Results of the 2015
NRMP Applicant Survey
by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type
September 2015
www.nrmp.org
Requests for permission to use these data, as well as questions about the content of this publication or
the National Resident Matching Program data and reports, may be directed to
Mei Liang, Director of Research, NRMP, at [email protected]
Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, President and CEO, NRMP,
at [email protected].
Suggested Citation
National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2015
NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident Matching
Program, Washington, DC. 2015.
Copyright © 2015 National Resident Matching Program, 2121 K Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington,
DC 20037 USA. All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy, and/or distribute any documentation
and/or related images from this publication shall be expressly obtained from the NRMP.
Table of Contents
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................1
Response Rates .................................................................................................................................................2
All Specialties ...................................................................................................................................................3
Charts for Individual Specialties
Anesthesiology ..........................................................................................................................................14
Child Neurology ........................................................................................................................................22
Dermatology ..............................................................................................................................................30
Emergency Medicine ................................................................................................................................38
Family Medicine........................................................................................................................................46
Internal Medicine ......................................................................................................................................54
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics ......................................................................................................................62
Neurology ..................................................................................................................................................70
Neurological Surgery.................................................................................................................................78
Obstetrics and Gynecology........................................................................................................................86
Orthopaedic Surgery..................................................................................................................................94
Otolaryngology ........................................................................................................................................102
Pathology .................................................................................................................................................110
Pediatrics .................................................................................................................................................118
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation .....................................................................................................126
Plastic Surgery .........................................................................................................................................134
Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................142
Radiation Oncology .................................................................................................................................150
Radiology-Diagnostic ..............................................................................................................................158
Surgery-General ......................................................................................................................................166
Introduction
The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted
a survey of all applicants who participated in the 2015 Main
Residency Match®. Similar surveys were conducted in 2008,
2009, 2011, and 2013.
The primary purpose of the survey was to elucidate the factors
applicants weigh in applying to and ranking programs. The
survey was fielded during the 18 days between the Rank Order
List Deadline and Match Week so that applicant Match
outcomes would not influence respondents' answers.
The survey was sent to all applicants who certified a rank
order list (ROL) by the Rank Order List Deadline. Some
applicants could certify a blank ROL. Between the Rank
Order List Deadline and the time when the matching algorithm
was processed, however, some applicants still could be
withdrawn from the Match. The responses of those who
certified a blank rank order list and those who were withdrawn
from the Match were not included in this report.
This report presents survey results by preferred specialty and
applicant type. Preferred specialty is defined as the specialty
listed first on an applicant's ROL. Applicant type includes
U.S. allopathic medical school seniors and independent
applicants. Independent applicants include prior allopathic
medical school graduates, U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen
students and graduates of international medical schools,
students and graduates of schools of osteopathy, students and
graduates of Canadian medical schools, and graduates of the
Fifth Pathway program.
Changes from Previous Reports
This year, several changes were made to the survey
questionnaire. In previous surveys, applicants were asked to
indicate factors used in selecting programs for application and
to rate the importance in selecting programs for ranking. In the
2015 survey, both questions were expanded. Applicants were
asked about the factors that influenced both application and
ranking choices, and the relative importance of each of those
factors.
Additional attributes were introduced in the 2015 survey.
"Quality of ambulatory care facilities," "overall goodness of
fit," "having friends at the program," and "support network in
the area" were added to the list of factors used in selecting
programs for application. The above four factors and
"interview day experience" were added to the list of factors
used in selecting programs for ranking.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
1
Results
Overall, geographic location, reputation of program, and
perceived goodness of fit topped the list of factors that
applicants considered most when applying to programs.
When ranking programs, the newly added overall goodness
of fit became the number one consideration. Applicants also
valued such factors as career path, future fellowship training
opportunities, housestaff morale, and work/life balance.
Although there was commonality among all applicants,
differences were observed among specialties. For example,
applicants who applied to Family Medicine and Internal
Medicine programs were more interested in future fellowship
training opportunities, but the opportunity to conduct certain
procedures was of more importance to applicants to
Neurological Surgery programs.
The median number of applications submitted by
independent applicants was much higher than for U.S.
seniors, but U.S. seniors obtained more interviews than did
independent applicants. It also is worth noting that even
though matched applicants did not apply to more programs,
they attended more interviews and thus were able to rank
more programs than unmatched applicants. The greatest
number of applications was submitted to Orthopaedic
Surgery, Otolaryngology, Dermatology, Plastic Surgery, and
Neurological Surgery; however, the numbers of interviews
obtained and programs ranked in those specialties were
comparable to other specialties.
The NRMP hopes that program directors, medical school
officials, and applicants find these data useful as they prepare
for and participate in the Match.
_________________________
The NRMP's data reporting and research activities are guided
by its Data Release and Research Committee. NRMP data
and reports can be found at: www.nrmp.org/data/
<http://www.nrmp.org/data/>.
Response Rates
In the 2015 Applicant Survey, 35,713 electronic surveys were sent, and 16,500 complete or partial reponses were
received. After excluding respondents who were withdrawn after the Rank Order List Deadline (62), he overall response
rate was 47.5 percent for the 20 largest preferred specialties detailed in this report, as well as for all specialties combined.
Response rates varied by specialty and applicant type (see table below). Specialties with 50 or fewer responses were
excluded from this report.
Anesthesiology
Child Neurology
Dermatology
Emergency Medicine
Family Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Neurological Surgery
Neurology
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Orthopaedic Surgery
Otolaryngology
Pathology
Pediatrics
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Plastic Surgery
Psychiatry
Radiation Oncology
Radiology-Diagnostic
Surgery-General
All Other
No Preferred Specialty
Total (All specialties)
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
U.S. Seniors
Completed Survey Response
Yes
No
Rate
547
598
47.8%
48
33
59.3%
236
232
50.4%
706
829
46.0%
699
677
50.8%
1740
1822
48.8%
197
153
56.3%
132
118
52.8%
208
208
50.0%
576
558
50.8%
425
453
48.4%
207
157
56.9%
150
139
51.9%
1074
892
54.6%
101
122
45.3%
73
89
45.1%
354
457
43.6%
94
98
49.0%
281
370
43.2%
547
562
49.3%
130
136
48.9%
229
555
29.2%
8754
9258
49.4%
2
Independent Applicants
Completed Survey Response
Yes
No
Rate
303
406
42.7%
30
34
46.9%
49
114
30.1%
284
333
46.0%
1010
1732
36.8%
3061
2920
51.2%
57
62
47.9%
26
61
29.9%
262
243
51.9%
239
281
46.0%
42
110
27.6%
14
30
31.8%
224
229
49.4%
673
606
52.6%
124
209
37.2%
15
14
51.7%
486
686
41.5%
5
31
13.9%
196
246
44.3%
284
497
36.4%
73
87
45.6%
289
303
48.8%
7746
9234
45.6%
All Specialties Combined
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
3
Figure 1
All Specialties
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
87% 4.5
83% 4.2
80% 4.7
70% 4.5
68% 4.4
68% 4.5
64% 4.3
64% 4.4
58% 3.7
57% 4.3
57% 3.9
56% 4.5
56% 4.1
55% 4.1
53% 4.2
53% 4.4
52% 4.1
52% 3.6
52% 3.8
50% 4.2
48% 4.0
43% 4.1
34% 3.9
33% 3.9
33% 4.0
29% 3.8
29% 3.9
28% 3.6
26% 4.2
25% 3.9
24% 3.7
24% 3.4
22% 3.5
21% 3.5
18% 3.7
15% 3.4
15% 3.7
13% 3.7
7% 3.6
5% 3.8
5% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
4
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure 1
All Specialties
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
66% 4.2
60% 4.2
54% 4.6
56% 4.4
50% 4.3
55% 4.5
48% 4.2
54% 4.4
47% 3.8
46% 4.4
33% 3.8
38% 4.4
50% 4.3
42% 4.1
32% 4.1
44% 4.4
44% 4.2
39% 3.8
50% 4.1
47% 4.2
39% 4.0
41% 4.1
29% 3.9
29% 4.0
30% 4.0
24% 4.0
29% 4.1
23% 3.8
29% 4.4
36% 4.0
20% 3.7
23% 3.6
19% 3.7
24% 3.8
32% 3.9
13% 3.6
16% 3.9
24% 4.0
9% 3.7
6% 4.1
5% 4.1
16% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure 2
All Specialties
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
87% 4.8
81% 4.5
80% 4.5
74% 4.6
71% 4.3
66% 4.5
63% 4.6
62% 4.4
62% 4.6
61% 4.3
56% 4.4
49% 4.4
48% 4.2
47% 4.3
47% 4.2
47% 3.8
46% 3.9
45% 4.1
44% 4.2
43% 3.8
42% 4.1
42% 4.2
39% 4.2
29% 3.9
26% 3.9
26% 4.1
26% 3.7
25% 3.9
23% 4.1
22% 4.1
22% 4.0
21% 3.5
20% 3.8
17% 3.6
14% 3.9
13% 3.7
13% 3.9
11% 3.6
8% 3.9
4% 3.8
4% 3.8
4% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
6
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure 2
All Specialties
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
68% 4.7
67% 4.6
58% 4.4
53% 4.4
52% 4.3
52% 4.4
37% 4.5
47% 4.5
49% 4.6
43% 4.3
41% 4.4
41% 4.4
35% 4.2
27% 4.2
37% 4.3
38% 3.9
43% 4.2
25% 3.9
43% 4.4
33% 3.9
31% 4.1
37% 4.3
35% 4.2
24% 4.0
22% 4.1
23% 4.1
19% 3.9
20% 4.1
25% 4.1
27% 4.3
24% 4.2
19% 3.8
13% 3.9
14% 3.8
13% 4.2
17% 3.9
21% 4.1
9% 3.7
17% 4.1
6% 3.9
3% 4.1
5% 4.1
13% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
7
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure 3
All Specialties
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
75%
76%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
53%
69%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
69%
64%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
32%
47%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
23%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
6%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
5%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
12%
17%
2%
6%
0%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
20%
40%
60%
Independent Applicant
8
80%
100%
All Specialties
Figure 4
Median Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
60
54
50
40
30
30
20
16
10
0
12
6
Median number of
applications submitted
6
Median number of
interviews offered
Median number of
interviews attended
Matched
80
70
75
12
6
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
68
60
50
40
30
20
9
10
0
8
2
Median number of
applications submitted
Median number of
interviews offered
2
Median number of
interviews attended
Matched
8
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
9
2
Figure 5
All Specialties
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.2
4.1
3.1
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.3
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.1
1.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
1
3.5
2.8
2.9
2.8
2
3
4
Matched
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.2
3.1
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.8
1.8
Pursue a graduate degree
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
Re-enter the Match next year
1
3.6
3.4
3.3
2.2
2.1
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
4.5
4.4
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
10
5
Figure 6
All Specialties
Applications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks in Preferred Specialty†
Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants
Number of Interviews Attended by Applicants
Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants
Number of Programs Ranked by Applicants
†Self-reported data
The boxes in a boxplot represent the interquartile range (or IQR, which is the range between the 25th and 75th percentiles) and the line in the box
is the median. The upper bound of the whisker is the upper fence, which is 1.5 IQR above the 75% percentile; the lower bound of the whisker is
the lower fence, which is 1.5 IQR below the 25th percentile. The circles and asterisks below and above the whiskers are outliers and extreme
values. Scales in these graphs are adjusted to show a close-up of the boxplots. Some extreme values and outliers are not shown in the graphs.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
11
Figure 7
All Specialties
Applications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks in Preferred Specialty†
By Preferred Specialty
Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants
Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants
AN: Anesthesiology
CN: Child Neurology
DM: Dermatology
MP: Medicine/Pediatrics
EM: Emergency Medicine
FP: Family Medicine
IM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)
NE: Neurology
NS: Neurological Surgery
OB: Obstetrics-Gynecology
OT:
PA:
PD:
PM:
PS:
PY:
RD:
RO:
SG:
Otolaryngology
Pathology
Pediatrics (Categorical)
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Psychiatry (Categorical)
Radiation Oncology
Radiology-Diagnostic
Surgery (Categorical)
†Self-reported data
The boxes in a boxplot represent the interquartile range (or IQR, which is the range between the 25th and 75th percentiles) and the line in the
box is the median. The upper bound of the whisker is the upper fence, which is 1.5 IQR above the 75% percentile; the lower bound of the
whisker is the lower fence, which is 1.5 IQR below the 25th percentile. The circles and asterisks below and above the whiskers are outliers
and extreme values. Scales in these graphs are adjusted to show a close-up of the boxplots. Some extreme values and outliers are not shown
in the graphs.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
12
Figure 7
All Specialties
Applicants' First Choice Specialty†
By Specialty (Cont'd)
Number of Interviews Attended by Applicants
Number of Programs Ranked by Applicants
AN: Anesthesiology
CN: Child Neurology
DM: Dermatology
MP: Medicine/Pediatrics
EM: Emergency Medicine
FP: Family Medicine
IM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)
NE: Neurology
NS: Neurological Surgery
OB: Obstetrics-Gynecology
OS: Orthopedic Surgery
OT: Otolaryngology
PA: Pathology
PD: Pediatrics (Categorical)
PM: Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
PS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)
RD: Radiation Oncology
RO: Radiology-Diagnostic
SG: Surgery (Categorical)
†Self-reported data
The boxes in a boxplot represent the interquartile range (or IQR, which is the range between the 25th and 75th percentiles) and the line in the
box is the median. The upper bound of the whisker is the upper fence, which is 1.5 IQR above the 75% percentile; the lower bound of the
whisker is the lower fence, which is 1.5 IQR below the 25th percentile. The circles and asterisks below and above the whiskers are outliers
and extreme values. Scales in these graphs are adjusted to show a close-up of the boxplots. Some extreme values and outliers are not shown
in the graphs.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
13
Anesthesiology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
14
Figure AN-1
Anesthesiology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
90% 4.6
84% 4.3
79% 4.7
68% 4.5
67% 4.4
67% 4.5
75% 4.4
63% 4.5
56% 3.6
58% 4.3
65% 4.0
58% 4.5
61% 4.1
51% 4.2
53% 4.2
60% 4.3
53% 4.0
59% 3.7
52% 3.9
44% 4.0
43% 3.8
35% 3.7
33% 3.8
29% 3.8
24% 3.9
29% 3.7
35% 3.9
40% 3.7
33% 4.4
15% 3.9
23% 3.5
27% 3.4
24% 3.5
23% 3.5
6% 3.3
33% 3.5
4% 3.5
13% 3.6
14% 3.5
5% 3.5
6% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
15
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure AN-1
Anesthesiology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
72% 4.2
66% 4.2
54% 4.6
53% 4.4
55% 4.3
56% 4.5
55% 4.4
56% 4.3
47% 3.5
46% 4.4
37% 4.0
41% 4.6
52% 4.2
41% 4.1
33% 4.1
46% 4.3
42% 4.2
43% 3.7
52% 4.0
39% 4.1
33% 3.8
27% 3.6
24% 3.8
26% 3.9
21% 3.8
23% 3.8
33% 4.1
35% 3.8
32% 4.5
20% 3.9
16% 3.6
25% 3.7
20% 3.8
17% 3.9
11% 3.6
23% 3.8
8% 4.0
16% 4.0
10% 3.9
5% 3.8
6% 4.1
9% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
16
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure AN-2
Anesthesiology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
89% 4.8
81% 4.5
84% 4.6
74% 4.5
78% 4.4
65% 4.4
63% 4.6
66% 4.4
62% 4.5
76% 4.5
57% 4.4
61% 4.4
52% 4.2
49% 4.3
47% 4.1
48% 3.8
47% 3.8
53% 4.2
54% 4.2
53% 3.8
35% 4.0
35% 4.2
29% 3.9
26% 3.9
29% 3.9
19% 4.1
35% 3.8
24% 3.8
15% 3.9
32% 4.3
26% 4.0
26% 3.5
21% 3.6
19% 3.6
5% 3.6
15% 3.5
2% 3.4
27% 3.5
7% 3.9
5% 3.7
4% 3.4
5% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
17
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure AN-2
Anesthesiology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
68% 4.7
63% 4.5
65% 4.4
52% 4.4
57% 4.3
50% 4.4
44% 4.5
50% 4.4
48% 4.4
47% 4.4
46% 4.3
43% 4.3
38% 4.2
31% 4.2
32% 4.2
38% 3.8
41% 4.1
27% 3.8
47% 4.3
39% 3.8
23% 3.8
27% 4.0
22% 3.9
22% 3.8
22% 3.7
15% 3.9
32% 3.9
18% 4.0
15% 3.6
29% 4.3
28% 4.2
18% 3.7
13% 3.5
15% 3.8
6% 4.1
13% 4.1
5% 3.6
17% 3.7
8% 3.8
7% 3.9
3% 3.6
4% 3.9
8% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
18
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure AN-3
Anesthesiology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
93%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
82%
78%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
61%
67%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
72%
68%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
42%
50%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
34%
9%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
19%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
4%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
3%
13%
7%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
19
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure AN-4
Anesthesiology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
55
50
40
30
31
20
15
10
0
12
4
Median number of
application submitted
Matched
50
40
6
3
Median number of
interviews offered
60
11
Median number of
interviews attended
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
52
40
30
20
8
10
0
8
2
Median number of
application submitted
7
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
2
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
20
Figure AN-5
Anesthesiology
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.4
3.9
4.0
2.5
2.3
2.4
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
3.3
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.1
1.0
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1
2
5.0
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.5
3.5
2.6
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
3.1
2.7
1.4
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.3
3.8
3.7
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
4.7
21
5
Child Neurology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
22
Figure CN-1
Child Neurology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
87% 4.5
83% 4.1
77% 4.4
64% 4.4
77% 4.8
74% 4.5
62% 4.3
66% 4.5
74% 3.6
60% 4.2
53% 4.1
43% 4.5
53% 4.0
51% 3.8
57% 4.2
51% 4.2
43% 4.0
57% 3.8
47% 4.0
45% 4.4
62% 4.1
62% 4.2
32% 4.1
32% 3.8
30% 4.4
28% 3.8
6% 3.0
21% 3.4
9% 4.5
17% 4.5
15% 3.4
23% 3.6
17% 3.7
19% 2.9
9% 3.8
4% 3.5
19% 3.7
11% 3.3
4% 3.5
9% 3.0
2% 5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
23
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure CN-1
Child Neurology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
57% 3.9
73% 4.1
60% 4.7
67% 4.4
60% 4.8
73% 4.7
63% 4.5
80% 4.5
60% 3.9
63% 4.8
33% 4.0
60% 4.4
60% 4.2
43% 4.1
37% 3.9
40% 4.6
57% 4.2
47% 3.6
67% 4.4
63% 4.3
40% 4.3
63% 4.3
33% 3.6
40% 4.1
30% 4.2
20% 3.8
27% 4.0
20% 4.5
13% 4.3
27% 4.5
30% 3.3
20% 3.7
17% 3.6
17% 4.0
13% 3.5
13% 3.8
20% 4.2
33% 4.2
10% 2.7
3% 4.0
0%
10% 3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
24
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure CN-2
Child Neurology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
84% 4.9
82% 4.6
87% 4.2
71% 4.5
71% 4.3
78% 4.6
76% 4.8
78% 4.5
73% 4.6
60% 4.4
78% 4.6
47% 4.1
36% 4.4
47% 4.4
49% 4.2
62% 4.0
56% 4.0
40% 3.9
62% 4.2
56% 3.8
60% 4.1
53% 4.4
60% 4.1
33% 4.1
20% 3.8
24% 3.7
24% 3.5
22% 4.0
33% 4.1
9% 4.0
13% 3.7
31% 3.5
11% 4.0
29% 3.6
18% 4.1
7% 4.3
4% 3.5
7% 2.7
9% 3.8
7% 2.7
7% 3.3
4% 3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
25
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure CN-2
Child Neurology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
80% 4.7
57% 4.4
43% 4.4
57% 4.6
70% 4.2
70% 4.4
47% 4.6
60% 4.6
63% 4.6
57% 4.2
60% 4.4
40% 4.5
37% 4.0
13% 5.0
33% 4.4
47% 4.2
60% 4.5
30% 4.0
40% 4.3
37% 3.9
33% 4.4
47% 4.6
53% 4.4
27% 4.4
20% 4.3
27% 4.4
17% 4.6
20% 4.2
30% 4.6
10% 3.3
13% 4.3
23% 3.7
20% 4.0
17% 3.6
23% 4.1
7% 4.0
10% 4.7
7% 3.5
17% 4.6
3% 5.0
0%
0%
7% 3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
26
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure CN-3
Child Neurology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
95%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
86%
84%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
62%
70%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
66%
66%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
41%
52%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
21%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
5%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
5%
24%
10%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 0%
but did not interview
7%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
27
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure CN-4
Child Neurology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
40
30
20
22
17
12
10
0
Median number of
application submitted
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
50
12
Median number of
interviews attended
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
46
40
30
26
20
10
10
0
7
5
Median number of
application submitted
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
4
Median number of
interviews attended
7
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
28
4
Figure CN-5
Child Neurology
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.7
2.9
3.4
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.8
1.8
Re-enter the Match next year
1.9
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.1
Pursue a graduate degree
1.8
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.2
1
2
3
4
Matched
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.2
2.6
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.4
Pursue non-clinical training
1.2
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
1.4
2.0
1.7
1.9
3.3
2.3
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
29
4.3
1.9
2.1
2.2
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
2.7
3.0
3.8
5
Dermatology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
30
Figure DM-1
Dermatology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
82% 4.5
75% 4.1
72% 4.8
62% 4.5
57% 4.3
62% 4.6
63% 4.4
66% 4.5
56% 3.8
54% 4.3
49% 4.0
49% 4.5
40% 4.1
46% 3.9
49% 4.2
41% 4.1
46% 4.0
45% 3.7
41% 3.8
51% 4.3
39% 3.8
44% 4.0
28% 3.7
29% 4.0
35% 4.1
24% 3.8
30% 4.0
23% 3.7
15% 4.3
26% 4.1
14% 3.4
15% 3.4
15% 3.4
19% 3.7
12% 3.6
7% 3.2
22% 3.8
9% 3.6
6% 3.3
5% 4.2
4% 4.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
31
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure DM-1
Dermatology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
74% 4.4
62% 4.0
72% 4.7
66% 4.5
43% 4.4
62% 4.6
57% 4.2
70% 4.5
43% 3.6
47% 4.5
49% 3.7
49% 4.6
30% 4.0
28% 4.1
40% 4.2
34% 4.1
40% 4.2
38% 3.6
47% 4.0
45% 4.2
36% 4.1
49% 4.1
13% 3.5
23% 4.3
38% 4.1
23% 4.2
34% 4.3
28% 3.9
15% 4.3
23% 3.9
23% 3.8
15% 3.6
21% 4.1
26% 3.9
13% 3.8
13% 4.0
17% 4.1
19% 3.9
11% 3.8
4% 4.0
9% 3.5
2% 5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
32
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure DM-2
Dermatology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
87% 4.8
82% 4.5
79% 4.5
73% 4.5
73% 4.4
75% 4.6
63% 4.6
57% 4.5
70% 4.6
66% 4.5
57% 4.4
42% 4.3
37% 4.0
49% 4.4
50% 4.2
57% 3.8
37% 3.9
46% 4.1
37% 4.0
41% 3.8
46% 3.9
48% 4.3
46% 4.1
36% 3.9
21% 4.0
31% 4.2
22% 3.7
24% 4.0
27% 4.1
12% 4.3
31% 4.1
16% 3.6
14% 3.7
13% 3.7
25% 3.9
14% 4.0
8% 4.0
8% 3.6
5% 4.3
4% 4.0
2% 3.5
4% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
33
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure DM-2
Dermatology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
72% 4.9
70% 4.6
63% 4.3
63% 4.5
44% 4.2
58% 4.4
30% 4.8
42% 4.7
42% 4.8
37% 4.1
40% 4.4
21% 4.4
23% 4.1
28% 4.0
26% 4.4
30% 4.4
37% 3.9
33% 4.2
21% 4.2
30% 3.7
28% 4.7
28% 4.5
40% 4.1
19% 4.0
14% 4.0
21% 4.0
19% 3.6
16% 4.6
14% 4.2
14% 4.7
23% 4.6
16% 4.1
5% 3.5
9% 4.5
14% 4.5
19% 3.6
5% 5.0
9% 4.3
9% 4.8
2% 5.0
0%
7% 4.3
0%
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
34
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure DM-3
Dermatology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
54%
73%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
54%
85%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
74%
52%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
23%
30%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
3%
25%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
8%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
7%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
7%
21%
8%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
35
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure DM-4
60
85
Dermatology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
95
50
40
30
20
10
10
0
9
5
Median number of
application submitted
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
60
56
60
5
Median number of
interviews attended
9
5
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
50
40
30
20
10
0
5
Median number of
application submitted
4
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
2
Median number of
interviews attended
5
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
36
3
Figure DM-5
Dermatology
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.8
3.2
2.7
3.3
3.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.0
2.0
Re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
3.0
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
1.1
the U.S.
1
2.4
4.2
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
2.2
4.1
4.2
2.9
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.7
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.3
1.3
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.9
3.2
3.5
2.2
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
37
5
Emergency Medicine
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
38
Figure EM-1
Emergency Medicine
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
91% 4.5
83% 4.0
82% 4.7
72% 4.5
53% 3.9
67% 4.5
75% 4.4
66% 4.4
41% 3.5
64% 4.3
64% 4.1
56% 4.6
40% 3.6
52% 3.9
54% 4.1
34% 3.9
54% 4.1
58% 3.7
53% 3.8
58% 4.3
53% 3.9
24% 3.7
28% 3.7
30% 4.0
36% 4.0
33% 3.8
36% 3.9
15% 3.8
14% 4.2
26% 3.8
32% 3.8
27% 3.3
22% 3.5
18% 3.5
22% 3.7
26% 3.5
5% 3.7
9% 3.8
9% 3.7
6% 3.9
5% 3.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
39
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure EM-1
Emergency Medicine
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
80% 4.4
67% 4.0
71% 4.7
67% 4.5
41% 4.0
58% 4.5
58% 4.3
62% 4.4
44% 3.5
51% 4.3
45% 3.8
48% 4.4
39% 3.7
36% 3.8
40% 4.1
29% 3.9
49% 4.2
43% 3.8
57% 4.0
52% 4.3
41% 3.8
20% 3.7
31% 3.8
36% 3.9
24% 4.0
30% 3.9
41% 4.3
19% 3.7
20% 4.3
19% 3.9
27% 3.6
33% 3.4
24% 3.7
23% 3.4
21% 3.6
31% 3.3
9% 3.6
19% 3.7
10% 3.8
8% 4.1
3% 4.1
2% 3.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
40
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure EM-2
Emergency Medicine
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
90% 4.8
83% 4.5
83% 4.6
77% 4.5
70% 4.1
69% 4.4
61% 4.5
68% 4.4
62% 4.6
70% 4.4
42% 4.0
28% 4.0
42% 4.0
46% 4.3
50% 4.2
34% 3.6
46% 3.8
52% 4.2
27% 3.7
47% 3.8
44% 4.1
49% 4.3
20% 3.9
23% 3.9
20% 3.8
27% 4.1
12% 3.9
28% 4.0
23% 3.9
11% 4.0
29% 4.1
25% 3.5
25% 3.9
15% 3.6
5% 3.9
12% 3.6
15% 3.8
20% 3.7
5% 3.8
4% 3.7
4% 3.9
3% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
41
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure EM-2
Emergency Medicine
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
80% 4.8
76% 4.5
72% 4.5
64% 4.5
53% 4.1
59% 4.4
48% 4.5
52% 4.5
50% 4.6
54% 4.3
30% 3.9
22% 4.1
26% 3.9
34% 4.2
41% 4.2
35% 3.9
47% 3.9
33% 3.9
25% 4.0
40% 3.7
29% 4.0
39% 4.3
14% 4.0
22% 4.1
19% 4.0
20% 4.1
13% 4.0
27% 3.8
14% 4.1
17% 4.3
34% 4.3
24% 3.5
22% 3.7
15% 3.8
7% 3.6
13% 3.5
13% 4.0
20% 3.5
9% 4.1
3% 3.8
4% 4.4
4% 3.6
2% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
42
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure EM-3
Emergency Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
84%
75%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
76%
80%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
77%
65%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
44%
43%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
26%
6%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
25%
4%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
15%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 0%
but did not interview
5%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
43
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure EM-4
Emergency Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
60
50
40
39
30
19
20
13
10
0
7
Median number of
application submitted
7
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
60
50
50
13
Median number of
interviews attended
6
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
53
40
30
20
9
10
0
8
3
Median number of
application submitted
8
3
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
44
Figure EM-5
Emergency Medicine
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.4
4.5
3.3
2.6
2.6
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.1
1.2
2.0
3.9
3.1
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
2.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
1.5
1.6
1.4
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
Re-enter the Match next year
1
3.5
3.6
2.7
3.1
3.8
2.0
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.5
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
4.6
4.5
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
45
5
Family Medicine
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
46
Figure FP-1
Family Medicine
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
91% 4.6
73% 4.0
83% 4.7
74% 4.6
32% 3.7
72% 4.5
72% 4.4
66% 4.5
49% 3.6
60% 4.3
57% 4.0
56% 4.4
29% 3.6
49% 3.9
57% 4.3
21% 4.0
52% 4.1
48% 3.7
48% 3.8
50% 4.2
63% 4.1
12% 3.9
47% 3.9
29% 3.7
42% 4.2
28% 3.9
49% 4.1
32% 3.6
23% 4.2
36% 4.0
31% 3.9
29% 3.5
29% 3.6
21% 3.5
62% 4.0
24% 3.5
41% 3.9
22% 3.7
7% 3.5
7% 3.9
4% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
47
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure FP-1
Family Medicine
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
66% 4.4
52% 4.1
60% 4.7
56% 4.5
32% 4.1
53% 4.6
52% 4.4
54% 4.5
43% 3.8
46% 4.5
35% 3.9
38% 4.5
29% 4.1
34% 3.9
33% 4.2
22% 4.2
43% 4.2
41% 3.9
47% 4.1
48% 4.2
42% 4.2
22% 3.9
28% 4.1
26% 4.0
31% 4.2
23% 4.2
37% 4.2
23% 3.8
22% 4.4
36% 4.1
25% 3.8
26% 3.8
22% 3.8
20% 3.9
52% 4.1
17% 3.6
23% 4.0
26% 4.1
9% 3.7
10% 4.2
4% 4.0
10% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
48
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure FP-2
Family Medicine
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
89% 4.9
80% 4.6
81% 4.7
76% 4.6
59% 4.2
71% 4.5
57% 4.6
61% 4.4
61% 4.6
66% 4.4
25% 4.0
15% 4.2
40% 4.1
51% 4.5
39% 4.2
36% 3.8
43% 3.9
44% 4.1
20% 3.8
35% 3.8
53% 4.2
42% 4.2
11% 3.7
24% 3.8
38% 4.0
33% 4.2
27% 3.8
24% 4.0
30% 4.1
20% 4.2
39% 4.2
24% 3.6
24% 3.9
21% 3.7
34% 4.0
14% 3.8
48% 4.2
15% 3.7
13% 4.0
3% 4.0
7% 3.9
3% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
49
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure FP-2
Family Medicine
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
70% 4.8
66% 4.6
59% 4.5
54% 4.5
41% 4.3
54% 4.5
37% 4.5
46% 4.5
47% 4.6
45% 4.4
24% 4.2
19% 4.3
25% 4.1
26% 4.4
36% 4.4
32% 4.0
40% 4.2
24% 4.0
20% 4.2
31% 4.0
35% 4.3
36% 4.3
16% 4.1
21% 4.0
20% 4.2
24% 4.2
19% 4.0
20% 4.3
23% 4.1
20% 4.3
31% 4.3
22% 3.9
18% 4.0
15% 3.9
20% 4.2
13% 4.0
37% 4.3
12% 3.9
17% 4.2
7% 4.1
6% 4.2
3% 4.2
6% 4.6
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
50
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure FP-3
Family Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
93%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
71%
79%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
56%
54%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
68%
52%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
26%
34%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
17%
2%
9%
6%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
25%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 1%
but did not interview
9%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
51
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure FP-4
Family Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
40
30
30
20
20
15
0
11
8
10
Median number of
application submitted
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
70
60
7
Median number of
interviews attended
11
8
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
65
54
50
40
30
20
8
10
0
7
1
Median number of
application submitted
1
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
6
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
52
2
Figure FP-5
Family Medicine
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
2.8
2.2
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
1.5
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
1.6
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
3.4
1.8
1.8
2.4
2.3
1.1
1.1
1
3.2
3.1
2.2
Re-enter the Match next year
4.4
4.4
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.3
2.7
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
1.8
Pursue a graduate degree
1.9
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.5
1.5
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
3.3
3.1
4.7
4.5
3.6
3.7
2.5
2.3
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.7
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
53
5
Internal Medicine
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
54
Figure IM-1
Internal Medicine
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
86% 4.5
88% 4.3
80% 4.6
68% 4.5
83% 4.7
70% 4.6
59% 4.2
59% 4.4
46% 3.6
56% 4.2
51% 3.9
61% 4.5
73% 4.4
59% 4.3
53% 4.2
65% 4.5
52% 4.1
49% 3.6
51% 3.9
59% 4.3
46% 4.0
56% 4.3
45% 4.0
28% 3.7
35% 4.0
33% 3.8
18% 3.6
24% 3.6
35% 4.1
28% 3.9
20% 3.7
21% 3.4
18% 3.5
19% 3.5
11% 3.7
11% 3.3
16% 3.8
16% 3.7
7% 3.5
3% 3.7
3% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
55
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure IM-1
Internal Medicine
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
63% 4.2
60% 4.2
49% 4.5
55% 4.3
54% 4.4
56% 4.5
46% 4.2
52% 4.4
47% 3.8
45% 4.4
31% 3.8
36% 4.4
61% 4.4
46% 4.2
31% 4.0
52% 4.4
44% 4.2
38% 3.8
51% 4.2
50% 4.2
38% 4.0
49% 4.1
35% 4.0
28% 3.9
33% 3.9
27% 4.0
28% 4.1
22% 3.8
37% 4.3
40% 3.9
17% 3.7
22% 3.7
18% 3.7
31% 3.8
36% 3.8
10% 3.6
18% 4.0
27% 4.1
10% 3.7
5% 4.1
5% 4.0
22% 4.2
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
56
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure IM-2
Internal Medicine
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
85% 4.8
79% 4.5
78% 4.5
69% 4.6
76% 4.4
57% 4.5
65% 4.6
60% 4.3
60% 4.6
54% 4.3
71% 4.7
61% 4.6
55% 4.4
45% 4.3
46% 4.2
36% 3.7
44% 3.9
39% 4.0
61% 4.4
39% 3.8
38% 4.2
46% 4.3
49% 4.3
24% 3.8
37% 4.0
27% 4.1
21% 3.6
27% 3.9
25% 4.1
28% 4.1
13% 3.8
17% 3.5
17% 3.8
12% 3.7
14% 4.0
12% 3.7
7% 3.9
7% 3.7
10% 4.0
5% 3.8
2% 4.0
3% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
57
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure IM-2
Internal Medicine
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
66% 4.7
68% 4.5
56% 4.3
51% 4.4
56% 4.3
49% 4.4
35% 4.4
46% 4.4
50% 4.5
41% 4.2
46% 4.5
49% 4.5
39% 4.3
27% 4.2
39% 4.3
38% 3.9
44% 4.2
24% 4.0
55% 4.5
33% 3.9
31% 4.1
40% 4.3
44% 4.3
24% 4.0
27% 4.1
25% 4.1
18% 3.9
22% 4.1
28% 4.0
34% 4.3
23% 4.2
18% 3.8
11% 4.0
14% 3.8
15% 4.1
22% 4.0
24% 4.1
7% 3.6
21% 4.2
7% 3.9
3% 4.1
5% 4.2
18% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
58
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure IM-3
Internal Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
91%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
75%
74%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
48%
66%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
71%
63%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
30%
52%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
22%
3%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
10%
5%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
17%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 1%
but did not interview
4%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
59
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure IM-4
Internal Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
39
40
30
29
20
15
10
0
12
3
Median number of
application submitted
100
4
3
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
120
11
Median number of
interviews attended
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
107
88
80
60
40
20
0
9
Median number of
application submitted
8
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
2
Median number of
interviews attended
8
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
60
2
Figure IM-5
Internal Medicine
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.1
2.7
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.1
Re-enter the Match next year
1.4
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.1
1.1
2.6
4.7
3.4
2.9
3.3
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.7
1.5
1
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.1
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.8
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
1.8
Pursue non-clinical training
4.4
4.3
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.2
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.9
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.7
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
61
5
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
62
Figure MP-1
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
90% 4.4
78% 4.0
81% 4.7
73% 4.6
72% 4.4
71% 4.5
71% 4.2
60% 4.3
62% 3.6
63% 4.4
69% 3.9
57% 4.5
46% 4.0
51% 4.0
61% 4.1
45% 4.1
54% 4.0
60% 3.4
56% 3.9
59% 4.4
60% 4.1
29% 4.0
37% 3.9
20% 3.6
45% 4.2
30% 3.8
18% 4.0
13% 3.2
30% 4.0
38% 4.0
46% 4.1
20% 3.3
22% 3.6
28% 3.6
20% 3.7
16% 3.3
32% 4.0
19% 3.5
4% 3.6
5% 3.5
3% 3.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
63
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure MP-1
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
71% 4.4
54% 4.1
55% 4.7
68% 4.4
52% 4.3
55% 4.6
55% 4.2
52% 4.4
54% 3.6
59% 4.4
39% 3.6
55% 4.5
36% 4.2
43% 4.3
36% 3.9
36% 4.2
52% 4.1
41% 4.0
48% 4.2
54% 4.3
41% 4.0
36% 3.8
34% 3.9
30% 4.3
38% 4.2
27% 4.2
32% 4.1
21% 3.7
27% 4.3
39% 4.0
32% 3.9
21% 3.5
25% 3.9
16% 2.9
25% 4.4
18% 3.6
23% 3.8
25% 4.1
11% 3.6
4% 4.5
9% 3.8
7% 5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
64
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure MP-2
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
91% 4.9
87% 4.5
85% 4.4
77% 4.6
69% 4.1
57% 4.4
67% 4.5
75% 4.5
66% 4.6
63% 4.2
67% 4.4
44% 4.1
48% 4.1
51% 4.4
52% 4.1
47% 3.7
47% 3.9
54% 4.0
41% 3.9
45% 3.5
57% 4.3
59% 4.4
27% 4.0
19% 3.7
32% 3.7
43% 4.2
7% 3.4
27% 3.7
34% 4.1
29% 4.0
18% 3.7
17% 3.2
44% 4.1
18% 3.6
33% 3.9
19% 3.8
12% 3.4
9% 3.6
11% 3.6
2% 4.0
2% 4.3
4% 3.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
65
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure MP-2
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
76% 5.0
67% 4.7
59% 4.3
61% 4.6
43% 3.9
54% 4.5
56% 4.6
57% 4.5
48% 4.5
43% 4.0
52% 4.3
39% 4.2
39% 4.0
26% 4.2
28% 4.1
41% 3.6
46% 4.3
30% 3.6
41% 4.1
37% 4.1
46% 3.8
33% 4.3
30% 3.9
33% 3.5
30% 4.2
24% 4.1
19% 3.6
17% 4.0
33% 4.1
26% 4.1
20% 3.9
20% 3.6
24% 4.3
15% 4.4
26% 4.1
17% 3.7
22% 3.9
11% 3.7
15% 3.4
9% 3.6
6% 4.0
4% 4.5
6% 4.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
66
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure MP-3
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
93%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
82%
87%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
59%
70%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
63%
73%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
39%
50%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
31%
19%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
31%
3%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
4%
2%
2%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
67
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure MP-4
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
40
30
24
19
20
15
0
11
9
10
Median number of
application submitted
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
32
31
7
Median number of
interviews attended
11
7
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
30
28
24
20
16
12
10
9
8
4
4
0
Median number of
application submitted
9
3
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
3
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
68
Figure MP-5
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
2.7
2.7
2.7
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
1.8
1.7
1.9
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.1
1.9
1.7
2.1
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.1
1.2
1
4.5
4.4
2.9
3.1
3.1
2.4
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.4
3.5
2.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.3
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1
3.9
3.8
2.2
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.6
Re-enter the Match next year
3.6
2.5
1.3
Pursue non-clinical training
4.4
4.6
2.1
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
69
5
Neurology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
70
Figure NE-1
Neurology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
88% 4.4
87% 4.3
77% 4.6
72% 4.4
80% 4.7
73% 4.6
56% 4.2
71% 4.5
62% 3.7
57% 4.3
61% 3.8
54% 4.5
62% 4.2
55% 4.0
50% 4.2
58% 4.4
55% 3.9
51% 3.6
58% 3.8
52% 4.2
57% 4.3
59% 4.1
35% 4.2
31% 3.8
34% 4.0
30% 3.9
14% 3.4
32% 3.7
15% 4.3
27% 3.9
17% 3.6
22% 3.6
22% 3.5
17% 3.6
7% 3.6
8% 3.2
15% 3.3
13% 3.8
4% 3.2
3% 4.1
4% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
71
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure NE-1
Neurology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
66% 4.2
67% 4.2
51% 4.4
56% 4.3
62% 4.5
58% 4.5
45% 4.1
61% 4.4
49% 3.8
44% 4.5
34% 3.8
39% 4.3
58% 4.3
45% 4.1
29% 4.0
52% 4.4
44% 4.3
45% 3.8
53% 4.1
48% 4.1
41% 4.0
57% 4.1
30% 3.9
29% 4.0
28% 3.9
21% 4.0
24% 4.1
31% 3.8
23% 4.5
32% 3.7
14% 3.9
21% 3.6
18% 4.0
26% 3.5
16% 3.6
9% 3.4
14% 3.9
25% 4.0
10% 3.7
4% 3.7
5% 4.2
20% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
72
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure NE-2
Neurology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
88% 4.8
83% 4.5
80% 4.5
80% 4.5
78% 4.3
77% 4.5
68% 4.5
72% 4.4
63% 4.6
57% 4.3
68% 4.5
57% 4.4
49% 4.2
39% 4.3
51% 4.1
53% 3.9
51% 4.0
49% 4.2
55% 4.1
46% 3.8
52% 4.3
49% 4.2
57% 4.2
31% 3.8
33% 4.0
26% 3.9
35% 3.6
27% 3.9
21% 4.1
16% 4.1
11% 3.5
24% 3.7
16% 3.8
21% 3.6
11% 3.7
10% 4.1
7% 3.9
7% 3.2
7% 4.2
2% 3.7
3% 3.2
4% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
73
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure NE-2
Neurology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
70% 4.7
70% 4.6
59% 4.3
53% 4.5
61% 4.4
58% 4.5
35% 4.4
49% 4.5
53% 4.6
42% 4.3
52% 4.6
44% 4.4
36% 4.3
29% 4.1
37% 4.4
42% 3.8
45% 4.3
29% 3.9
52% 4.4
34% 3.8
33% 4.1
37% 4.3
48% 4.3
26% 4.0
21% 4.0
25% 4.1
25% 3.9
15% 4.1
26% 4.0
23% 4.4
16% 4.1
19% 3.8
8% 4.0
14% 3.8
12% 4.1
16% 3.8
7% 4.1
6% 3.1
19% 4.1
6% 3.9
3% 4.3
3% 4.3
15% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
74
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure NE-3
Neurology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
91%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
73%
76%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
49%
63%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
72%
69%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
33%
59%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
22%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
7%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
6%
19%
13%
3%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
4%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
75
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure NE-4
Neurology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
40
30
24
20
21
17
0
12
9
10
Median number of
application submitted
7
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
60
50
60
Median number of
interviews attended
11
7
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
50
40
30
20
9
10
0
8
2
Median number of
application submitted
7
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
2
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
76
Figure NE-5
Neurology
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.1
2.5
2.0
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
1.5
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.0
Pursue a graduate degree
3.5
1.8
4.5
1.9
1.6
3.5
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
3.5
2.2
3.0
1.1
2.5
1
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.8
3.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.9
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.6
3.4
3.6
3.5
2.2
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
4.4
4.3
77
5
Neurological Surgery
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
78
Figure NS-1
Neurological Surgery
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
77% 4.1
84% 4.2
83% 4.7
77% 4.5
79% 4.6
69% 4.5
52% 4.0
79% 4.6
70% 3.6
68% 4.3
56% 3.7
57% 4.6
45% 3.8
60% 4.1
44% 3.8
51% 4.2
66% 4.3
56% 3.4
56% 3.8
39% 4.1
57% 4.0
69% 4.3
22% 3.8
53% 4.2
27% 3.8
34% 3.9
53% 4.1
32% 3.6
6% 3.6
17% 4.1
24% 3.4
7% 3.3
8% 3.6
25% 3.5
2% 3.7
5% 2.9
4% 2.8
8% 3.7
7% 3.9
2% 2.5
7% 3.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
79
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure NS-1
Neurological Surgery
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
42% 3.9
73% 4.2
54% 4.4
65% 4.1
81% 4.5
62% 4.6
35% 3.9
69% 4.1
69% 3.9
58% 4.2
35% 3.4
42% 3.8
46% 4.1
50% 3.8
15% 4.0
50% 4.4
65% 4.2
35% 3.6
50% 4.3
46% 3.6
31% 3.8
77% 4.8
27% 3.7
46% 4.2
19% 3.4
15% 2.8
50% 4.8
19% 3.4
8% 4.5
27% 3.8
19% 3.8
4% 3.0
4% 5.0
8% 5.0
4% 5.0
4% 4.0
12% 4.3
31% 4.0
8% 3.5
0%
12% 4.7
19% 4.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
80
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure NS-2
Neurological Surgery
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
87% 4.8
77% 4.5
69% 4.3
87% 4.7
70% 4.4
79% 4.6
61% 4.7
61% 4.3
59% 4.5
47% 4.1
64% 4.6
42% 4.5
52% 4.3
34% 4.1
56% 4.4
62% 4.0
38% 4.0
36% 3.9
31% 4.2
42% 3.5
45% 4.1
29% 4.2
66% 4.4
49% 4.2
17% 3.7
20% 4.1
38% 3.9
34% 4.0
14% 4.3
5% 4.7
40% 4.3
8% 3.5
15% 3.7
7% 3.6
3% 4.5
19% 3.8
2% 4.0
9% 3.3
3% 3.8
3% 4.3
0%
6% 4.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
81
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure NS-2
Neurological Surgery
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
62% 4.7
65% 4.5
46% 3.9
69% 4.6
65% 4.3
62% 4.6
38% 4.2
50% 4.5
50% 4.6
31% 3.7
58% 4.7
46% 4.2
42% 4.1
12% 3.3
38% 4.7
46% 3.8
46% 4.3
27% 3.4
31% 4.3
23% 3.4
31% 3.9
19% 4.2
54% 4.7
35% 4.5
8% 4.5
15% 4.3
15% 3.7
4% 5.0
23% 4.5
4% 5.0
35% 4.6
0%
8% 4.0
4% 5.0
0%
4% 5.0
4% 5.0
8% 3.5
15% 4.5
4% 4.0
0%
4% 4.0
19% 4.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
82
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure NS-3
Neurological Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
76%
80%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
40%
76%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
84%
77%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
24%
46%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
16%
9%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
20%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
3%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
2%
20%
4%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
83
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure NS-4
60
Neurological Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
63
53
50
40
30
23
20
16
10
10
0
Median number of
application submitted
9
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
80
80
16
Median number of
interviews attended
9
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
75
70
60
50
40
30
20
9
10
0
Median number of
application submitted
7
3
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
2
Median number of
interviews attended
7
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
84
2
Figure NS-5
Neurological Surgery
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.0
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S.
4.0
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.4
3.3
1.5
1
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.3
3.4
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.1
Pursue a graduate degree
1.5
1.9
2.8
3.9
4.6
2.5
1.8
1.7
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.2
1.4
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
2.4
1.4
1
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
4.7
85
5
Obstetrics and Gynecology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
86
Figure OB-1
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
90% 4.5
84% 4.2
76% 4.7
73% 4.5
73% 4.4
66% 4.5
58% 4.2
62% 4.4
73% 3.8
52% 4.2
57% 3.9
49% 4.5
64% 4.1
62% 4.0
60% 4.2
60% 4.3
50% 4.0
49% 3.5
42% 3.7
52% 4.1
49% 3.9
50% 4.2
30% 3.7
27% 3.8
38% 4.0
24% 3.6
37% 4.0
30% 3.5
23% 4.4
33% 3.9
35% 3.7
22% 3.2
23% 3.3
20% 3.6
21% 3.7
3% 3.2
9% 3.3
9% 3.5
4% 3.5
6% 3.7
6% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
87
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OB-1
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
70% 4.2
54% 4.2
58% 4.6
57% 4.5
41% 4.0
53% 4.6
41% 4.2
47% 4.4
53% 3.8
45% 4.3
31% 3.6
37% 4.3
40% 4.1
39% 4.0
32% 4.0
31% 4.4
44% 4.2
33% 3.9
46% 4.0
46% 4.2
31% 3.8
32% 4.0
23% 3.5
29% 4.0
23% 3.8
20% 4.0
31% 4.3
22% 3.6
21% 4.5
31% 3.7
23% 3.9
20% 3.4
18% 3.5
15% 3.8
43% 3.7
6% 3.2
11% 3.5
16% 3.8
3% 3.2
9% 4.4
6% 4.3
11% 4.6
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
88
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OB-2
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
89% 4.9
85% 4.6
81% 4.5
77% 4.6
71% 4.3
67% 4.4
62% 4.6
61% 4.4
65% 4.6
56% 4.2
61% 4.5
59% 4.4
52% 4.1
56% 4.3
51% 4.1
61% 3.9
44% 3.7
43% 4.0
53% 4.2
40% 3.6
42% 4.0
47% 4.2
45% 4.2
25% 3.9
24% 3.7
32% 4.0
26% 3.6
23% 3.9
32% 4.0
19% 4.3
34% 4.2
19% 3.2
26% 3.8
20% 3.5
9% 3.4
12% 3.8
16% 3.9
1% 3.7
6% 3.7
3% 3.6
5% 3.7
5% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
89
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OB-2
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
73% 4.7
71% 4.5
60% 4.3
58% 4.6
46% 4.2
53% 4.5
38% 4.5
43% 4.6
50% 4.5
38% 4.2
31% 4.0
38% 4.3
34% 4.1
32% 4.2
37% 4.3
43% 3.9
43% 4.1
24% 3.9
34% 4.3
29% 3.9
20% 4.2
37% 4.4
31% 4.2
27% 4.1
12% 3.8
19% 4.1
19% 3.8
17% 4.1
16% 4.2
21% 4.4
30% 4.3
17% 3.6
14% 4.1
13% 3.7
9% 4.2
12% 4.0
29% 3.8
1% 4.3
10% 4.0
3% 3.3
3% 4.0
9% 3.9
7% 4.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
90
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OB-3
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
90%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
75%
77%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
59%
68%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
62%
70%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
38%
54%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
27%
5%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
16%
7%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
15%
2%
6%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
91
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure OB-4
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
40
42
35
30
20
16
10
0
13
10
Median number of
application submitted
8
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
60
50
60
Median number of
interviews attended
12
9
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
50
40
30
20
10
10
0
9
3
Median number of
application submitted
9
3
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
3
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
92
Figure OB-5
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.4
3.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.1
2.8
2.6
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.6
3.7
3.0
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.5
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
4.6
1.1
1.1
1
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
1.5
Pursue a graduate degree
1.5
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.3
3.6
3.8
3.0
3.1
3.5
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.5
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
4.5
4.5
93
5
Orthopaedic Surgery
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
94
Figure OS-1
Orthopaedic Surgery
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
84% 4.3
86% 4.2
80% 4.7
75% 4.7
67% 4.2
68% 4.5
62% 4.2
72% 4.5
67% 3.6
57% 4.3
56% 3.8
55% 4.6
48% 4.1
58% 4.2
51% 3.9
68% 4.6
62% 4.2
56% 3.6
53% 3.7
33% 3.9
30% 3.6
49% 4.0
24% 3.6
36% 3.9
17% 3.7
30% 3.7
44% 4.0
37% 3.7
12% 4.3
16% 3.7
19% 3.4
16% 3.4
14% 3.5
29% 3.6
19% 3.5
10% 3.1
16% 3.3
12% 3.5
8% 3.5
5% 3.9
5% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
95
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OS-1
Orthopaedic Surgery
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
57% 4.0
62% 4.1
52% 4.2
57% 4.3
43% 4.2
57% 4.4
33% 4.1
55% 4.3
26% 3.7
45% 4.3
14% 3.5
40% 4.4
38% 4.2
43% 4.4
21% 4.3
45% 4.4
45% 3.9
33% 3.2
36% 3.8
26% 4.1
26% 3.2
40% 3.7
14% 4.2
19% 4.3
17% 3.6
24% 4.0
29% 4.3
17% 3.4
10% 5.0
21% 4.6
10% 3.0
7% 3.0
14% 3.2
19% 4.1
10% 3.8
5% 3.0
2% 3.0
7% 4.0
2% 3.0
7% 4.7
2% 5.0
14% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
96
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OS-2
Orthopaedic Surgery
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
85% 4.9
75% 4.4
77% 4.4
79% 4.7
73% 4.3
75% 4.5
58% 4.6
56% 4.4
64% 4.5
60% 4.2
52% 4.2
60% 4.6
50% 4.3
43% 4.2
52% 4.3
53% 3.7
46% 3.7
44% 3.9
32% 4.2
45% 3.6
23% 3.8
23% 3.9
44% 3.9
32% 4.1
14% 3.7
12% 3.8
37% 3.8
25% 3.7
12% 4.0
10% 4.2
24% 4.1
13% 3.4
11% 3.4
9% 3.4
12% 3.7
21% 3.6
14% 3.7
5% 3.2
5% 4.0
4% 3.7
4% 3.8
4% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
97
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OS-2
Orthopaedic Surgery
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
70% 4.6
60% 4.5
63% 4.4
70% 4.5
57% 4.5
65% 4.2
40% 4.4
60% 4.3
45% 4.3
35% 4.4
40% 4.3
40% 4.5
45% 4.4
20% 4.4
38% 4.3
18% 4.2
30% 4.7
23% 4.0
33% 4.3
25% 4.6
10% 4.0
13% 4.5
43% 4.3
15% 4.3
13% 3.8
20% 3.9
13% 3.0
23% 3.7
15% 4.3
13% 4.6
25% 4.5
8% 3.5
10% 4.0
13% 3.6
3% 4.0
13% 3.8
10% 4.0
5% 3.0
10% 3.3
3% 3.0
3% 5.0
0%
18% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
98
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OS-3
Orthopaedic Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
89%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
71%
71%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
61%
88%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
82%
60%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
24%
35%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
13%
9%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
26%
10%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
16%
5%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
11%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
99
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure OS-4
60
70
Orthopaedic Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
75
50
40
30
20
15
10
0
12
7
Median number of
application submitted
50
7
6
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
60
12
Median number of
interviews attended
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
54
47
40
30
20
10
0
3
Median number of
application submitted
3
3
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
3
Median number of
interviews attended
3
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
100
3
Figure OS-5
Orthopaedic Surgery
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.3
3.2
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.7
2.5
2.4
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
1.3
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.1
1.1
1
1.7
1.6
1.5
3.0
3.7
3.6
3.8
2.1
2.2
1.8
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
2.9
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.1
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1.9
1
3.6
3.6
3.7
2.6
1.1
Pursue a graduate degree
4.3
2.4
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
101
5
Otolaryngology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
102
Figure OT-1
Otolaryngology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
82% 4.2
76% 4.1
74% 4.7
60% 4.5
70% 4.4
60% 4.4
56% 4.0
66% 4.5
74% 3.6
46% 4.2
51% 3.8
51% 4.6
47% 4.1
52% 3.9
54% 4.0
55% 4.3
47% 4.2
49% 3.6
41% 3.5
36% 4.0
20% 3.8
54% 4.1
18% 3.6
41% 4.1
28% 3.7
23% 3.7
37% 3.9
30% 3.8
7% 4.5
17% 3.9
26% 3.4
16% 3.3
12% 3.5
20% 3.3
4% 3.3
7% 2.9
10% 3.2
8% 3.7
4% 4.0
4% 4.0
5% 4.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
103
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OT-1
Otolaryngology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
67% 4.3
83% 3.8
75% 4.9
75% 3.8
83% 4.3
67% 4.3
42% 3.8
83% 4.2
67% 3.6
42% 4.0
67% 3.4
50% 4.2
67% 4.5
67% 4.0
42% 3.2
100% 4.5
33% 4.3
25% 3.0
42% 3.8
42% 3.8
33% 3.5
92% 4.3
25% 4.3
33% 3.5
25% 4.0
17% 4.0
50% 4.6
33% 3.7
25% 2.5
25% 4.0
58% 3.1
8% 2.0
8% 2.0
17% 2.5
8%
0%
25% 3.7
17% 4.0
8% 5.0
0%
17% 3.0
8% 4.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
104
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OT-2
Otolaryngology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
88% 4.8
80% 4.4
80% 4.4
71% 4.6
68% 4.1
77% 4.4
61% 4.6
53% 4.2
52% 4.3
55% 4.0
53% 4.4
53% 4.3
46% 4.1
49% 4.2
48% 4.4
58% 3.8
38% 3.6
44% 3.8
34% 4.1
45% 3.5
15% 3.7
32% 3.9
50% 4.2
39% 4.0
12% 3.5
20% 3.6
36% 3.6
21% 3.8
18% 3.5
5% 4.2
25% 3.9
12% 3.0
20% 3.3
7% 3.3
8% 3.7
13% 3.4
3% 3.6
4% 2.8
3% 4.0
3% 3.4
3% 4.2
3% 3.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
105
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OT-2
Otolaryngology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
100% 4.9
73% 4.4
64% 4.0
73% 4.3
45% 4.0
64% 4.4
55% 4.5
45% 4.0
55% 4.8
36% 4.3
82% 4.2
73% 4.4
36% 4.0
45% 3.4
36% 4.5
64% 4.0
45% 3.2
36% 4.0
36% 4.3
18% 3.0
45% 3.6
18% 4.0
73% 4.5
27% 3.7
27% 4.0
27% 3.7
18% 3.5
9% 3.0
9% 5.0
9% 5.0
18% 4.0
9% 3.0
45% 3.0
18% 2.5
0%
18% 3.0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
106
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure OT-3
Otolaryngology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
85%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
91%
68%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
64%
86%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
82%
61%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
55%
34%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
9%
16%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
64%
9%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.) 0%
5%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview 0%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
107
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure OT-4
60
67
Otolaryngology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
73
50
40
30
20
15
10
0
12
6
Median number of
application submitted
6
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
100
98
12
Median number of
interviews attended
5
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
84
80
60
40
20
0
10
Median number of
application submitted
8
3
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
3
Median number of
interviews attended
8
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
108
3
Figure OT-5
Otolaryngology
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.4
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.8
2.9
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
2.3
1.7
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.0
3.9
3.1
3.3
3.2
3.3
2.2
1.3
1
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.8
2.4
1.6
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
1.2
the U.S.
1.0
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.0
1.4
Re-enter the Match next year
1
3.4
4.0
2.0
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
3.5
2.6
1.3
2.0
1.7
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
109
4.8
5
Pathology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
110
Figure PA-1
Pathology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
89% 4.5
87% 4.2
79% 4.6
77% 4.3
76% 4.6
71% 4.6
72% 4.3
75% 4.3
62% 3.7
54% 4.2
58% 3.8
58% 4.5
77% 4.3
59% 4.1
52% 4.1
68% 4.5
48% 4.0
56% 3.8
50% 3.9
34% 4.3
53% 4.0
62% 4.0
16% 3.7
35% 4.0
23% 3.9
33% 3.9
16% 3.3
25% 3.4
24% 4.0
15% 3.8
8% 3.5
36% 3.6
26% 3.6
17% 3.2
3% 3.6
8% 3.5
5% 3.1
9% 3.7
6% 3.0
7% 4.4
4% 3.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
111
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PA-1
Pathology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
65% 4.2
60% 4.1
46% 4.5
51% 4.2
59% 4.5
54% 4.6
49% 4.1
61% 4.4
49% 3.6
38% 4.4
27% 3.7
30% 4.3
55% 4.2
47% 4.1
27% 4.1
52% 4.4
39% 4.2
38% 3.6
46% 4.0
33% 4.3
43% 4.0
56% 4.1
15% 3.7
33% 4.1
27% 3.8
24% 4.1
19% 3.8
18% 3.8
21% 4.4
33% 3.8
16% 3.8
20% 3.7
21% 3.9
16% 3.5
11% 3.6
8% 3.7
6% 4.0
22% 4.0
5% 3.7
5% 4.2
5% 3.9
20% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
112
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PA-2
Pathology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
83% 4.8
78% 4.6
80% 4.5
73% 4.4
74% 4.3
76% 4.4
65% 4.5
58% 4.2
57% 4.6
68% 4.4
62% 4.6
62% 4.5
48% 4.1
43% 4.3
36% 4.2
43% 4.0
50% 4.1
45% 4.1
67% 4.4
50% 4.0
41% 4.1
29% 4.3
51% 4.2
34% 4.2
13% 3.5
18% 4.2
25% 3.7
34% 3.8
17% 4.0
26% 4.2
13% 3.8
31% 3.7
6% 4.4
20% 3.8
6% 4.8
9% 3.8
3% 3.6
3% 3.8
8% 4.3
3% 4.6
9% 4.2
3% 4.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
113
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PA-2
Pathology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
67% 4.7
67% 4.5
58% 4.4
51% 4.4
54% 4.3
59% 4.4
29% 4.5
40% 4.4
54% 4.5
43% 4.2
51% 4.5
50% 4.5
38% 4.3
21% 4.1
32% 4.4
39% 4.0
38% 4.3
18% 3.9
48% 4.4
31% 3.9
28% 4.1
31% 4.4
46% 4.2
26% 4.3
10% 3.8
19% 3.9
15% 4.0
21% 4.1
17% 4.1
21% 4.5
13% 4.1
23% 3.7
8% 3.8
17% 3.9
3% 4.0
9% 4.0
6% 4.2
6% 4.1
18% 4.2
3% 3.7
4% 3.9
2% 4.2
20% 4.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
114
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PA-3
Pathology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
91%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
75%
80%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
53%
53%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
61%
57%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
29%
42%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
18%
3%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
7%
7%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
17%
3%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
7%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
115
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure PA-4
Pathology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
40
30
20
22
16
0
11
9
10
2
Median number of
application submitted
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
70
70
10
Median number of
interviews attended
2
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
60
50
50
40
30
20
10
10
0
8
1
Median number of
application submitted
8
2
1
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
116
Figure PA-5
Pathology
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.2
2.5
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.0
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
4.0
1.8
1.0
Pursue a graduate degree
3.0
2.9
3.0
1.8
1.0
5.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
Pursue non-clinical training
1.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
1.1
the U.S. 1.0
1
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.4
2.8
3.4
3.4
3.5
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.4
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
1.9
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.4
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
3.1
2.2
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
117
4.6
5
Pediatrics
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
118
Figure PD-1
Pediatrics
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
91% 4.6
83% 4.1
83% 4.7
69% 4.5
71% 4.4
67% 4.5
66% 4.3
58% 4.4
79% 3.9
53% 4.2
59% 4.0
57% 4.6
58% 4.1
52% 3.9
58% 4.3
56% 4.3
51% 4.0
52% 3.7
60% 3.8
55% 4.3
55% 4.0
34% 4.0
39% 3.9
40% 3.8
33% 4.1
27% 3.8
16% 3.6
29% 3.5
36% 4.1
26% 3.9
29% 3.8
29% 3.4
31% 3.6
23% 3.5
14% 3.6
8% 3.3
18% 3.7
12% 3.7
6% 3.5
6% 3.7
3% 3.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
119
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PD-1
Pediatrics
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
72% 4.3
63% 4.1
59% 4.6
63% 4.4
56% 4.3
60% 4.5
55% 4.2
56% 4.4
61% 3.9
48% 4.4
40% 3.8
41% 4.4
46% 4.1
44% 4.1
37% 4.0
50% 4.3
45% 4.1
42% 3.7
56% 4.1
53% 4.1
48% 4.1
40% 4.0
31% 3.7
30% 3.9
32% 4.0
24% 4.0
29% 4.0
20% 3.6
37% 4.3
39% 4.0
29% 3.8
27% 3.5
24% 3.7
22% 3.8
28% 3.7
9% 3.4
18% 3.8
21% 4.1
7% 3.6
4% 3.8
3% 4.1
14% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
120
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PD-2
Pediatrics
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
88% 4.9
85% 4.6
83% 4.6
75% 4.6
70% 4.2
60% 4.4
68% 4.7
61% 4.3
64% 4.6
65% 4.4
56% 4.4
47% 4.4
43% 4.1
53% 4.4
47% 4.2
66% 4.0
54% 4.0
45% 4.1
46% 4.2
47% 3.8
49% 4.1
47% 4.3
31% 4.0
36% 3.9
27% 4.1
26% 4.2
25% 3.6
23% 4.0
23% 4.1
31% 4.1
12% 3.8
25% 3.5
26% 3.9
24% 3.6
17% 3.8
14% 3.7
10% 3.9
4% 3.6
6% 3.6
3% 3.7
5% 3.8
3% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
121
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PD-2
Pediatrics
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
71% 4.8
73% 4.6
62% 4.4
59% 4.5
54% 4.3
54% 4.5
41% 4.5
50% 4.5
53% 4.6
47% 4.2
42% 4.4
45% 4.5
36% 4.2
26% 4.4
43% 4.2
51% 4.0
48% 4.2
27% 3.9
38% 4.3
35% 3.8
37% 4.2
38% 4.2
34% 4.2
23% 4.0
22% 4.0
23% 4.1
14% 3.7
20% 4.2
26% 4.1
33% 4.2
20% 4.2
22% 3.7
23% 4.0
16% 3.8
16% 4.2
16% 3.9
16% 4.0
3% 3.7
15% 4.1
5% 4.0
2% 3.7
3% 4.3
10% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
122
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PD-3
Pediatrics
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
79%
75%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
58%
68%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
64%
68%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
35%
51%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
25%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
3%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
4%
7%
13%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 1%
but did not interview
5%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
123
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure PD-4
Pediatrics
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
40
30
35
25
20
15
10
0
12
6
Median number of
application submitted
5
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
60
59
60
11
Median number of
interviews attended
7
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
50
40
30
20
11
10
0
9
2
Median number of
application submitted
8
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
2
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
124
Figure PD-5
Pediatrics
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.3
4.5
2.7
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.2
Re-enter the Match next year
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.1
1.1
1.9
3.3
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.9
1
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.6
4.5
3.0
3.7
2.9
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.6
1.7
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
3.2
2.5
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
3.5
2.1
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
125
5
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
126
Figure PM-1
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
88% 4.6
84% 4.2
85% 4.8
71% 4.5
56% 4.3
73% 4.5
80% 4.6
70% 4.5
61% 3.8
73% 4.4
71% 4.3
59% 4.7
63% 3.9
56% 4.0
56% 4.2
57% 4.3
49% 4.1
54% 3.9
58% 3.9
48% 4.1
55% 4.2
44% 3.8
39% 3.9
39% 3.8
42% 4.0
32% 4.0
42% 4.1
57% 3.8
28% 4.2
26% 4.2
17% 3.9
36% 3.9
31% 3.9
21% 3.9
13% 3.7
23% 3.6
25% 3.8
11% 3.7
10% 4.0
9% 4.2
13% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
127
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PM-1
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
69% 4.3
68% 4.0
70% 4.8
57% 4.4
42% 4.3
52% 4.6
63% 4.3
53% 4.5
47% 3.5
49% 4.4
38% 3.9
47% 4.4
50% 4.2
48% 4.0
39% 4.0
51% 4.3
44% 4.0
42% 3.5
49% 4.0
25% 4.0
42% 4.3
42% 4.0
22% 3.7
21% 3.8
24% 3.8
25% 3.9
41% 4.2
40% 3.7
23% 4.4
19% 4.0
14% 3.4
25% 3.4
19% 3.4
16% 3.5
11% 3.5
17% 3.6
13% 3.8
18% 3.9
10% 3.7
5% 4.2
8% 3.9
3% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
128
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PM-2
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
90% 4.8
87% 4.6
85% 4.6
76% 4.6
78% 4.2
69% 4.5
65% 4.6
69% 4.5
70% 4.6
86% 4.5
48% 4.3
60% 4.3
45% 4.3
58% 4.2
54% 4.2
59% 3.8
60% 3.9
61% 4.3
55% 3.9
52% 4.0
59% 4.3
44% 4.3
45% 4.0
48% 3.7
33% 4.1
34% 4.1
61% 3.8
23% 4.0
27% 4.0
35% 4.1
52% 4.0
43% 3.5
12% 3.6
31% 3.7
20% 3.7
17% 3.8
8% 3.3
12% 3.6
6% 4.3
8% 4.4
3% 4.0
6% 3.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
129
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PM-2
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
77% 4.9
71% 4.6
62% 4.4
61% 4.5
68% 4.1
59% 4.6
52% 4.5
61% 4.6
54% 4.7
58% 4.4
38% 4.2
52% 4.4
46% 4.2
28% 4.2
46% 4.1
43% 3.7
47% 4.0
37% 4.0
50% 4.2
44% 3.6
43% 4.3
33% 4.1
34% 4.0
30% 3.8
17% 3.7
19% 3.7
38% 3.5
26% 4.1
18% 3.8
23% 4.2
38% 4.2
22% 3.5
9% 3.4
15% 3.6
15% 4.1
13% 3.6
9% 3.6
17% 3.8
8% 4.2
5% 3.7
4% 4.2
7% 4.0
2% 5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
130
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PM-3
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
91%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
75%
82%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
66%
65%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
73%
70%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
45%
51%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
35%
11%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
9%
9%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
12%
7%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
4%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
131
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure PM-4
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
40
30
30
30
20
17
10
0
12
7
Median number of
application submitted
6
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
40
35
35
12
Median number of
interviews attended
5
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
36
30
25
20
14
15
11
10
5
0
3
Median number of
application submitted
10
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
2
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
132
Figure PM-5
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.1
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.5
1.6
1.6
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.8
2.0
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
3.0
1.9
1.5
1.5
Pursue a graduate degree
4.1
4.1
4.6
2.6
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S. 1.0
1
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.3
4.4
3.6
2.2
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.7
1.2
Pursue a graduate degree
1.5
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.2
1.3
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
4.0
3.1
3.5
1.7
2.1
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.5
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
133
5
Plastic Surgery
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
134
Figure PS-1
Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
77% 4.1
77% 4.5
72% 4.6
68% 4.5
70% 4.6
56% 4.5
54% 4.2
73% 4.5
63% 3.7
56% 4.5
54% 3.9
52% 4.6
37% 4.0
56% 4.3
37% 3.8
58% 4.3
56% 4.3
46% 3.6
35% 3.5
42% 3.9
30% 3.9
56% 4.0
15% 3.9
48% 4.1
21% 3.8
21% 3.8
41% 3.7
27% 3.2
15% 4.5
15% 3.6
32% 3.4
17% 3.5
17% 3.6
14% 3.5
10% 3.1
14% 3.3
11% 3.3
8% 3.4
3% 4.0
3% 3.5
6% 4.5
1.0 2.0
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%30%
20%
10%0%
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
135
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PS-1
Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
40% 4.5
67% 4.2
47% 4.6
33% 4.6
47% 4.7
47% 4.4
20% 3.7
47% 4.9
33% 4.0
40% 4.3
13% 4.5
27% 4.5
20% 4.3
27% 4.3
13% 4.0
40% 4.0
33% 4.6
20% 3.0
47% 4.0
33% 4.0
13% 4.5
40% 4.8
20% 4.7
40% 4.3
27% 3.5
20% 4.0
33% 3.6
0%
13% 4.5
20% 3.7
27% 3.0
13% 3.5
20% 3.7
13% 3.0
0%
13% 4.5
0%
0%
0%
7% 5.0
0%
13% 3.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
136
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PS-2
Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
93% 4.7
77% 4.5
84% 4.3
91% 4.7
83% 4.5
87% 4.7
64% 4.5
72% 4.5
71% 4.5
58% 4.3
70% 4.5
54% 4.4
57% 4.2
35% 4.3
59% 4.4
64% 3.9
43% 3.8
49% 4.3
46% 3.9
46% 3.9
45% 3.6
38% 4.1
65% 3.8
46% 4.1
17% 3.7
19% 3.8
22% 3.7
22% 3.9
17% 3.8
10% 4.4
38% 4.0
12% 3.6
42% 3.7
9% 3.3
9% 3.3
23% 3.7
12% 3.0
4% 4.7
4% 3.3
4% 4.0
3% 3.5
6% 3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
137
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PS-2
Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
67% 4.8
53% 4.8
33% 4.2
60% 4.1
40% 4.5
80% 4.2
47% 4.6
40% 3.8
33% 4.6
20% 4.7
33% 4.8
33% 4.2
20% 4.7
7% 4.0
27% 4.8
20% 4.0
33% 5.0
20% 4.7
27% 4.0
20% 3.3
20% 4.3
27% 4.5
47% 4.3
27% 4.5
13% 5.0
7% 5.0
0%
20% 3.7
20% 4.0
7% 5.0
13% 4.0
13% 3.5
27% 3.8
7% 3.0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7% 3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
138
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PS-3
Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
99%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
67%
83%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
47%
84%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
87%
65%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs 0%
43%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 0%
41%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan 0%
4%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
20%
10%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
7%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
139
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure PS-4
60
61
Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
65
50
40
30
18
20
13
10
0
3
Median number of
application submitted
3
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
50
46
48
13
Median number of
interviews attended
3
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
40
30
20
10
0
5
Median number of
application submitted
5
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
2
Median number of
interviews attended
5
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
140
2
Figure PS-5
Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.1
2.6
3.0
3.4
3.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.3
2.4
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
1.9
1.9
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
3.8
2.2
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
1.1
the U.S. 1.0
1
3.0
3.0
2
3
4
Matched
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
2.3
2.1
3.5
2.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.9
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 1.0
competitive back-up specialty
1.0
Pursue a graduate degree
3.0
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.6
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.0
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.0
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2.8
2.3
2.3
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
141
4.7
5
Psychiatry
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
142
Figure PY-1
Psychiatry
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
88% 4.6
80% 4.1
81% 4.7
71% 4.5
70% 4.4
66% 4.5
73% 4.4
70% 4.4
50% 3.7
62% 4.4
60% 4.0
57% 4.5
63% 4.0
48% 4.0
53% 4.1
46% 4.3
49% 4.0
58% 3.6
55% 3.9
54% 4.4
61% 4.2
38% 4.0
25% 3.9
32% 3.8
40% 4.2
27% 3.8
9% 3.6
48% 3.8
9% 4.2
32% 3.9
14% 3.6
33% 3.4
30% 3.7
20% 3.4
19% 3.7
39% 3.6
18% 3.5
14% 4.0
11% 4.0
6% 3.8
3% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
143
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PY-1
Psychiatry
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
62% 4.3
58% 4.1
58% 4.5
55% 4.4
47% 4.3
55% 4.5
50% 4.3
56% 4.4
41% 3.6
48% 4.4
34% 3.9
37% 4.4
48% 4.1
38% 4.0
32% 4.0
35% 4.2
45% 4.3
39% 3.8
45% 4.0
46% 4.3
42% 4.0
40% 4.0
22% 3.8
27% 3.9
35% 4.1
21% 4.1
14% 4.0
31% 3.9
16% 4.4
41% 4.1
16% 3.8
24% 3.7
21% 3.6
19% 3.8
32% 3.8
21% 3.9
13% 3.8
25% 4.1
10% 3.7
6% 4.2
6% 4.3
14% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
144
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PY-2
Psychiatry
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
89% 4.8
82% 4.6
81% 4.6
74% 4.5
67% 4.3
68% 4.5
62% 4.6
67% 4.5
64% 4.6
73% 4.5
52% 4.5
39% 4.2
39% 4.0
51% 4.3
43% 4.2
38% 3.8
46% 3.9
48% 4.1
44% 4.1
45% 3.8
55% 4.2
47% 4.3
36% 4.1
27% 3.8
17% 4.0
32% 4.2
44% 3.9
22% 4.0
30% 4.2
8% 4.2
7% 3.8
29% 3.6
10% 4.0
23% 3.8
14% 3.8
12% 3.6
13% 3.8
32% 3.8
10% 4.1
6% 4.1
5% 4.0
4% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
145
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PY-2
Psychiatry
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
71% 4.7
70% 4.6
57% 4.5
54% 4.4
52% 4.3
57% 4.4
36% 4.4
48% 4.5
49% 4.6
49% 4.3
39% 4.3
33% 4.1
30% 4.1
28% 4.1
37% 4.3
28% 3.9
44% 4.1
28% 4.0
41% 4.0
33% 3.9
35% 4.1
41% 4.3
33% 4.1
22% 3.9
18% 4.1
28% 4.1
27% 3.9
18% 4.1
30% 4.2
14% 4.4
11% 4.1
19% 3.7
11% 3.7
16% 3.8
9% 4.1
13% 3.7
18% 4.1
17% 3.8
17% 4.2
7% 3.9
4% 4.2
5% 4.1
12% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
146
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure PY-3
Psychiatry
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
93%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
68%
78%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
46%
66%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
67%
63%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
33%
43%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
19%
2%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
8%
4%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
19%
2%
7%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
147
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure PY-4
Psychiatry
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
40
30
20
20
25
13
10
0
10
8
Median number of
application submitted
5
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
60
60
Median number of
interviews attended
9
4
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
55
50
40
30
20
8
10
0
8
2
Median number of
application submitted
7
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
2
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
148
Figure PY-5
Psychiatry
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
1.8
2.0
Re-enter the Match next year
1.9
2.0
1.9
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
1.9
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.1
4.2
3.6
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
1.8
1
2
3
4
Matched
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.5
4.5
3.0
2.9
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.6
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
1.8
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.4
1.5
3.6
3.5
3.3
2.4
2.3
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.7
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
149
5
Radiation Oncology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
150
Figure RD-1
Radiation Oncology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
82% 4.2
77% 4.4
76% 4.7
71% 4.4
74% 4.6
65% 4.7
64% 4.3
71% 4.5
60% 3.6
62% 4.2
44% 3.8
59% 4.4
16% 3.8
59% 4.3
43% 4.1
15% 4.1
53% 3.8
51% 3.7
56% 4.0
29% 4.0
44% 4.2
74% 4.6
34% 3.7
32% 3.9
22% 4.0
36% 3.9
30% 3.6
22% 3.4
14% 4.6
14% 3.8
13% 4.1
19% 3.3
16% 3.5
19% 3.5
7% 3.3
7% 4.0
8% 4.1
13% 4.3
8% 3.7
7% 4.2
4% 3.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
151
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure RD-1
Radiation Oncology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
60% 4.3
40% 4.5
40% 4.5
60% 4.3
100% 4.8
100% 4.6
60% 4.0
60% 4.7
40% 4.5
80% 4.0
40% 4.5
60% 4.3
80% 4.8
40% 4.0
40% 4.5
60% 4.7
60% 4.3
40% 2.5
40% 4.5
20% 3.0
20% 3.0
40% 4.5
60% 3.3
0%
40% 4.0
40% 3.5
0%
40% 3.5
0%
20% 3.0
20% 5.0
40% 3.5
20% 5.0
0%
0%
20% 5.0
0%
40% 4.5
20% 4.0
0%
0%
20% 5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
152
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure RD-2
Radiation Oncology
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
86% 4.7
77% 4.5
79% 4.4
78% 4.5
80% 4.5
79% 4.6
65% 4.5
64% 4.4
57% 4.5
69% 4.3
60% 4.6
12% 4.8
62% 4.4
45% 4.2
45% 4.0
55% 3.8
55% 4.1
38% 4.2
12% 4.3
45% 3.8
36% 4.3
33% 4.0
79% 4.6
35% 3.7
22% 3.8
20% 4.1
22% 3.6
31% 4.1
17% 4.0
21% 4.2
27% 3.9
17% 3.6
10% 4.0
13% 3.5
13% 3.9
10% 4.3
1% 3.0
6% 3.8
8% 3.7
6% 3.6
5% 3.8
5% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
153
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure RD-2
Radiation Oncology
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
40% 5.0
60% 5.0
20% 5.0
40% 4.5
40% 5.0
60% 4.7
20% 3.0
80% 4.3
20% 5.0
20% 5.0
100% 4.6
20% 5.0
60% 4.7
40% 4.5
20% 5.0
20% 4.0
20% 4.0
20% 4.0
40% 5.0
40% 3.5
0%
20% 4.0
40% 4.5
20% 4.0
20% 5.0
20% 4.0
20% 4.0
20% 4.0
20% 3.0
20% 5.0
20% 4.0
40% 4.5
20% 4.0
0%
0%
0%
0%
40% 5.0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
154
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure RD-3
Radiation Oncology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
40%
73%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
60%
80%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
60%
63%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
40%
45%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
40%
21%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
20%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
5%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
6%
20%
60%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
155
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure RD-4
60
60
Radiation Oncology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
64
50
40
30
20
15
10
0
13
6
Median number of
application submitted
Median number of
interviews offered
35
Median number of
interviews attended
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
41
40
6
5
Matched
45
13
32
30
25
20
15
10
4
5
0
4
1
Median number of
application submitted
4
1
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
6
156
Figure RD-5
Radiation Oncology
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.9
3.4
3.2
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.5
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S. 1.0
1.6
1.8
1
3.8
2.0
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
4.3
3.8
2.2
2.0
Re-enter the Match next year
4.8
2.5
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
4.8
1.0
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
4.3
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 1.0
competitive back-up specialty
1.0
Pursue a graduate degree
1.0
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S.
1.0
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.0
1.0
Re-enter the Match next year
1.0
1
3.5
3.3
1.7
2.7
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
157
5
5.0
5.0
5.0
Radiology-Diagnostic
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
158
Figure RO-1
Radiology-Diagnostic
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
89% 4.5
85% 4.3
75% 4.7
63% 4.5
71% 4.5
67% 4.6
70% 4.4
62% 4.5
63% 3.7
53% 4.4
58% 4.0
47% 4.5
68% 4.2
50% 4.2
53% 4.2
65% 4.4
48% 3.9
56% 3.8
56% 3.8
38% 4.0
43% 3.9
48% 4.0
26% 4.0
34% 4.0
25% 3.9
21% 3.7
30% 4.0
41% 3.7
25% 4.3
16% 3.7
11% 3.1
30% 3.4
32% 3.6
20% 3.6
9% 3.2
31% 3.6
6% 3.5
9% 3.4
7% 3.6
6% 3.4
6% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
159
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure RO-1
Radiology-Diagnostic
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
74% 4.3
69% 4.2
56% 4.6
57% 4.2
58% 4.3
56% 4.5
55% 4.2
59% 4.3
52% 3.7
50% 4.3
34% 4.0
38% 4.4
57% 4.3
41% 4.3
36% 3.9
51% 4.5
44% 4.0
45% 3.9
60% 4.1
36% 3.9
29% 3.9
39% 3.8
25% 3.9
32% 4.1
25% 3.7
19% 3.8
31% 4.2
32% 3.6
28% 4.5
25% 4.0
16% 3.6
24% 3.7
24% 3.7
23% 3.5
14% 3.7
23% 3.6
6% 4.1
18% 4.2
9% 3.3
6% 3.7
6% 4.1
16% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
160
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure RO-2
Radiology-Diagnostic
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
85% 4.7
80% 4.5
83% 4.6
71% 4.5
77% 4.4
66% 4.4
54% 4.6
59% 4.3
59% 4.6
67% 4.3
62% 4.4
61% 4.4
46% 4.2
43% 4.4
46% 4.3
59% 4.0
52% 3.9
51% 4.1
53% 4.3
51% 3.9
37% 3.9
36% 4.0
42% 4.1
33% 4.0
19% 3.9
19% 4.1
35% 3.9
22% 3.9
17% 4.0
25% 4.4
31% 4.1
24% 3.6
8% 3.5
23% 3.6
5% 3.9
11% 3.8
6% 3.3
29% 3.7
7% 3.6
5% 4.0
5% 3.8
5% 3.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
161
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure RO-2
Radiology-Diagnostic
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
75% 4.7
73% 4.5
68% 4.5
58% 4.3
59% 4.3
59% 4.4
39% 4.5
48% 4.4
49% 4.5
54% 4.4
46% 4.5
50% 4.3
42% 4.3
30% 4.1
41% 4.3
45% 3.8
50% 4.1
36% 4.1
45% 4.3
42% 4.1
24% 3.8
34% 4.2
38% 4.1
26% 4.2
18% 3.9
16% 4.3
29% 3.8
17% 4.2
17% 4.0
28% 4.4
25% 4.2
28% 3.9
10% 3.5
17% 4.0
6% 4.0
16% 3.8
10% 3.6
22% 3.9
11% 4.1
5% 3.7
4% 3.4
4% 3.9
14% 4.6
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
162
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure RO-3
Radiology-Diagnostic
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
90%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
81%
78%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
61%
58%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
69%
73%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
46%
56%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
35%
7%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
17%
6%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
12%
4%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
9%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
163
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure RO-4
Radiology-Diagnostic
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
50
40
40
40
30
25
20
15
10
0
6
Median number of
application submitted
5
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
60
15
Median number of
interviews attended
5
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
56
50
40
30
27
20
12
10
0
10
2
Median number of
application submitted
10
2
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
Median number of
interviews attended
2
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
164
Figure RO-5
Radiology-Diagnostic
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
1.5
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.0
1
2.0
2.3
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
3.6
2.3
1.8
1.8
3.7
3.2
2.6
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
4.1
4.3
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.4
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2.7
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.7
2
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
165
4.6
1.9
Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
4.2
5
Surgery-General
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
166
Figure SG-1
Surgery-General
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
84% 4.3
83% 4.1
79% 4.6
69% 4.5
69% 4.3
66% 4.4
45% 4.0
66% 4.4
55% 3.6
59% 4.2
52% 3.8
59% 4.5
58% 4.1
67% 4.3
47% 4.1
65% 4.5
57% 4.2
46% 3.4
49% 3.7
46% 4.1
41% 3.8
60% 4.1
27% 3.6
38% 4.0
27% 3.9
27% 3.6
34% 3.9
17% 3.4
44% 4.1
22% 3.9
25% 3.6
17% 3.3
16% 3.4
17% 3.5
23% 3.7
10% 3.5
5% 3.6
11% 3.9
8% 3.4
5% 3.6
7% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
167
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure SG-1
Surgery-General
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
64% 4.1
58% 4.2
55% 4.7
58% 4.4
47% 4.1
51% 4.6
38% 3.9
56% 4.4
49% 3.8
50% 4.5
31% 3.7
40% 4.5
44% 4.4
46% 4.3
28% 4.1
44% 4.4
42% 4.2
34% 3.6
51% 4.1
36% 4.2
34% 3.9
44% 3.9
23% 4.2
37% 4.2
20% 3.9
26% 3.8
28% 4.2
11% 3.7
29% 4.4
29% 4.0
19% 3.9
15% 3.4
12% 3.5
16% 3.7
34% 3.7
5% 3.7
10% 3.9
19% 3.8
5% 3.5
5% 4.6
4% 4.0
14% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Geographic location
Reputation of program
Perceived goodness of fit
Quality of residents in program
Academic medical center program
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Quality of faculty
Size of program
Quality of program director
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff morale
Future fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Preparation for fellowship training
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of living
Quality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problems
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseload
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staff
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Call schedule
ABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
Opportunity for international experience
Salary
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
168
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure SG-2
Surgery-General
Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
88% 4.8
82% 4.5
76% 4.4
76% 4.6
71% 4.3
67% 4.4
67% 4.6
63% 4.4
61% 4.4
42% 4.1
61% 4.3
61% 4.5
61% 4.4
44% 4.3
52% 4.3
44% 3.7
44% 3.7
39% 4.0
45% 4.2
39% 3.6
36% 4.0
35% 4.1
54% 4.2
30% 4.1
19% 3.7
20% 4.0
13% 3.7
20% 3.7
20% 4.0
37% 4.1
22% 4.0
16% 3.3
19% 3.8
10% 3.3
3% 3.6
11% 3.8
17% 4.0
6% 3.3
4% 3.8
6% 3.5
4% 3.6
6% 4.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
169
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure SG-2
Surgery-General
Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor
Average Rating
63% 4.8
59% 4.5
58% 4.2
59% 4.5
50% 4.4
48% 4.5
41% 4.5
48% 4.4
50% 4.5
30% 4.1
38% 4.4
44% 4.5
38% 4.3
25% 4.1
39% 4.3
41% 3.9
45% 4.2
25% 3.7
34% 4.4
27% 3.8
26% 4.2
30% 4.3
35% 4.1
30% 4.4
16% 4.1
17% 4.0
8% 3.7
24% 3.9
21% 4.1
27% 4.4
24% 4.2
14% 3.8
13% 4.0
7% 3.5
8% 4.3
12% 3.7
18% 3.9
3% 3.7
10% 4.3
2% 3.4
2% 4.3
5% 4.2
9% 4.2
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0
Overall goodness of fit
Interview day experience
Geographic location
Quality of residents in program
Reputation of program
Quality of faculty
House staff morale
Quality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balance
Academic medical center program
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Support network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**
Size of program
Quality of hospital facilities
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunities
Cost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Diversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct research
Size of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call schedule
Quality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Salary
Opportunity for international experience
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilities
Having friends at the program
Community-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Alternative duty hours in program
Other Benefits
Presence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
170
3.0
4.0
5.0
Figure SG-3
Surgery-General
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
93%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
79%
77%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
60%
66%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
71%
67%
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
37%
55%
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)
in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"
26%
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative
specialty as a "fall-back" plan
6%
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of
matching (most likely first, etc.)
6%
I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied
but did not interview
17%
16%
2%
12%
0%
20%
U.S. Senior
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
171
40%
60%
80%
100%
Independent Applicant
Figure SG-4
Surgery-General
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors
60
51
50
40
42
30
18
20
13
10
0
7
Median number of
application submitted
7
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
100
80
13
Median number of
interviews attended
7
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
90
80
60
40
20
0
9
Median number of
application submitted
8
3
Median number of
interviews offered
Matched
3
Median number of
interviews attended
8
Median number of
programs ranked
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
172
4
Figure SG-5
Surgery-General
Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.3
Re-enter the Match next year
1.9
1.4
3.8
3.8
2.9
2.5
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.7
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
2.7
4.4
4.3
1.1
1.0
1
2
3
Matched
4
5
Not Matched
Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position
and re-enter the Match next year
3.0
3.2
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less
competitive back-up specialty
2.5
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
1.3
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside
the U.S.
1.3
1.2
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
4.0
4.1
2.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.5
Re-enter the Match next year
1
2
Matched
3
4
Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
4.6
4.5
173
5