RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Service members and veterans applying to medical schools can be a challenging experience. Often, the applicants have difficulty providing descriptions of their experiences. Additionally, their pathway to medical school is significantly different compared to traditional applicants. We sought to determine if there were statistically significant factors within a cohort of U.S. military medical school applications to a U.S.-based allopathic medical school to provide recommendations on how to best advise military applicants. METHODS: Data about social, academic, and military factors were collected and analyzed from the American College Application Service (AMCAS) applications to the West Virginia University School of Medicine (WVU SoM) from the 2017 to 2021 cycles. Eligibility criteria included the applications that indicated that the applicant listed any type of military experience. RESULTS: In the 5-year study period, there were 25,514 applicants to the WVU SoM, and 1.6% (n = 414) self-identified as military applicants. Of the military applicants, 28 (7%) were accepted to the WVU SoM. Statistically significant differences were found in several factors, including but not limited to academic performance, number of total experiences (14.5 vs. 12, P = .01), and number of military experiences (4 vs. 2, P = .003) listed on the AMCAS applications. In the accepted group, 88% of the applications included information about military experiences, which was understandable to the nonmilitary researchers compared to 79% in the nonaccepted group (P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: Premedical advisors can share statistically significant findings with military applicants, so they are informed about the academic and experiential factors associated with medical school acceptance. Applicants should also be advised to provide clear explanations of any military lexicon used in their applications. Although not statistically significant, there were a higher percentage of applications that contained descriptions of military language that was understandable to the civilian researchers in the accepted group vs. the nonaccepted group.
