school dont realize that there are many people who've lost their soul while in med school.

 

[Drogba]

Well I can say that I dont care if Afghans despise me. Reconstruction(which is probably better than combat) still doesnt mean that I have to like them. If they tell me about russian brutality, I will just be one of those people who doesn't buy it.

Mother Russia could never do wrong. You don't have to look past your own borders if you want to see Russian brutality.

 

[Old Grunt]

Well I can say that I dont care if Afghans despise me. Reconstruction(which is probably better than combat) still doesnt mean that I have to like them. If they tell me about russian brutality, I will just be one of those people who doesn't buy it.

Sorry, that probably came off the wrong way. I didn't mean the Afghans would dispise you because you are Russian, I meant they dispised the Soviet force that occupied them (the 40th Army). I am not sure what you've been told, but the accounts of the soviets in Afghanistan are pretty well documented. Lester Grau has written extensively on it. Other good reads are "Ghost Wars" by Coll, Soldiers of God by Kaplin, Charlie Wilson's War by Crile. If you chose to believe it or not, the general consensus is that the soviet occupation of Afghanistan was brutal and cruel.

As an American soldier, some Afghans will dispise you, some will love you, most will be ambivalent.

Reconstruction is still combat. In Afghanistan, the insurgency finds you and brings the fight to you, not vice versa. If you are at a school site supervising the construction, and you start taking fire, congratulations, you are now in combat.

Again, you should research how the Army and Marines are approaching counter insurgency before you make your decision. It's more Mother Theresa than John Wayne, and It might not be to your liking and that makes it an easy choice for you.

 

[Old Grunt]

...

 

[q123]

Sorry, that probably came off the wrong way. I didn't mean the Afghans would dispise you because you are Russian, I meant they dispised the Soviet force that occupied them (the 40th Army). I am not sure what you've been told, but the accounts of the soviets in Afghanistan are pretty well documented. Lester Grau has written extensively on it. Other good reads are "Ghost Wars" by Coll, Soldiers of God by Kaplin, Charlie Wilson's War by Crile. If you chose to believe it or not, the general consensus is that the soviet occupation of Afghanistan was brutal and cruel.

As an American soldier, some Afghans will dispise you, some will love you, most will be ambivalent.

Reconstruction is still combat. In Afghanistan, the insurgency finds you and brings the fight to you, not vice versa. If you are at a school site supervising the construction, and you start taking fire, congratulations, you are now in combat.

Again, you should research how the Army and Marines are approaching counter insurgency before you make your decision. It's more Mother Theresa than John Wayne, and It might not be to your liking and that makes it an easy choice for you.

The description you provide sounds satisfactory to me.

 

[Perrotfish]

Thank you. I will look at those books in May. I have already found army and marine ocs forums and read a bit about job descriptions. Yes i've read the military forum here. And despite all the criticism it gets, if i am 100% sure on becoming a dr, i will 100% do hpsp.
I still havent decided on Army vs Marines. Right now it is more about med school versus military ocs. It seems army infantry and marine infantry have a lot in common. But in the army, i doubt i would end up as a "supply officer" because i can kill their pft. While in the marines you do 6months of tbs without knowing where you'll end up. And it seems that marines all fight for schools like "airborne", while in the army you are almost required to do airborne+ranger(some officers dont want to attend it, unlike in marines). Out of curiousity, i wonder how long is the process of getting into marine ocs, as compared to an army ocs?

I can comment a little on this. I'm in a similar situation: Navy HPSP if I get in to medical school and Marine OCS if I don't, so I've done some research.

Basically the process of getting into Marine OCS is actually significantly faster, paperwork wise, than the Army. Marine OSOs are full time officer recruiters and generally are efficient. Army recruiters also handle enlisted and will look at you like you have a dick growing out of your forehead when you ask about OCS. Also you don't have to go through the Army's 3 week BCT course. You'll need to get any previous psyche problems waivered, however.

The trick with the Marines, as you mentioned, is the PFT. Mainly they want you to do pullups, twenty of them. Even if you're in good shape this generally takes a good bit of time to adjust to. Running also is a problem for some people, but if you can kill the Army PFT I assume you're good there. If you're on the edge about where you're going get a pullup bar and start practicing: it won't hurt you with the Army and it will significantly cut down on your time to enter the Marines.

The other problem is that you can fail out of Marine OCS. I mean I know you can fail out of Army as well, but they graduate 90% + of their OCS classes, Marines are way lower than that. I'm seriously worried about getting shin splints and ending up unemployed.

An upside of the Marines is that, if you get there and hate it, you can leave. Army you're committed the day you sign the papers for OCS, Marines you don't commit until you've finished OCS. Honestly, would you buy a car the dealer wouldn't let you test drive? How about a car that you can't get out of for four to eight years?

I think your recruiter might have misled you about how many people get what they want in the army. Marines do have to fight more for 'high speed' schools (SCUBA, Jump wings, etc), but in terms of getting your MOS of choice I'm not sure you're actually better off in the Army. Combat arms are definitely in higher demand in the Marines, but they're also a much higher percentage of the assigned MOSes (sp?) The only exception I know of is tanks: the Marines have almost none, so if you really want tanks go Army.

 

[q123]

I can comment a little on this. I'm in a similar situation: Navy HPSP if I get in to medical school and Marine OCS if I don't, so I've done some research.

Basically the process of getting into Marine OCS is actually significantly faster, paperwork wise, than the Army. Marine OSOs are full time officer recruiters and generally are efficient. Army recruiters also handle enlisted and will look at you like you have a dick growing out of your forehead when you ask about OCS. Also you don't have to go through the Army's 3 week BCT course. You'll need to get any previous psyche problems waivered, however.

The trick with the Marines, as you mentioned, is the PFT. Mainly they want you to do pullups, twenty of them. Even if you're in good shape this generally takes a good bit of time to adjust to. Running also is a problem for some people, but if you can kill the Army PFT I assume you're good there. If you're on the edge about where you're going get a pullup bar and start practicing: it won't hurt you with the Army and it will significantly cut down on your time to enter the Marines.

The other problem is that you can fail out of Marine OCS. I mean I know you can fail out of Army as well, but they graduate 90% + of their OCS classes, Marines are way lower than that. I'm seriously worried about getting shin splints and ending up unemployed.

An upside of the Marines is that, if you get there and hate it, you can leave. Army you're committed the day you sign the papers for OCS, Marines you don't commit until you've finished OCS. Honestly, would you buy a car the dealer wouldn't let you test drive? How about a car that you can't get out of for four to eight years?

I think your recruiter might have misled you about how many people get what they want in the army. Marines do have to fight more for 'high speed' schools (SCUBA, Jump wings, etc), but in terms of getting your MOS of choice I'm not sure you're actually better off in the Army. Combat arms are definitely in higher demand in the Marines, but they're also a much higher percentage of the assigned MOSes (sp?) The only exception I know of is tanks: the Marines have almost none, so if you really want tanks go Army.

wow, i thought i was the only one who considered such different career plans. you know if you are certain about med school, improving your mcat by 2 points can make a greater difference than military experience.
i can do 20+ pullups, but i thought that was the maximum score on the marine pft. so must you max out pft before going to marine ocs? and if you have no problems with pft or any other tests, how long would it take from the time you talk to a recruiter to the time you get into ocs, in either service? i dont see any benefit from being allowed to quit while in ocs. you dont get to experience the real military untill you're actually assigned to your 1st job.
i actually havent talked to any recruiters, i just read some websites, including armyocs and marineocs forums. and if you are assigned to be an army infantry officer, you get to attend airborne+ranger. in the marines, their analogue "infantry course" is similar but without the jump or mountaineering. you will not get scuba schools in either service, unless you become special operations, so forget it.
i dont know anything about the job desriptions and pros/cons of being a tank officer or a combat engineer, but i'd like to learn. how do those jobs compare to small arms infantry? i just know that combat engineers in the army go to either sapper or ranger school. but i dont know what they do afterwards, on their actual jobs?

some other points of interest: in marines they have a large base in california, so relatively easy to get it. army has a lot of bases in sucky places like texas and kansas. but army also has italy, alaska, hawaii, colorado, washington state! there is a thread on armyocs forum where army officers list their first 3 choices of bases they want to serve on and someone with name "jag" keeps writing "you ******* dont you want to fight"--of course he's a troll, but i think you are more likely to meet such individuals in real life in usmc.

 

[geneticclone]

lol what a *****

 

[Legato]

That being said, the Afghans hate the Russians. Of course, they also generally hate Pakis, Arabs, and anyone else not Afghan.

lol...wtf? Why don't they just all attack the Pakis and Arabs fighting in Afghanistan then instead of the Americans?

They hate Russians and Americans. If they hate Pakis or Arabs its 100x less than those two.

I had something to say to the thread creator, but after I typed it, I decided it was better left unsaid.

 

[Perrotfish]

wow, i thought i was the only one who considered such different career plans. you know if you are certain about med school, improving your mcat by 2 points can make a greater difference than military experience.

I'm aware. I'm in an SMP right now, so if I end up going to OCS it means I failed that SMP and have decided to focus on a non-medical career.

i can do 20+ pullups, but i thought that was the maximum score on the marine pft. so must you max out pft before going to marine ocs?

20 pullups is the maximum. Most people accepted for Marine OCS have about a 270/300 or greater on the PFT. Since most people can't do an 18 minute 3 mile that generally means maxing the Pullup and situp sections.

and if you have no problems with pft or any other tests, how long would it take from the time you talk to a recruiter to the time you get into ocs, in either service?

This depends on if you need waivers, etc. I've heard of one person going from start to completion for Marine OCS in two weeks, but that's bizare. On average it seems like you need to apply at least 3 months before the OCS class you want to attend (dates listed on the OCS websites). I don't know about Army, other than that the process seems to be very inefficent.

actually havent talked to any recruiters, i just read some websites, including armyocs and marineocs forums. and if you are assigned to be an army infantry officer, you get to attend airborne+ranger. in the marines, their analogue "infantry course" is similar but without the jump or mountaineering. you will not get scuba schools in either service, unless you become special operations, so forget it.
i dont know anything about the job desriptions and pros/cons of being a tank officer or a combat engineer, but i'd like to learn. how do those jobs compare to small arms infantry? i just know that combat engineers in the army go to either sapper or ranger school. but i dont know what they do afterwards, on their actual jobs?

Check the army and Marine OCS boards for descriptions of each MOS. I'm not really qualified to give a response on each MOS. Honestly, though, don't make your decision based on wheter or not they teach you to parachute. Choose based on whether you like the culture or the service, and join a skydiving club in your spare time.

some other points of interest: in marines they have a large base in california, so relatively easy to get it. army has a lot of bases in sucky places like texas and kansas. but army also has italy, alaska, hawaii, colorado, washington state!

If you join the Army you're going to end up in the ass-crack of Georgia. If you join the Mairnes you're going to end up in the ass-crack of Florida. Don't make your decision based on the nice bases since the odds are 100 to 1 that you'll never be assigned to one.

there is a thread on armyocs forum where army officers list their first 3 choices of bases they want to serve on and someone with name "jag" keeps writing "you ******* dont you want to fight"--of course he's a troll, but i think you are more likely to meet such individuals in real life in usmc

I'm not at all sure of that.

 

[8744]

wow, i thought i was the only one who considered such different career plans. you know if you are certain about med school, improving your mcat by 2 points can make a greater difference than military experience.
i can do 20+ pullups, but i thought that was the maximum score on the marine pft. so must you max out pft before going to marine ocs? and if you have no problems with pft or any other tests, how long would it take from the time you talk to a recruiter to the time you get into ocs, in either service? i dont see any benefit from being allowed to quit while in ocs. you dont get to experience the real military untill you're actually assigned to your 1st job.
i actually havent talked to any recruiters, i just read some websites, including armyocs and marineocs forums. and if you are assigned to be an army infantry officer, you get to attend airborne+ranger. in the marines, their analogue "infantry course" is similar but without the jump or mountaineering. you will not get scuba schools in either service, unless you become special operations, so forget it.
i dont know anything about the job desriptions and pros/cons of being a tank officer or a combat engineer, but i'd like to learn. how do those jobs compare to small arms infantry? i just know that combat engineers in the army go to either sapper or ranger school. but i dont know what they do afterwards, on their actual jobs?

some other points of interest: in marines they have a large base in california, so relatively easy to get it. army has a lot of bases in sucky places like texas and kansas. but army also has italy, alaska, hawaii, colorado, washington state! there is a thread on armyocs forum where army officers list their first 3 choices of bases they want to serve on and someone with name "jag" keeps writing "you ******* dont you want to fight"--of course he's a troll, but i think you are more likely to meet such individuals in real life in usmc.

The Marines have the equivalent of a Tank regiment spread between the active divisions. I happen to have been a Marine Tanker before I re-elisted for the Infantry (my second enlistment). We also have Light Armored Vehicles. I don't know the exact numbers and I'm too lazy to look it up but every Battalion of three companies has close to 50 M1A1s so the total active Tank complement of the Marines is probably close to 150 or so, not nearly as many as the Army but the Marines are a third of the size. I imagine you could get an Armor assignment if you wanted it. Certainly if you enlisted you could get a contract for MOS 1811 (Armor Crewman). I was a Tank Commander as a Corporal so it's not as if only officers are in charge of things.

The big Marine bases are Camp Pendleton between San Diego and Los Angeles, Twenty-nine Palms Air-Ground Combat Center near Palm Springs, and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. There's a big Marine presence in Hawaii as well as the Japanese Island of Okinawa (Camp Schwabb). The Marine Air wings have bases in Yuma Arizona, Cherry Point, North Carolina (near New Bern), and a couple of others places.

Combat Arms will be at Lejeune, Pendleton, or 29 Palms mostly.

Infantry: Mud, heat, sweat, bugs, cold, rain, snow, endurance, no sleep, high level of military discipline, cold chow, misery.

Tanks: Dust, noise, heat, confined spaces, maintenance, high levle of mmilitary discipline, danger of industrial-type injuries from the tank itself, huge gun 18 inches from your head, dust, more dust, grease, repeat.

Both make medical school and residency seem like day care. I laugh at the surgery attendings who think they had a hard life.

http://pandabearmd.com/blog/2007/01/01/again-apropos-of-nothing-part-a/
http://pandabearmd.com/blog/2007/07...versation-with-a-lumbering-asian-bear-mammal/

 

[geneticclone]

 

[Perrotfish]

Sorry, but I thought that Tanks were almost impossible for Marines going the officer route. Don't they normally only assign one officer to Tanks per TBS class?

 

[8744]

If you join the Army you're going to end up in the ass-crack of Georgia. If you join the Mairnes you're going to end up in the ass-crack of Florida. Don't make your decision based on the nice bases since the odds are 100 to 1 that you'll never be assigned to one.



I'm not at all sure of that.

I don't think there are nay Marine Bases in Florida. In the Marines you have the greatest odds of ending up at Lejeune, Pendleton, or 29-Palms.

 

[Doctor]

i dont care what is the source of the problem, but if i get diabetes, insomnia, prolonged depression, or any other condition that makes me weak, i wouldnt want to live. no one argues that you can get hurt in the military. but if you think that med school is such a safe environment, you're wrong. there are a lot of med school graduates who look like they're 50yo or who have mental problems.
based on your post, it seems that you have no problem with studying on adderall(you do know that you're not supposed to work out while on adderall?). so you probably wouldnt have any trouble with just studying for 13years (past undergrad) just to reach your goal. I on the other hand become depressed just at the thought of starting my career at 40yo.

I wouldn't have trouble studying for even the next 50 years, because it's one of the most "fun" and pleasing things in my life. I am 30 now, so I will literally be 40+ when I start this new career. In years 20 through 30, in retrospect I missed studying very much and it left a hole in my life. The constant pursuit of knowledge is an incredible experience. So the more studying I have to do, the better. And I consider that not only a safe environment but a sensationally enjoyable one.

If the military is your calling, as it sounds like it is, go for it. I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm just picking on you a little bit because you seem far more frightened of Adderall than a reasonable person should be (and it's not like there's a huge reason to take it every day... very few students fail out of medical school, and it's the rare specialty that requires top 10% in you class or anything like that).

I would try to dissuade you if the odds were anywhere close to 10%, the number you used, but I bet the odds of getting killed or maimed in Iraq are more like 1% than 10%.

 

[Doctor]

That's too funny!

 

[Doctor]

Both make medical school and residency seem like day care. I laugh at the surgery attendings who think they had a hard life.

Everything is relative. When they say they've had it hard, they are probably comparing the medical/surgical track to other high-paying professions such as chiropractic, consulting, dentistry, investment banking, investment management, law, and stockbrokering.

 

[Legato]

Both make medical school and residency seem like day care. I laugh at the surgery attendings who think they had a hard life.

I laugh at military men who think they have a hard life. The people in the countries the US is fighting in have much harder lives.

 

[narretgrez]

please don't sell your soul to the army.
we have enough tragedies as it is at the moment.

 

[Old Grunt]

lol...wtf? Why don't they just all attack the Pakis and Arabs fighting in Afghanistan then instead of the Americans?

They hate Russians and Americans. If they hate Pakis or Arabs its 100x less than those two.

I had something to say to the thread creator, but after I typed it, I decided it was better left unsaid.

Have you ever been on the Afghan/Paki border?

I spent a year there, but I am sure you know waaaayyyyyyyyyy more about this than I do. After all, you took an anthropology class.

 

[JayCRivera]

Hey all,
I am interested in serving in Germany, Korea, Japan, Italy, or Hawaii, preferably through the Army. What are my chances of getting a permanent duty station in one of those?

 

[geneticclone]

Hey all,
I am interested in serving in Germany, Korea, Japan, Italy, or Hawaii, preferably through the Army. What are my chances of getting a permanent duty station in one of those?

100% just ask the recruiters they'll say you have 100% chance of choosing your own station.

 

[Doctor]

100% just ask the recruiters they'll say you have 100% chance of choosing your own station.

👍 hahahaha

 

[TheRealMD]

Under an HPSP scholarship, doesn't the Army have the right to tell you what residency you will be doing? Doesn't sound like just "eight years" to me....

 

[ScienceJunkie]

Finally, if you do end up going in the military and deploy to Afghanistan, don't tell the Afghans that you are Russian.

Good luck.

LOL i never thought of that....

 

[Old Grunt]

Under an HPSP scholarship, doesn't the Army have the right to tell you what residency you will be doing? Doesn't sound like just "eight years" to me....

Everything in the Army is "needs of the Army". That means they control your destiny and can force you into a certain residency.

I've heard that is a huge drawback of the HPSP. Just another thing to be aware of for those people that are considering that.

 

[Old Grunt]

That's too funny!

When you apply to medical schools and/or residencies that are affiliated with the VA, you should make sure to mention your disdain for servicemen and women.

I am sure you will. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite would you?

 

[Old Grunt]

This is a fluid categorization. Civilians become soldiers. We may all be subordinate to the laws of this nation but the laws of this nation cannot compel me to kill.

The mission of the military is to destroy enemy forces (I use the term "destroy" because is it doctrinal. Nobody says "kill", even though that is certainly one facet of it). It's not a pleasant job, but it is sometimes necessary. People might not like that, but it doesn't change the basic facts of the matter. People who are morally opposed to having to take life should not become soldiers or police officers. Luckily in this country, they don't have too. That doesn't change the facts that the need for those jobs is omni-present.

This is what I am talking about. You are ceding your life to the administration (which I guess you could argue a reflection of the "people" though at the end of the day we don't vote on wars or when to end them).

I served my country. Bush was my commander in Chief, but I didn't serve the Bush administration. Our country functions as it is designed to. If it were 100% efficient, then there would be a collective voice of the American people that would guide our policy in real time and there would be no need for elected officials. That of course is not realistic, so in the end we are all a slave to our own laws and systems. Your and my objections to one administration or the other still doesn't change the basic need for defense.

More importantly you are ceding your autonomy and with it the choice to not kill or not be killed. That doesn't mean you've given up the responsibility of those actions though in my opinion.

That's a matter of opinion. I don't feel I ceded my autonomy in the military and contrary to public opinion, soldiers are not mindless drones. The choice to kill or not kill comes down to the soldier. Even in combat and under fire, the decision to put gun sights on someone and pull the trigger comes down to the individual. The Army can't force soldiers to shoot anyone. There are some pretty interesting statistics out there from WWII that found an alarming number of soldiers intentionally fired their weapons over the heads of their enemies during combat. It's all covered in a book called "On Killing".

This is a philosophical discussion that could take a while to discuss on its own merit. Conscience and consciousness are also inherently human which means we can transcend our biological programming, thats what distinguishes us from all other life (as far as we know). I could possibly agree in the most trying of circumstances are psychology is so utterly broken down that we will revert to biological impulses but as humans we have strived to build a society where people aren't forced to do that regularly.

Where that it was so................ However, in reality, the basic nature of mankind can not be over come. Philosophers may dream of Utopian societies where people beat their swords into plowshares, but the rest of the world could care less about their dreams. You could be the most educated and refined person in the world, but when you go to the beach the bully can still kick sand in your face. Then what do you do? Extrapolate that. Daniel Pearl was a good man who believed in the decency of people. He was brutally murdered and his killers videoed the act so that the whole world could see it. In the end, despite our hopes and dreams there will always be the need for rough men who are willing to do violence on behalf of those who would rather not get their hands dirty.

Progress is another feature that defines humanity, what is historically true need not always be the case. I don't contest that we've needed the protection of those willing to enforce their will with violence in the past, nor that we will not need it in the future. The causes of war are much more complex than preventing physical transgressions by other nations though; hardly a war has ever been fought that was not about resources. Sometimes it feels that the army does more to protect national lifestyle than national life.

War is always multifaceted. I don't believe that we went into Iraq for our national security. I believe that was a tactically poor and morally bankrupt decision. I don't blame the soldiers for that decision. I blame the President and the American public that elected him twice.

I don't think everyone in the army is evil/politically conservative/brainwashed/add platitude of choice here. Judging from your posts that I've run across I can see that you are a thoughtful human being. I would not be incredibly surprised to find out that we share the same beliefs.

Don't blame me, I voted against Bush. Twice.

 

[Old Grunt]

lol what a *****

Says the poster who supports the guy who said that the holocaust never happened and that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Takes one to know one I suppose.

 

[Perrotfish]

Under an HPSP scholarship, doesn't the Army have the right to tell you what residency you will be doing? Doesn't sound like just "eight years" to me

....

Sort of but not exactly. The Army has the right to to force you to do an Army residency (they don't have to give you a deferment for a civilian residency). You have the right to choose which residency to apply for. The problem is that the Army might not have enough slots in your residency of choice (maybe they only have 1 derm spot that year, etc). Your only practical option would be to apply for a residency you don't want, but are competitive for. You do, however, retain the option to complete your obligation without having completed a residency (this is a GMO tour), which means you're clear of your financial obligation in four years. You would then begin your civilian residency at the end of your obligation. So if you're absolutely dead set on that Ortho residency you can begin your residency four years after completing medical school (assumng you aren't stop lossed, of course).

That's still a disadvantage, but you're concerned about the Army forcing you into a proctology residency or something you don't need to worry.

 

[Doctor]

When you apply to medical schools and/or residencies that are affiliated with the VA, you should make sure to mention your disdain for servicemen and women.

I am sure you will. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite would you?

I didn't even mention my disdain for servicemen and women here. Why would I there? BTW, it might be lost on you but I have no such disdain. It was just a funny cartoon. Even if you were to take the cartoon at face value, it only implies that the soldiers signing up to go to Iraq have low IQs, not that they should be viewed with disdain.