Research 'points' Army match?

[Medic741]

Hello everyone, have a quick question - am an Army HPSP MS2.

I've been very active at my school doing research and have had the opportunity to give an oral & poster presentation at a conference and currently submitting an abstract for a second project I'm just finishing & deciding between submitting for either oral or written.

Is there any advantage to doing an oral vs. poster for this go around? It was a lot of work to put an oral presentation together with slides & practice time, is there any marginal benefit in doing a second oral or is a poster going to be the same number of 'points' when it comes to residency selection.

Thanks all for helping with a question on the tedium side of building resumes for the match. Have been really lucky to have found a PI that I really click with who's been able to offer a lot of opportunities in the field I'm interested in (metagenomics).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[armytrainingsir]

I asked your question to a couple of AD friends that are staff in teaching programs last week.

Oral presentations on a CV are much more 'impressive' to them than posters because they too know the work involved in each.

 

[Perrotfish]

Hello everyone, have a quick question - am an Army HPSP MS2.

I've been very active at my school doing research and have had the opportunity to give an oral & poster presentation at a conference and currently submitting an abstract for a second project I'm just finishing & deciding between submitting for either oral or written.

Is there any advantage to doing an oral vs. poster for this go around? It was a lot of work to put an oral presentation together with slides & practice time, is there any marginal benefit in doing a second oral or is a poster going to be the same number of 'points' when it comes to residency selection.

Thanks all for helping with a question on the tedium side of building resumes for the match. Have been really lucky to have found a PI that I really click with who's been able to offer a lot of opportunities in the field I'm interested in (metagenomics).

My understanding is that the 'points' system exists pretty much exclusively for the Navy Residency and Fellowship matches. If you are matching Army, AF, or if you're in the Internship match in the Navy the points don't matter, you just need to impress the PD like you would in any other residency.

Not 100% sure of this, others can feel free to correct me

 

[HighPriest]

My understanding is that the 'points' system exists pretty much exclusively for the Navy Residency and Fellowship matches. If you are matching Army, AF, or if you're in the Internship match in the Navy the points don't matter, you just need to impress the PD like you would in any other residency.

Not 100% sure of this, others can feel free to correct me

No, that was my experience for sure in the Army. Research definitely matters, and it goes a long way with program directors. We never even mention the word "points" when we were matching residents. My program let the chief residents have a modicum of say in picking new residents (since they were on their way out and they also usually knew the resident body better than the staff) and I'm not sure I knew a point system existed at that time. very possible that's different for other programs, but it seems like the point system is actually fairly uniform in the Navy. It is not in the Army.

 

[Gastrapathy]

The points system was used by all services for the GI fellowship match. Maybe that's changed in the past few years. The thing is that the system includes enough soft scores that I think they always ended up with who they wanted anyway.

 

[sonofva]

The points system was used by all services for the GI fellowship match. Maybe that's changed in the past few years. The thing is that the system includes enough soft scores that I think they always ended up with who they wanted anyway.

The "points system" is utilized more for GMO return to residencies, those applying for second residency, and Fellowship applications. It is my understanding that medical students are usually selected by a bunch of PDs at a secret meeting, where they consider your application as a whole, just like the civilians. Research won't hurt you, but don't expect it to overcome bad boards scores or similar... And for GMOs, as stated above, there is a fudge category that is titled "Potential For Officership" or some such BS, that has enough points that programs can usually swing people's applications...

 

[Perrotfish]

And for GMOs, as stated above, there is a fudge category that is titled "Potential For Officership" or some such BS, that has enough points that programs can usually swing people's applications...

My impression is that the points system is really used to make sure that GMOs have the opportunity to come back to residency vs Interns, and that docs who have completed a utilization tour have priority for fellowship vs new residency grads. There are a lot of points that you just can't get until you have been out of training for a year.

 

[backrow]

My impression is that the points system is really used to make sure that GMOs have the opportunity to come back to residency vs Interns, and that docs who have completed a utilization tour have priority for fellowship vs new residency grads. There are a lot of points that you just can't get until you have been out of training for a year.

I have seen more than a few interns be selected over GMOs and have definitely seen residents selected over staff for fellowship positions. I’ve even had a consultant/SL say that unless the staff completed the utilization tour already then it doesn’t really count.

I think they try to keep things fair and by the “points system”, but there is certainly enough “give” in the system to allow for some room to allow subjectivity to take over. I also believe that having a senior person that is somewhat impartial overseeing the final approval allows an opportunity for true shenanigans to be caught.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile