Army The Annual Update

[USArmyHPSP]

Ok, Here is this year's annual update on Army GME

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Is there something like this for the Navy? I’ve seen the AF and this one, but the only one I can find for the Navy is from 2015 or something.

 

[Medic741]

Ok, Here is this year's annual update on Army GME

Thank you for posting this!

 

[militaryPHYS]

I haven't seen anything like this for Navy and I wish we had one. I wish they dove further in to the "85% match to first choice" bullet

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I haven't seen anything like this for Navy and I wish we had one. I wish they dove further in to the "85% match to first choice" bullet

Of course we don’t.

 

[ArmyTiger]

Most of these slides haven't meaningfully changed since I started looking at that presentation in 2012. The only ones that do are the Step scores. I can also say anecdotally that the applicants per position slides are misleading, as they've never matched up with the numbers that PDs say they've interviewed. So take most of this with a grain of salt.

 

[mr11]

Most of these slides haven't meaningfully changed since I started looking at that presentation in 2012. The only ones that do are the Step scores. I can also say anecdotally that the applicants per position slides are misleading, as they've never matched up with the numbers that PDs say they've interviewed. So take most of this with a grain of salt.

Those slides line up perfectly with my specialty this year. Both applicants/spot and step scores

 

[Gastrapathy]

It says first choice specialty. As long as you include any internship for a noncategorical residency, thats easy money. That said, the USMLE score transparency is really good

 

[Trefoil]

Most of these slides haven't meaningfully changed since I started looking at that presentation in 2012. The only ones that do are the Step scores. I can also say anecdotally that the applicants per position slides are misleading, as they've never matched up with the numbers that PDs say they've interviewed. So take most of this with a grain of salt.

Totally agree with the applicant to position being very misleading. I’m pretty sure they discount applicants who are told that won’t make it or match to an alternative specialty.

 

[mr11]

Totally agree with the applicant to position being very misleading. I’m pretty sure they discount applicants who are told that won’t make it or match to an alternative specialty.

Do you have any evidence for this? Again, with my specialty it lines up perfectly. The people who ended up matching to an alternate specialty are still included. Obviously it doesn't include people who were discouraged from applying and didn't end up ranking but from my anecdotal experience the numbers do include everyone who ranked their desired specialty first.

 

[Trefoil]

Do you have any evidence for this? Again, with my specialty it lines up perfectly. The people who ended up matching to an alternate specialty are still included. Obviously it doesn't include people who were discouraged from applying and didn't end up ranking but from my anecdotal experience the numbers do include everyone who ranked their desired specialty first.

Yeah, the year I applied to my specialty, the number of applicants listed was two lower than the number of applicants that we were aware of as a group. Some applicants were told that they could apply, but they wouldn’t match. They opted to go GMO and reapply. Does that mean that they shouldn’t count?The ratio made it seem as if everyone who wanted to match successfully matched, which was not the case; therefore, it is misleading. Someone looking at the data would assume everyone matched. The ratio is also based on a theoretical number of open positions, but the actual number is much more nebulous as sometimes positions are intentionally withheld from medical students so that GMO applicants can apply. (The number of total spots is 5 for example, but only 3 will be open for medical students). That number changes from year to year and is not explicitly told to anyone other than the consultant. None of that is reflected in the data. I wouldn’t put all of my faith in those numbers is all that I’m saying.

 

[AvrgPreMedKid]

Do you have any evidence for this? Again, with my specialty it lines up perfectly. The people who ended up matching to an alternate specialty are still included. Obviously it doesn't include people who were discouraged from applying and didn't end up ranking but from my anecdotal experience the numbers do include everyone who ranked their desired specialty first.

I know somebody who reapplied after a TY, and I happen to know their board score which was outside of the range listed for the given specialty, so it seems like they weren't included.