<p>So I am taking about 20 credits per semester (sometimes 21 sometimes 18, you get the picture) and I currently have a 3.85 or so which I can't see dropping too much (unless my Orgo preparations have been futile). I participate in research and shadowing, and I'm starting a community service program next semester (I'm only a sophomore and I like parentheses in case you can't tell).
My question is this: I have participated very actively in an Army ROTC program and have dedicated myself to becoming a physician for the Army, will my dedication to this program hurt my application (or dare I hope for it to be an asset)? Through the Army I have undergone Combat Life-Saver training and Air Assault School (helicopter medivacs and assaults). I see it as a leadership, interpersonal, and moral asset to my application but from what I've heard it might not be.
If your reply depends on schools of interest I am primarily interested in Vanderbilt, Harvard & John's Hopkins (who the h*** isn't?), and state level schools on the East Coast as backups.</p>
<p>shameless self bump</p>
<p>great question, im curious as well…</p>
<p>It should be a plus, unless you run into a gay-rights activist or stereotypical liberal-hippy.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine it would hurt you. Certainly, even if you do run into anti-military sentiment, your response is simple “I don’t have to support the military objectives to serve those troops that become injured, or to care for them and their families when they are stationed back home”. I live in a city with a prominent Air Force base and there are a lot of military families around. Not all of them go to the base docs, but a great many do, so there is need for practitioners of all types.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that the Armed Services do have their own medical school - since you have an interest/intend to serve, this could actually qualify as a safety as I remember getting informational packets from them with titles like “Do you have a 22 on the MCAT? You qualify to come to our school!” This would be the one time I’d actually say that a safety exists in medical school admissions…</p>
<p>I was accepted at USUHS but chose not to attend. I can tell you that they are a ‘MCAT heavy school’-that is they give more weight to standardized testing then to GPA(they see it as the great equalizer). Also, they have a two-tiered admission screening procedure. One tier is for applications that are from people clearly just applying hoping to get into any medical school, they have no military background and probably would only attend as a last resort and they have no interest in a military career. The other tier is people who have a military background(prior service, military families and other connections to the system), those applications are taken much more seriously. Despite what BRM said, the average MCAT scores at USUHS still average 30 but with a military background they will dip down to get a potential career doc, and I believe you would be quite competitive there. The cost to attend is ZERO and they pay you as a second lieutenant. The facilities were great. My Dad is a retired medical corps Colonel so I know quite a bit about the military medical system. I chose to attend a school in my home state, as my parents(mother mostly) generously agreed to foot the entire bill so I wouldn’t have to take out loans, otherwise, I probably would have gone to USUHS.</p>
<p>(Speaking as an army vet) I suspect ROTC will be neutral to negative, but geography dependent. It is unfortunate that in the North and West, military veterans have become endangered species in higher ed. And popular perceptions towards the military are inconsistent with more intellectual pursuits. And many of your experiences are foreign to the med school audience. Having spent 6 years on the staff at HMS, I can tell you that such a background is not a plus there unless pitched very carefully.</p>
<p>For instance, if you talk about "Combat Life-Saver training and Air Assault School ", how many in your med school audience will have any idea what you’re talking about? Just the word “assault” has negative connotations in these circles. Contrast that with your competing applicant who talks about a lab project for finding the cause of some disease and hospital experience in Mass General Hospital.</p>
<p>The good news is that your background will differentiate you. You may get interviews just so the faculty can meet someone with such different goals. And a few (but very few) in med schools do value more traditional values. So your goal is to appeal to those few potential champions while giving no reason to the others to reject you.</p>
<p>You might also think of including some southern and midwestern schools in your list. Despite the beliefs of some, intelligent life does exist south of the Mason Dixon line 
, think Duke, Emory and UNC for a few examples.</p>
<p>Wow, I appreciate the thoughtful responses. I was already planning on Johns Hopkins and Vanderbilt, and I have heard good things about both Emory and Duke. But my real goal is to attend Vanderbilt and I’m wondering how it will play there. Tennessee is a solid southern state but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will be military friendly.</p>
<p>BRS, please don’t misunderstand. I don’t think any of your choices will be hostile to military. I just think at some places you are likely to puzzle the admissions folks such that they do not recognize or appreciate your interests and accomplishments, especially within the context of your career goals. It is more of a probability thing.</p>
<p>Saying that, I would guess the probability is higher at Vandy!</p>
<p>But please don’t pull your punches. Our country needs more docs with diverse backgrounds like yours, IMHO. We have too many whose claim to fame is having spent the “mandatory” (and expensively purchased) summer abroad seeing how medicine is practiced in poorer countries…</p>
<p>I don’ think the response will be as simplistic as Newmassdad implies. It is true that you are likely to encounter a generally liberal orientation among the faculty, particularly at Harvard among the schools you mention. However, most leftists draw a sharp distinction between ROTC policies as administered by a group of old men safely ensconced thousands of miles from combat, and ROTC as experienced by young people who need the financial support to get through college and then may well be sent into harm’s way. Even the most strongly pro gay rights, anti-military people do not blame the students in ROTC for the policies to which they object. After all the students, even if they support these policies, do not create them.</p>
<p>Many of the faculty will be simple main stream liberals, not hard core leftists. Even the hard core leftists will see your ROTC as both an economic choice, like being on an athletic scholarship- completely neutral- and a service choice- which is a positive. ROTC requires a service orientation, after all how much more selfless can you get than risking your life? It also consumes time and energy, so it shows focus, determination, self discipline, all those things med schools love to see.</p>
<p>I agree that if you really want a career in the military, then going to a military med school may be a great idea. Not just because of the pay while you are in. The military has some good deals for students at civilian medical schools as well. The only “disadvantage” is that you are obligated to remain in the military for quite a while after you get your degree. Since you plan to do that anyway, then there is no problem. </p>
<p>The reason you might like a military med school is that you apparently like the military. Most medical schools are an entirely different environment- for example not very supportive of the homophobia that is official US policy. Not supportive of rules defining and limiting the roles of women, etc. </p>
<p>Harvard and Hopkins also may not be a great fit for reasons that have nothing to do with politics. The students they are looking for want careers in academic medicine, research, to a limited extent public policy, or high profile sub specialties. The schools are based on these priorities, and the students share them. The medical school experience you will get at these places will be much more valuable for students with this orientation than for those who want conventional private practice, primary care, or military careers.</p>
<p>I would be surprised and very disappointed if ROTC were held against you. ROTC students are not that unusual. Harvard has ROTC. I would be surprised if your interviewers engaged you in political debates. You would have to bring it up and take some extreme positions “women have no business in the medical profession” for example, before anyone would care about your political orientation.</p>
<p>afan,</p>
<ol>
<li><p>who said this was simple or simplistic? Not me, so don’t put words in my mouth.</p></li>
<li><p>Are you a vet? I suspect not. At any rate, this is not about “policies as administered by a group of old men safely ensconced thousands of miles from combat”. In fact, this has little to do with policies at all. It is about experiences, and how experiences can be shared on one extreme and bewildering on the other. And no, the liberals will not “Even the hard core leftists will see your ROTC as both an economic choice, like being on an athletic scholarship- completely neutral- and a service choice- which is a positive.” This is just not true. It is true that ROTC and military experience can be painted in a positive, relevant light, but this is not an easy task.</p></li>
<li><p>“Most medical schools are an entirely different environment- for example not very supportive of the homophobia that is official US policy. Not supportive of rules defining and limiting the roles of women, etc.” Please. You must be kidding to make such a statement? Since when are such views relevant to military service? Has it ever entered your mind, AFAN, that many people serve in the military despite such views? (or serve despite many other views of the leadership?)</p></li>
<li><p>Harvard has ROTC? Please check your facts:
[Harvard</a> College :: other programs :: ROTC :: ROTC](<a href=“http://www.college.harvard.edu/academics/other_programs/rotc/]Harvard”>http://www.college.harvard.edu/academics/other_programs/rotc/)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>WOW! Such hostility!! </p>
<p>What did I say to set you off? I stated some facts. You may not like them, but are you really contending they are not true?</p>
<p>I said Harvard has ROTC, a point that you proceeded to document. In fact, there are more Harvard students than MIT students in the ROTC program based at MIT. Harvard ROTC students accompanied Faust at her installation as president. What’s your beef? Do you object to even this level of recognition by Harvard of the program?</p>
<p>I said that the issue about ROTC on campus concerns US military policy. I did not bother to provide citations to hundreds of campus newspapers to prove this, I thought it was well known. The protest against ROTC on campus centers around the policy that forbids military service by openly gay individuals. If you need evidence of that statement, consult the following (from harvard sources)</p>
<p>[The</a> Harvard Crimson :: Opinion :: Stumbling Blocks](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520641]The”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520641) concerning the status of ROTC at Harvard</p>
<p>and </p>
<p>[The</a> Harvard Crimson :: Magazine :: All That She Can Be](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512125]The”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512125)
and
[The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: Air Force To Recruit At Law School](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=253999]The”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=253999)</p>
<p>and many many others. Try googling for “ROTC” and “Solomon amendment”. I got over 4300 hits. There was a lawsuit filed by many law schools challenging the legality of the amendment which, in effect, forced them to permit an entity with a discriminatory employment policy (the military) full access to recruiting facilities at the schools. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers.</p>
<p>I said that ROTC students do not create military law or military policy. Very few students in ROTC programs are members of Congress, so they do not get to vote on the laws governing the military. I’m not sure how to provide citations for this. But a few observations. The Constitution requires that members of Congress be at least 25 years old (Article 1). However the vast majority of ROTC students are younger than this, therefore they cannot be in Congress, therefore they cannot set these policies. Senators must be at least 30 (ibid) so someone too young to be in the House is also too young to be in the Senate. Plus, it is nearly impossible for someone to be a full time student, do ROTC and be a member of Congress. So I am pretty sure that that is not anyone who is doing this. Therefore ROTC students are not responsible for the policies, they cannot be, because they do not set them.</p>
<p>I said that the military environment is hostile to gays. Since one can be thrown out for being gay, I did not think this was open to debate, but I am certainly interested to hear your counter argument. As far as I know, no civilian medical school has a policy to expel students for being gay.</p>
<p>I thought everyone knew this about the military, but here we go:</p>
<p>Excerpts from the US Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > ? 654</p>
<p>? 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
…the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.</p>
<p>(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.</p>
<p>(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law</p>
<p>(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense</p>
<p>(Two notes here: The word “Policy”, above, is the language of the statute, as approved by Congress, not my opinion. The regulations are promulgated by the Secretary of Defense, who is an older man. )</p>
<p>(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act</p>
<p>(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect</p>
<p>I said that the military, unlike academic medicine, proscribes participation in certain jobs by women. Again, I did not think this was news that required documentation. It is US policy, and not decided by ROTC students.</p>
<p>I thought everyone knew this. However, if you need proof:
<a href=“http://cmrlink.org/cmrnotes/lesaspin%20dgc%20defassign%20rule%20011394.pdf[/url]”>http://cmrlink.org/cmrnotes/lesaspin%20dgc%20defassign%20rule%20011394.pdf</a></p>
<p>Issued by the Secretary of Defense, who was an older man. The DOD could change this policy, but by law it must notify Congress before doing so. More older men involved. I don’t know of any civilian medical school that excludes women from certain parts of the profession.</p>
<p>Not I am not a vet. Yet somehow I knew the above about the military. </p>
<p>How is that relevant to views held in academic medicine?</p>
<p>By the way, it is “afan” all lower case.</p>
<p>To the OP. I would be surprised if your participation in ROTC were a negative, even at civilian medical schools. They would respect the time and effort involved, and it is inherently a people-oriented, service-oriented activity. Even those who have major problems with military policy will not take it out on you.</p>
<p>AFAN, </p>
<p>What “set me off” is seeing the reply of someone who obviously does not well understand the issues, but it willing to speculate as if it were fact. </p>
<p>You apparently don’t understand the difference among allowing students to participate in ROTC (which I believe they could not prohibit anyway), which is what Harvard does, supporting ROTC, and having ROTC units on campus. The fact that H has more students in MIT’s program is all the sadder, since H could easily have their own program, which would make it easier for H students. In case you were wondering how H feels about ROTC, just read the parts I did not quote in the link I posted above. If their language is not luke warm at best, then I don’t know what is.</p>
<p>
What does this have to do with medical school admissions? Or the military’s policies on gays? Why keep changing the topic? No one has questioned the fact that policies hostile to gays and limiting to women exist. I just don’t see what these policies have to do with med school admissions. </p>
<p>Your diatribe is especially hard to understand when you say “I would be surprised and very disappointed if ROTC were held against you.” and then proceed to expound at length the things that you don’t like about current military policy. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>BTW, most of us adults don’t consider campus newspapers (“…hundreds of campus newspapers to prove this,…”) to be particularly authoritative. </p>
<p>I will bow out at this point from what has turned into a worthless debate. AFAN, you are welcome to the last word.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I have made a counterfactual statement, please tell me what it was.</p>
<p>I believe that, as private institution Harvard COULD prohibit students from participating in ROTC, but I cannot imagine it would ever consider doing any such thing.</p>
<p>Right. I have lots of problems with the military, but I don’t hold those against individual students in ROTC, since, as documented, they don’t set these policies.</p>
<p>As for why I demonstrated the military policies, and the arguments about them, that was a response to your statement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I showed, it is all about the policies. </p>
<p>I assume your argument was not about the “thousands of miles” element, since a quick check of a map will verify that.</p>
<p>The point of campus newspapers was to document the debate on campus.</p>
<p>Try to distinguish between the policy of Harvard University toward the ROTC program, which is based on Harvard’s nondiscrimination principles, and the attitude of individual faculty members toward individual students who are in ROTC programs. </p>
<p>Harvard has no policy whatsoever discouraging graduate or professional school admissions to students coming out of ROTC programs. It DOES have a policy of distancing itself from entities that practice employment discrimination- as the military does. I would be astounded if Hopkins has a policy of denying grad or prof school admissions to ROTC students. </p>
<p>I suppose the last word is “By the way, it is “afan” all lower case.”</p>
<p>A suggestion: Contact the local Army Medical recruiter for Doctors. Your PMS should have his or her contact info. The Med rep can contact others that have worked admissions for the med programs at these schools and give you solid feedback and not uninformed or biased opinions. Score high on the MCATs by studying old tests. You will be fine. If you did not know… the Army will fully fund you and any school will want you when you bring that to the table.</p>