Lambert5883

Completely agree, as a father of three kids: 12, 11, and 9 year olds. The older they get, the more activities (school, sports, organizations, social gatherings) the parent(s) must juggle. At times, it's hard, and seemingly all consuming - there seems no time left for you. Now would be the time to get that degree. Hopefully you and your SO can strategize together, in supportive roles, to make it happen.

I just graduated yesterday, 04/06/07, as I had to repeat the final comprehensive HESI in which a score of >= 85% (raw score >= 950) is needed to graduate. So, just to let you know, if you don't pass the HESI the first time, the second HESI test is much harder (at least that was the concensus of the 27 of us who had to retake it). As for the sciences slant, I don't think it is too important whether or not you are weak, or strong, in the sciences. Don't get me wrong. If you are strong in the sciences, it could help you to better synthesize some information. But in honesty, I just don't think being weak on the subject would be a hinderance. As for people drop outs, it occurs for a number of reasons, but realize it has nothing to do with academic prowess, or intelligence. I know bio-chemists who have struggled in this program whereas educators have thrived. For some, it has been a lack of commitment. For others, it may have been do to personal conflicts. It may be the realization that this is simply the wrong type of program due to its pace, because regardless of what anyone says, you won't know until you are in it. As for those of us who have gone through the program and not relayed any info on the program, it may be due to a sense of just wanting to forget - moving on with our lives. And, I don't think in general it is viewed as a positive experience. Also, as a student, you come to the realzation that one cannot fully appreciate the ACE program until it has been experienced. Good luck to you and all others.

Thanks to all who have replied. Just received an email this mornning from the Optometry Consultant to the Office of The Surgeon General, Chief of Army Optometry, and Assistant Corps Chief for Optometry, Medical Service Corps: It is their postion that NO waivers be recommended to persons having a history of RK (Radial Keratotomy) surgery -- a different procedure than PRK (Photorefractive Keratectomy) and LASIK (laser-in-situ keratomeileusis), which are now both waiverable.

Thanks for the information. Greatly appreciated.

Just found out today, via email from a cyber recruiter at the US Army Recruiting Command, that having had RK eye surgery is a disqualifying factor barring entry into the Army; no waiver whatsoever. Can anyone here corroborate this?

Here's hoping to joining such a fine institution and serving with you outstanding patriots!

How so?

Great thread, ladies and gentleman! It definetly provides a cathartic release. Especially when you read the commonality that is shared amongst us as a middle-class, regardless of race, color, creed, gender, or religion.

how true. i mean what does it take to get the middleclass supporters of the bush admin to realize that this adminstration puts the interests of big business and industry ahead of our interests.

Congrats, wtbcrna! Best of luck to ya!

Does anyone have any firsthand information regarding having to pay tuition "upfront" at drexel -- ACE program?

CONGRATS!!!

Thanks ANC_Maj. I spoke to my doctor and he said that as long as it is being "controlled", it will not be a factor for exclusion. I started treatment for it this weekend.

Thanks, again, for both of your opinions on this matter, wbtcrna, sandman. I will speak to another health recruiter in another geographical area that is close to me, and hear what they have to say -- seems like I'm shopping for a recruiter...and I loathe shopping! Also, I will call and speak directly to someone at AMEDD who can answer any question I may have on the subject of direct accession into their graduate nurse anesthesia program. Thanks again.

Sandman, I spoke to a health recruiter (Army) today, who also plans on pursuing nurse anesthesia, but some of his information was a bit skewed. I'm not trying to suggest that he purposely tried to deceive me, but some of the statements he had made did not fall in line with data that I have read regarding pre-requirements for nursing anesthesia, as applied to the Army's CRNA program. His basic premise is that I would be more assured of gaining entry into the the Army's CRNA program if I were Active Duty, as opposed to gaining entry via the "direct accession" pathway. He asserts that one's position as Active Duty personnel is more attractive, when applying to anesthesia school than some civie basically "off the street." He also stated that in pursuing the direct accession path, requirements for entry are more stringent, or rigid, than those for Active Duty. In reading the data contained in the link you had provided, I do discern a difference in requirements between the two and can see his point, but it does not reflect an implicit sense, or mentality, of one having to "jump through hoops." My main interest, of course, is that of time-line since I'm 41. He stated that it could take 3-4 years before a new active duty Nurse Corp. officer could engage in the CRNA application process. He, also, said the same time-line could hold true in direct accession, since civilian requirements for entry would encompass 2 years ICU, CCRN and ACLS. His point on this is that since I'm already 41, the Army could determine that I'm too old to to apply and be accepted into anesthesia school, if by the that time I'm 45-46. He said that he would send me materials with more details. I must say that I think the best thing at this point is to go Reserves after I graduate, do my year of ICU, and then apply (if this route does not require CCRN). Any thoughts?