2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending

Results of the 2009NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type

www.nrmp.org

January 2010

mliang

Text Box

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.

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 Julia Raether, Director of Research, NRMP, at [email protected].

Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, Executive Director, NRMP,

at [email protected].

Suggested Citation National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2009 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident

Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2010.

Copyright ©2010 National Resident Matching Program.

Table of Contents

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................1

All Specialties ...................................................................................................................................................2

Charts for Individual Specialties Anesthesiology ............................................................................................................................................9 Dermatology..............................................................................................................................................16 Diagnostic Radiology ................................................................................................................................23 Emergency Medicine.................................................................................................................................30 Family Medicine........................................................................................................................................37 General Surgery.........................................................................................................................................44 Internal Medicine.......................................................................................................................................51 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics......................................................................................................................58 Neurology..................................................................................................................................................65 Obstetrics and Gynecology .......................................................................................................................72 Orthopaedic Surgery..................................................................................................................................79 Otolaryngology..........................................................................................................................................86 Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical .............................................................................................................93 Pediatrics .................................................................................................................................................100 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation .....................................................................................................107 Plastic Surgery.........................................................................................................................................114 Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................121 Radiation Oncology.................................................................................................................................128 Transitional Year .....................................................................................................................................135

No Ye s No Ye s

An e s th e s io lo g y Coun t 664 530 335 200

P erc en t 5 5 .6% 44 .4% 62 .6% 37 .4%

D e rm a to lo g y Coun t 213 198 112 44

P erc en t 5 1 .8% 48 .2% 71 .8% 28 .2%

D ia g n o s tic R a d io lo g y Coun t 608 478 242 149

P erc en t 5 6 .0% 44 .0% 61 .9% 38 .1%

E m e rg e n cy Me d ic in e Coun t 681 564 362 210

P erc en t 5 4 .7% 45 .3% 63 .3% 36 .7%

Fa m ily Me d ic in e Coun t 526 537 1342 897

P erc en t 4 9 .5% 50 .5% 59 .9% 40 .1%

G e n e ra l S u rg e ry Coun t 680 505 642 324

P erc en t 5 7 .4% 42 .6% 66 .5% 33 .5%

In te rn a l Me d ic in e Coun t 1662 1347 2746 2296

P erc en t 5 5 .2% 44 .8% 54 .5% 45 .5%

In te rn a l Me d ic in e /P e d ia tr ics Coun t 103 149 64 77

P erc en t 4 0 .9% 59 .1% 45 .4% 54 .6%

N e u ro lo g y Coun t 159 157 210 178

P erc en t 5 0 .3% 49 .7% 54 .1% 45 .9%

O b s te tr ics a n d G yn e co lo g y Coun t 422 519 359 296

P erc en t 4 4 .8% 55 .2% 54 .8% 45 .2%

O rth o p a e d ic S u rg e ry Coun t 415 329 114 65

P erc en t 5 5 .8% 44 .2% 63 .7% 36 .3%

O to la ryn g o lo g y Coun t 153 173 36 11

P erc en t 4 6 .9% 53 .1% 76 .6% 23 .4%

P a th o lo g y-An a to m ic a n d C l in ica l Coun t 169 167 209 163

P erc en t 5 0 .3% 49 .7% 56 .2% 43 .8%

P e d ia trics Coun t 809 914 545 529

P erc en t 4 7 .0% 53 .0% 50 .7% 49 .3%

P h ys ica l Me d ic in e a n d R e h a b i l i ta tio n Coun t 92 79 195 113

P erc en t 5 3 .8% 46 .2% 63 .3% 36 .7%

P la s tic S u rg e ry Coun t 92 71 22 7

P erc en t 5 6 .4% 43 .6% 75 .9% 24 .1%

P s ych ia try Coun t 374 307 491 391

P erc en t 5 4 .9% 45 .1% 55 .7% 44 .3%

R a d ia tio n O n co lo g y Coun t 75 80 17 7

P erc en t 4 8 .4% 51 .6% 70 .8% 29 .2%

Tra n s itio n a l Ye a r Coun t 188 73 42 22

P erc en t 7 2 .0% 28 .0% 65 .6% 34 .4%

Tota l C o u n t 8085 7177 8085 5979

P er cen t 53 .0% 47 .0% 57 .5% 42 .5%

U.S . S e n ior s In d e p e n d e n t A p p lican ts

Com ple te d S urve y C o m p le te d S u r ve y

IntroductionThe National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted a survey of all applicants who participated in the 2009 Main Residency Match and who submitted rank order lists of programs.

The primary purpose of the survey was to shed light on the factors that applicants weigh in selecting programs (1) at which to interview and (2) to rank for the Match. The survey was fielded during the 19 days between the rank order list deadline and Match Week so that applicant match outcomes would not influence respondents' answers.

This report presents survey results by preferred specialty and applicant type. Preferred specialty is defined as the specialty listed first on an applicant's rank order list of programs. Applicant type includes U.S. allopathic seniors and independent applicants. Independent applicants include prior allopathic

graduates, both U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen graduates of international medical schools, graduates of schools of osteopathy, graduates of Canadian medical schools, and graduates of the Fifth Pathway program.

The overall response rate for the 19 largest preferred specialties detailed in this report was 44.9 percent and varied by specialty and applicant type (see table below). The NRMP hopes that program directors, 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/.

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 1

All Specialties Combined


All SpecialtiesMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

Figure 1

3

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Quality of clinical training

Faculty commitment to resident education

Quality of faculty

Quality of residents in program

Housestaff morale

Quality of educational curriculum

Geographic location

Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care

Work/life balance

Diversity of patient problems

Program director qualities

Academic reputation of program

Quality of conference/didactic training

Quality of hospital facility

Academic setting

Career paths of recent program graduates

Size of patient caseload

Preparation for fellowship training

Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests

Opportunities to perform specific procedures

4.5

4.5

4.3

4.2

4.1

4.3

3.8

4.1

3.9

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.0

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.9

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.5

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.1

4.1

4.0

3.9

4.0

4.0

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.6

Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors


*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.

5,979 7,177U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants

All SpecialtiesMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)

Figure 1

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Future fellowship training opportunities with institution

Social and recreational opportunities of the area

Quality of ancillary support staff

Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program

Opportunity to conduct research

Availability of electronic health records

Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location

Opportunities for training in systems-based practice

Vacation/parental/sick leave

Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff

Community-based setting

Salary

Match violation

H-1B visa sponsorship

Opportunity for international travel

Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities

Other Benefits

3.9

3.4

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.3

3.2

3.5

3.1

3.3

3.2

3.0

3.1

3.4

2.6

2.7

3.1

3.6

4.0

3.6

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.2

3.3

3.2

2.9

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

1.7

2.8

2.6

2.9


NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 4Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.

*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).5,979 7,177

U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants

Figure 2All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






56.9%

46.3%

43.7%

41.7%

33.1%

51.7%

46.7%

43.6%

38.3%

44.3%

37.3%

62.4%

43.8%

50.3%

52.8%

38.4%

37.4%

40.2%

40.4%

37.3%

56.0%

35.8%

39.2%

40.6%

30.0%

48.9%

57.2%

36.2%

39.0%

40.4%

27.0%

72.4%

35.0%

44.7%

59.6%

34.0%

29.3%

35.7%

35.8%

25.7%


NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 5Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.


0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

49.4%

29.9%

27.6%

39.9%

34.3%

34.2%

45.5%

39.0%

27.6%

30.5%

30.3%

26.4%

31.3%

39.8%

26.3%

21.4%

22.6%

22.0%

21.2%

23.6%

46.1%

37.7%

19.0%

29.5%

29.7%

33.2%

45.5%

31.4%

21.3%

26.0%

13.0%

18.5%

16.6%

29.1%

16.6%

13.7%

2.4%

20.6%

14.4%

14.9%


Figure 2

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009

All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)

6Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.


All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

Figure 3

0% 50% 100%

I ranked programs in the order of my preferences

I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching

I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs

I ranked all programs at which I interviewed

I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan

I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview

96.1%

38.0%

70.4%

74.1%

87.0%

30.9%

27.1%

11.9%

98.5%

12.0%

86.1%

54.6%

95.4%

49.1%

10.4%

3.7%




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

42.0

8.0 7.0 6.0

50.0

2.0 2.0 2.0

Median number ofapplications submitted

Median number ofinterviews offered

Median number ofinterviews attended

Median number of programsranked

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants

All SpecialtiesMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

Figure 4

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

22.0

14.010.0 9.0

35.0

7.0 6.0 6.0


Median number of interviewsoffered

Median number of interviewsattended


Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

3,0083 008

2,9712 971

IndNot MatchedMatched

6,6356 635

542542

U.Not MatchedMatched

Anesthesiology


Figure A-1 AnesthesiologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.6

4.4

4.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.0

4.1

4.0

3.9

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.1

3.9

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.4

3.9

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.5

4.6

4.3

4.5

4.2

4.5

4.1

4.2

4.1

3.9

3.9

3.9

4.0

4.0

3.9

3.6

4.0



200 530U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants


1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.7

3.5

3.4

3.9

3.7

3.4

3.3

3.0

3.1

2.9

3.3

3.1

2.9

2.8

2.9

2.7

2.8

2.3

2.9

3.1

3.7

4.1

3.5

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.4

2.8

3.3

3.0

3.0

3.1

2.7

2.4

2.9

2.8

1.7

2.6

2.9

3.1


Figure A-1 AnesthesiologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






52.0%

42.5%

40.0%

39.5%

35.5%

47.5%

52.5%

39.5%

39.0%

40.0%

38.0%

60.0%

40.5%

48.5%

49.0%

32.5%

38.5%

37.5%

34.5%

37.5%

54.3%

32.5%

36.2%

36.2%

28.9%

44.0%

53.2%

32.1%

38.1%

34.0%

26.2%

71.3%

32.3%

42.6%

56.0%

27.0%

33.4%

31.3%

26.8%

28.9%


Figure A-2 AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type

Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.



0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

41.5%

35.5%

25.5%

42.0%

34.5%

39.0%

41.0%

32.0%

23.0%

25.5%

23.5%

23.0%

24.0%

28.0%

22.5%

19.5%

12.5%

18.5%

21.0%

20.5%

46.8%

36.2%

17.9%

34.0%

28.7%

33.4%

39.2%

21.5%

18.5%

20.2%

12.3%

16.0%

12.6%

21.1%

16.8%

17.4%

1.9%

15.1%

17.7%

14.9%


Figure A-2 AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%








I ranked one or more programs where I appliedbut did not interview

96.4%

27.5%

78.5%

73.3%

91.8%

34.9%

30.4%

11.5%

98.9%

13.2%

89.4%

60.7%

96.2%

57.8%

14.9%

7.4%


Figure A-3 AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure A-4 AnesthesiologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

35.0

7.0 7.0 7.0

48.5

3.0 3.0 3.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

24.0

15.011.0 10.0

32.0

5.0 4.5 4.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

117117

8383


502502

2828



Dermatology


Figure D-1 DermatologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.5

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.2

4.3

3.9

4.0

3.9

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.0

3.9

4.2

3.7

3.8

3.6

3.6

3.8

4.7

4.6

4.6

4.4

4.5

4.4

4.4

4.2

4.3

4.3

4.1

4.1

4.2

3.8

4.0

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.6

3.8





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.4

3.2

3.2

3.4

3.4

2.9

3.5

3.2

2.6

3.3

2.8

2.6

2.7

1.9

2.2

2.3

2.5

3.6

4.0

3.5

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.6

3.3

3.1

3.3

2.8

2.7

2.7

2.5

2.5

2.5

1.6

2.6

2.2

2.6


Figure D-1 DermatologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






34.1%

27.3%

25.0%

22.7%

25.0%

34.1%

27.3%

27.3%

20.5%

27.3%

25.0%

40.9%

27.3%

29.5%

34.1%

27.3%

18.2%

20.5%

22.7%

22.7%

38.9%

29.8%

34.3%

31.3%

23.7%

35.4%

34.8%

26.3%

24.2%

32.8%

21.7%

54.0%

29.3%

34.8%

47.0%

21.2%

21.7%

23.2%

27.8%

21.2%


Figure D-2 DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

18.2%

18.2%

18.2%

20.5%

13.6%

11.4%

27.3%

22.7%

20.5%

11.4%

15.9%

6.8%

15.9%

18.2%

11.4%

11.4%

4.5%

15.9%

11.4%

9.1%

32.8%

23.7%

14.1%

22.7%

17.7%

21.2%

38.9%

25.8%

15.2%

19.2%

10.6%

11.1%

12.1%

12.6%

8.6%

7.6%

2.0%

13.6%

7.6%

6.6%


Figure D-2 DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









97.6%

32.5%

65.0%

80.5%

90.2%

35.9%

30.0%

23.1%

95.4%

12.0%

86.1%

82.0%

95.9%

48.4%

37.4%

8.3%


Figure D-3 DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure D-4 DermatologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10.0

2.0 2.04.0

40.0

1.0 1.0 1.5





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

66.0

11.0 9.0 9.0

75.0

5.0 5.0 4.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

1515

2929


150150

4848



Diagnostic Radiology


Figure DR-1 Diagnostic RadiologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.4

4.4

4.3

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.0

4.1

3.8

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

3.8

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.5

3.8

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.6

4.1

4.4

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.1

4.0

3.9

4.0

4.0

4.1

3.6

3.7





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.7

3.6

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.6

3.0

3.3

3.2

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.8

3.1

2.1

3.0

3.1

3.6

4.0

3.4

3.8

3.8

3.5

3.5

3.2

3.6

3.0

2.8

3.2

2.6

2.6

2.8

2.5

1.7

2.0

3.2

3.1


Figure DR-1 Diagnostic RadiologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






52.3%

45.6%

47.0%

43.0%

35.6%

49.7%

47.0%

38.9%

36.2%

40.3%

39.6%

65.1%

46.3%

49.0%

53.0%

36.2%

36.2%

37.6%

39.6%

34.9%

47.7%

34.9%

38.5%

37.0%

29.1%

43.1%

52.7%

31.8%

37.7%

32.6%

26.2%

66.7%

35.6%

44.8%

55.0%

31.0%

29.9%

34.1%

30.3%

26.6%


Figure DR-2 Diagnostic RadiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

49.0%

29.5%

30.9%

36.2%

38.3%

34.2%

45.6%

36.2%

29.5%

26.8%

26.8%

24.2%

26.2%

32.2%

23.5%

22.1%

20.8%

20.1%

24.2%

21.5%

43.5%

36.4%

19.5%

30.3%

30.5%

34.9%

44.4%

33.9%

22.0%

22.8%

13.8%

18.8%

14.2%

29.1%

16.5%

15.1%

3.6%

9.0%

21.8%

15.9%


Figure DR-2 Diagnostic RadiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









97.9%

30.9%

82.3%

71.5%

88.8%

48.2%

38.4%

18.7%

98.3%

10.6%

91.8%

71.8%

95.8%

61.0%

22.5%

7.2%


Figure DR-3 Diagnostic RadiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure DR-4 Diagnostic RadiologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

50.0

8.0 8.0 8.0

41.0

2.0 2.0 3.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

36.0

15.012.0 12.0

41.0

6.5 6.0 6.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

5858

9191


426426

5252



Emergency Medicine


Figure EM-1 Emergency MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.6

4.6

4.4

4.4

4.2

4.2

4.4

4.2

4.3

4.3

4.3

4.0

4.0

4.1

3.5

3.5

3.9

3.1

3.7

4.1

4.7

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.3

4.6

4.2

4.5

4.4

4.3

4.0

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.1

3.8

3.9





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.1

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.4

3.4

3.1

2.7

3.2

3.0

3.1

3.1

2.8

3.0

2.9

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.9

3.0

3.0

4.1

3.6

3.5

3.2

3.5

2.9

2.7

3.2

3.2

2.7

3.0

2.9

2.9

2.7

2.6

1.6

3.2

2.9

2.8


Figure EM-1 Emergency MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






43.8%

30.0%

29.5%

31.0%

21.9%

39.0%

41.0%

30.5%

33.8%

35.2%

25.7%

49.0%

26.7%

40.5%

36.2%

21.0%

26.2%

16.2%

29.0%

28.1%

60.6%

40.2%

43.3%

44.7%

32.1%

55.3%

60.6%

43.1%

44.0%

50.5%

30.5%

72.0%

36.5%

48.0%

53.5%

32.8%

33.3%

22.3%

43.6%

32.3%


Figure EM-2 Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

26.7%

24.8%

16.2%

22.9%

16.7%

25.2%

33.3%

16.2%

18.1%

13.8%

11.0%

15.7%

13.8%

22.9%

17.6%

9.0%

3.8%

20.5%

14.3%

15.2%

30.9%

42.9%

20.2%

28.9%

22.0%

35.1%

36.3%

23.6%

23.6%

25.4%

10.3%

18.8%

17.6%

31.9%

16.7%

13.1%

2.0%

27.8%

18.6%

15.6%


Figure EM-2 Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









97.6%

26.0%

80.8%

69.4%

95.6%

34.0%

20.1%

10.8%

98.6%

8.4%

90.0%

60.7%

96.2%

49.2%

6.1%

2.4%


Figure EM-3 Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure EM-4 Emergency MedicineMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

30.0

10.0 8.0 7.0

30.0

2.0 2.0 2.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

26.0

17.0

11.0 10.0

30.0

10.0 8.0 7.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

133133

7777


539539

2525



Family Medicine


Figure FM-1 Family MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.5

4.5

4.4

4.2

4.2

4.3

3.8

4.2

4.0

4.2

4.2

3.9

4.1

4.1

3.7

3.7

4.0

3.4

3.9

4.1

4.7

4.6

4.6

4.7

4.5

4.4

4.6

4.1

4.5

4.2

4.1

3.8

4.0

3.9

3.1

3.7

3.8

2.6

4.1

3.9





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.3

3.3

3.8

3.7

3.7

3.5

3.4

3.0

3.5

3.3

3.7

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.1

3.3

3.1

2.9

2.9

3.2

2.6

3.9

3.7

3.3

3.8

3.4

3.3

2.1

3.6

3.3

3.2

3.2

3.0

4.0

2.9

2.6

1.5

3.1

2.9

3.2


Figure FM-1 Family MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






59.9%

50.1%

46.7%

45.0%

36.8%

54.8%

47.6%

48.0%

41.4%

46.6%

41.0%

54.7%

46.3%

50.5%

47.6%

34.4%

40.4%

30.2%

45.7%

46.4%

62.2%

39.9%

43.8%

50.3%

34.5%

56.2%

62.8%

40.8%

50.1%

43.4%

30.9%

63.7%

39.7%

44.3%

41.9%

31.3%

29.8%

14.2%

47.7%

42.8%


Figure FM-2 Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

38.6%

32.4%

32.0%

41.4%

40.0%

36.3%

46.3%

29.7%

31.3%

36.3%

35.3%

31.1%

37.0%

50.8%

29.4%

22.9%

16.6%

30.9%

26.6%

28.3%

21.8%

41.0%

22.3%

22.9%

38.0%

33.0%

40.2%

13.0%

30.4%

30.2%

17.3%

24.8%

20.9%

62.9%

22.3%

11.7%

1.7%

31.3%

19.7%

21.6%


Figure FM-2 Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









94.9%

52.8%

61.9%

77.4%

86.2%

26.1%

26.3%

15.3%

98.3%

14.8%

74.2%

44.9%

95.5%

31.5%

6.9%

2.7%


Figure FM-3 Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure FM-4 Family MedicineMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

40.0

5.0 5.0 5.0

47.0

2.0 2.0 2.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

12.0 11.08.0 7.0

12.0 10.05.0 4.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

467467

430430


532532

55



General Surgery


Figure GS-1 General SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.6

4.4

4.3

4.1

4.1

4.2

3.7

4.0

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.1

4.0

4.0

3.9

4.0

3.8

3.9

3.4

3.9

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.5

4.4

4.2

4.3

4.2

3.9

3.9

4.1

4.1

3.8

3.7

4.0

4.3

3.9

4.1

3.3

3.8





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.9

3.2

3.4

3.7

3.2

3.3

3.5

3.6

3.1

3.0

3.3

3.0

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

3.4

2.3

2.3

3.0

3.7

3.7

3.4

3.7

3.2

3.4

3.3

3.6

3.0

3.0

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.9

2.5

2.6

1.6

2.4

2.3

2.6


Figure GS-1 General SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






53.4%

39.5%

39.8%

34.9%

26.2%

46.3%

40.7%

39.2%

29.3%

32.4%

30.6%

57.4%

37.3%

44.1%

50.9%

34.9%

34.3%

34.6%

30.6%

33.0%

56.6%

38.6%

42.0%

40.0%

29.9%

43.8%

58.4%

38.8%

34.9%

35.8%

31.1%

75.6%

30.7%

44.0%

65.7%

44.0%

32.5%

46.3%

30.1%

31.1%


Figure GS-2 General SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

44.4%

23.8%

21.9%

35.8%

24.7%

31.8%

40.7%

38.9%

22.5%

21.9%

23.8%

19.8%

24.4%

32.7%

20.7%

17.0%

19.1%

16.7%

14.2%

20.1%

52.3%

36.4%

18.8%

38.4%

25.9%

36.4%

45.5%

43.0%

16.2%

25.0%

11.9%

17.0%

17.8%

36.6%

17.0%

19.2%

2.8%

19.0%

13.5%

14.1%


Figure GS-2 General SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









95.3%

39.5%

71.7%

72.3%

93.5%

38.0%

29.7%

21.5%

98.4%

13.4%

89.1%

48.1%

95.6%

55.5%

6.5%

3.2%


Figure GS-3 General SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure GS-4 General SurgeryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

50.0

8.0 7.0 6.0

60.0

3.0 2.0 3.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

31.0

19.0

13.0 11.0

35.0

10.0 9.0 9.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

8484

240240


404404

101101



Internal Medicine


Figure IM-1 Internal MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.5

4.4

4.3

4.1

4.0

4.3

3.7

4.1

3.8

4.1

4.0

4.2

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.0

3.8

4.1

3.9

3.9

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.5

4.2

4.3

4.3

4.1

4.3

4.1

3.9

4.4

4.2

3.8

4.1

3.9

3.2





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

4.2

3.2

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.4

3.8

3.3

3.2

3.6

3.1

3.3

3.3

3.0

3.1

3.5

2.5

2.7

3.0

4.2

3.9

3.6

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.0

2.9

3.1

2.7

2.7

2.5

1.8

2.8

2.5

2.7


Figure IM-1 Internal MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






58.8%

46.2%

43.4%

42.1%

32.7%

52.9%

44.8%

44.8%

38.0%

46.2%

36.7%

65.1%

44.3%

51.2%

56.0%

42.0%

38.0%

47.4%

41.6%

37.6%

57.3%

35.3%

36.3%

40.8%

30.4%

49.8%

55.4%

37.3%

36.9%

43.1%

25.2%

74.4%

36.3%

43.0%

65.8%

37.3%

26.6%

44.7%

35.9%

19.1%


Figure IM-2 Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

57.7%

28.4%

28.4%

42.3%

34.5%

33.4%

45.6%

45.4%

29.8%

30.3%

32.4%

26.8%

32.8%

40.2%

27.6%

22.7%

29.7%

20.3%

22.0%

23.3%

57.8%

34.6%

19.7%

28.1%

27.8%

29.3%

38.2%

39.0%

25.0%

26.2%

14.9%

15.9%

17.2%

24.1%

14.8%

10.5%

3.0%

20.3%

12.3%

12.3%


Figure IM-2 Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









95.7%

38.2%

69.7%

74.8%

84.7%

30.3%

27.6%

10.6%

98.9%

12.3%

82.9%

48.5%

93.2%

51.0%

7.5%

3.2%


Figure IM-3 Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure IM-4 Internal MedicineMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

60.0

8.0 8.0 7.0

66.0

2.0 2.0 3.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

18.013.0

10.0 9.0

19.0

8.05.0 6.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

1,0991 099

1,1971 197


1,2701 270

7777



Internal Medicine/Pediatrics


Figure IM/P-1 Internal Medicine/PediatricsMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.7

4.6

4.5

4.3

4.3

4.4

4.0

4.3

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.2

4.4

4.4

4.2

4.2

4.0

3.8

4.1

3.9

4.8

4.7

4.5

4.7

4.5

4.4

4.5

4.2

4.3

4.5

4.6

4.1

4.1

4.0

4.2

3.9

3.7

3.4

4.0

3.2





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

4.0

3.6

3.9

3.9

3.5

3.8

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.9

3.4

3.6

3.0

3.1

3.1

3.9

3.6

2.8

3.3

3.2

4.1

3.6

3.7

3.2

3.6

3.3

3.0

3.4

3.8

3.0

2.9

3.3

2.8

2.6

2.7

1.6

3.6

2.5

2.8


Figure IM/P-1 Internal Medicine/PediatricsMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






66.2%

50.6%

45.5%

50.6%

33.8%

59.7%

55.8%

46.8%

49.4%

50.6%

44.2%

75.3%

50.6%

64.9%

68.8%

41.6%

42.9%

44.2%

51.9%

37.7%

63.8%

33.6%

38.3%

40.9%

28.9%

59.7%

63.8%

37.6%

37.6%

51.0%

32.9%

77.9%

36.9%

51.0%

69.8%

34.2%

22.1%

32.2%

40.9%

16.8%


Figure IM/P-2 Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

59.7%

40.3%

27.3%

46.8%

33.8%

42.9%

51.9%

45.5%

29.9%

41.6%

32.5%

28.6%

33.8%

41.6%

23.4%

22.1%

31.2%

32.5%

19.5%

27.3%

43.0%

46.3%

16.8%

40.3%

23.5%

37.6%

50.3%

32.2%

24.2%

36.9%

11.4%

18.1%

21.5%

24.8%

14.8%

17.4%

2.0%

36.9%

12.8%

14.8%


Figure IM/P-2 Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









97.3%

24.3%

79.2%

67.1%

86.3%

29.0%

48.6%

4.2%

98.7%

8.2%

89.0%

44.2%

95.2%

37.7%

14.3%

0.0%


Figure IM/P-3 Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure IM/P-4 Internal Medicine/PediatricsMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

25.0

8.0 6.0 5.0

40.0

2.5 2.5 3.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

16.013.0

9.5 8.011.0

8.0 7.0 6.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

4646

3131


142142

77



Neurology


Figure N-1 NeurologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.6

4.5

4.5

4.1

4.0

4.4

3.8

4.1

3.8

4.1

4.1

4.3

4.2

4.2

4.3

4.1

3.9

4.1

3.8

3.7

4.8

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.1

4.3

4.2

4.3

4.3

4.2

3.9

4.3

4.0

3.9

4.1

4.1

3.0





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

4.2

3.4

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.9

3.3

3.3

3.4

2.9

3.2

2.9

2.9

3.0

3.6

2.3

2.6

2.9

4.0

4.0

3.6

3.5

3.8

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.4

3.3

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.4

2.8

2.7

1.8

2.4

2.2

2.9


Figure N-1 NeurologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






62.4%

53.4%

51.1%

41.6%

30.9%

55.6%

52.8%

46.1%

32.6%

51.1%

41.0%

75.3%

50.6%

53.4%

65.7%

41.6%

41.6%

48.3%

42.1%

38.2%

62.4%

36.9%

43.9%

40.8%

25.5%

49.7%

61.8%

31.8%

37.6%

42.0%

29.3%

79.0%

36.3%

44.6%

68.2%

32.5%

28.0%

38.2%

38.9%

15.3%


Figure N-2 NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

60.7%

29.8%

28.7%

38.2%

35.4%

34.3%

49.4%

51.7%

32.0%

33.7%

37.1%

21.3%

30.9%

33.7%

24.2%

24.7%

26.4%

21.3%

19.1%

18.5%

52.2%

39.5%

14.6%

17.2%

28.0%

35.0%

45.9%

42.0%

20.4%

29.3%

12.7%

14.6%

12.1%

13.4%

14.6%

9.6%

0.6%

15.3%

9.6%

13.4%


Figure N-2 NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









96.0%

25.4%

72.5%

70.5%

85.3%

31.3%

36.3%

9.5%

99.4%

9.0%

89.1%

46.2%

97.4%

50.0%

8.4%

6.4%


Figure N-3 NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure N-4 NeurologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

34.0

7.5 7.0 6.0

41.0

2.0 2.0 2.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

17.013.0

9.0 9.0

40.0

6.5 5.0 4.5





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

117117

6161


153153

44



Obstetrics and Gynecology


Figure OG-1 Obstetrics and GynecologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.7

4.6

4.4

4.3

4.3

4.4

4.1

4.3

4.0

4.2

4.2

4.1

4.2

4.1

3.8

3.8

3.9

3.7

3.6

4.2

4.8

4.6

4.5

4.7

4.5

4.3

4.5

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.0

4.1

3.9

3.7

4.0

4.0

3.8

3.8

3.7

4.0





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.6

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.4

3.6

3.5

3.1

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.0

3.1

3.1

2.6

2.5

3.2

3.6

3.9

3.5

3.6

3.8

3.5

3.7

3.5

3.0

3.4

2.7

3.1

3.1

2.8

2.7

2.8

1.5

2.8

2.1

2.8


Figure OG-1 Obstetrics and GynecologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






59.1%

48.0%

44.6%

44.6%

35.1%

52.4%

52.7%

44.9%

39.2%

42.2%

37.8%

63.9%

44.6%

51.0%

53.7%

37.2%

41.9%

38.5%

34.8%

41.9%

58.4%

35.1%

38.0%

41.8%

30.6%

50.5%

64.9%

37.4%

40.1%

40.8%

21.8%

77.8%

34.1%

41.6%

68.6%

38.5%

28.7%

43.0%

35.8%

37.2%


Figure OG-2 Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

48.0%

31.4%

26.4%

44.3%

36.5%

32.4%

51.7%

32.8%

23.6%

33.8%

29.1%

27.0%

30.4%

52.7%

26.7%

26.4%

17.6%

20.3%

18.2%

24.3%

53.4%

41.2%

18.1%

34.3%

40.1%

35.1%

61.8%

35.5%

18.3%

30.6%

10.8%

23.7%

18.1%

38.2%

17.1%

18.7%

2.1%

22.2%

8.1%

13.7%


Figure OG-2 Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









97.3%

35.0%

75.8%

69.7%

87.3%

32.6%

23.0%

9.7%

98.5%

12.4%

90.2%

43.7%

95.7%

49.8%

7.0%

1.7%


Figure OG-3 Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure OG-4 Obstetrics and GynecologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

35.0

9.0 8.0 7.0

46.0

3.0 3.0 3.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

25.0

16.011.0 10.0

30.0

10.0 8.0 8.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

149149

147147


486486

3333



Orthopaedic Surgery


Figure OS-1 Orthopaedic SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.4

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.1

4.1

3.8

4.1

3.8

3.5

4.0

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.9

3.6

3.8

3.3

3.7

4.8

4.7

4.6

4.7

4.4

4.2

4.5

4.3

4.2

3.7

4.1

4.1

4.0

3.8

3.7

4.0

3.9

4.1

3.1

3.9





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.7

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.3

3.0

2.7

3.0

2.6

2.8

2.8

2.5

2.4

2.8

2.2

2.2

2.7

3.6

4.0

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.1

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.7

2.5

2.7

2.5

2.7

1.7

2.3

2.3

2.8


Figure OS-1 Orthopaedic SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






40.0%

36.9%

32.3%

33.8%

27.7%

36.9%

32.3%

27.7%

27.7%

20.0%

29.2%

50.8%

32.3%

36.9%

43.1%

21.5%

18.5%

27.7%

18.5%

26.2%

51.1%

35.9%

38.3%

35.6%

25.8%

41.6%

49.8%

38.3%

32.5%

28.0%

29.5%

65.7%

32.2%

45.0%

50.8%

31.6%

27.4%

40.4%

20.7%

29.8%


Figure OS-2 Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

29.2%

23.1%

16.9%

15.4%

20.0%

24.6%

33.8%

26.2%

13.8%

16.9%

10.8%

10.8%

20.0%

29.2%

10.8%

9.2%

13.8%

12.3%

6.2%

9.2%

39.2%

35.0%

17.3%

24.6%

27.1%

32.2%

43.8%

31.3%

14.9%

17.9%

12.2%

14.0%

14.0%

27.1%

13.7%

17.9%

4.6%

13.4%

12.5%

11.6%


Figure OS-2 Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









98.4%

37.1%

64.5%

90.2%

86.9%

37.7%

35.0%

19.7%

99.7%

16.2%

87.1%

82.6%

96.0%

42.3%

9.2%

6.8%


Figure OS-3 Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure OS-4 Orthopaedic SurgeryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

48.0

5.5 5.5 5.5

53.0

2.0 2.0 2.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

49.0

16.012.0 12.0

50.0

7.0 7.0 6.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

3030

3535


280280

4949



Otolaryngology


Figure O-1 OtolaryngologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.8

4.6

4.7

4.5

4.4

4.5

3.5

4.2

3.3

4.1

4.2

4.5

4.2

3.6

4.6

4.0

3.5

4.3

3.4

4.1

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.6

4.4

4.1

4.3

4.3

4.1

3.9

4.2

4.1

3.7

3.8

4.0

4.0

4.1

4.0

3.2

4.0





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

4.5

2.9

3.4

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.5

4.4

2.6

2.7

3.0

2.4

3.2

2.3

1.9

2.9

3.5

2.9

1.7

1.8

3.5

3.9

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.5

2.9

3.0

2.7

2.7

2.6

2.4

2.4

2.6

1.8

2.7

2.2

2.6


Figure O-1 OtolaryngologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






72.7%

54.5%

72.7%

72.7%

54.5%

72.7%

45.5%

81.8%

36.4%

36.4%

54.5%

10

45.5%

63.6%

90.9%

63.6%

54.5%

72.7%

45.5%

63.6%

49.7%

32.4%

41.0%

34.7%

27.2%

38.7%

48.6%

41.0%

31.8%

31.8%

30.1%

65.3%

26.6%

37.6%

50.3%

31.8%

33.5%

38.2%

20.2%

31.8%


Figure O-2 OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

72.7%

36.4%

45.5%

54.5%

36.4%

27.3%

72.7%

72.7%

36.4%

27.3%

36.4%

18.2%

36.4%

27.3%

18.2%

18.2%

45.5%

27.3%

18.2%

18.2%

42.2%

28.9%

17.9%

24.9%

26.0%

28.3%

48.6%

34.7%

18.5%

21.4%

9.8%

12.7%

17.9%

16.8%

12.1%

14.5%

1.7%

16.2%

12.1%

11.6%


Figure O-2 OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









100.0%

18.2%

81.8%

90.0%

90.9%

36.4%

18.2%

0.0%

97.7%

12.2%

90.6%

74.3%

95.3%

43.5%

14.2%

3.5%


Figure O-3 OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure O-4 OtolaryngologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

79.0

8.0 8.0 8.0

47.5

1.0 1.0 1.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

45.0

17.012.0 12.0

50.0

5.0 4.0 4.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

55

66


147147

2626



Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical


Figure PAC-1 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.3

4.6

4.5

4.2

4.2

4.3

3.9

4.0

4.0

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.2

4.0

3.9

4.0

4.0

4.1

3.8

3.7

4.5

4.7

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.4

3.9

4.4

4.1

4.0

4.3

4.2

3.9

4.3

4.1

4.1

4.3

3.9

3.2





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

4.0

3.4

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.7

3.1

3.3

3.4

3.3

3.3

3.0

3.1

2.8

3.3

2.3

2.6

3.2

4.3

3.8

3.6

3.7

3.3

3.7

3.4

3.7

3.0

2.9

2.8

3.1

2.6

2.4

3.0

2.5

1.9

1.9

2.3

3.1


Figure PAC-1 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






53.4%

58.3%

57.7%

52.1%

39.3%

54.6%

54.0%

39.9%

47.9%

48.5%

48.5%

66.3%

49.7%

58.3%

58.3%

45.4%

46.6%

46.0%

44.8%

36.2%

46.7%

40.7%

47.3%

44.9%

32.3%

56.3%

62.9%

28.1%

43.1%

36.5%

31.7%

76.6%

42.5%

47.3%

64.7%

43.1%

37.7%

44.9%

41.9%

18.0%


Figure PAC-2 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

54.6%

38.0%

32.5%

46.0%

39.9%

44.8%

54.0%

46.6%

27.0%

35.6%

29.4%

36.8%

38.7%

34.4%

31.9%

22.1%

22.7%

19.6%

20.9%

31.3%

64.7%

38.9%

22.8%

32.3%

26.9%

38.9%

51.5%

44.3%

12.0%

22.2%

11.4%

22.8%

13.2%

16.2%

24.0%

12.0%

2.4%

7.2%

13.8%

20.4%


Figure PAC-2 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









98.1%

32.0%

68.0%

71.9%

91.2%

22.2%

20.4%

6.1%

98.8%

13.3%

78.9%

51.2%

94.0%

47.9%

6.1%

2.4%


Figure PAC-3 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure PAC-4 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

40.0

7.0 6.0 5.0

32.0

2.0 2.0 2.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

16.013.5

10.0 9.0

22.0

9.0 7.5 6.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

8484

7979


161161

66



Pediatrics


Figure P-1 PediatricsMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.6

4.5

4.3

4.2

4.2

4.3

4.0

4.1

4.0

4.2

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.8

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.6

4.6

4.4

4.6

4.2

4.5

4.3

4.0

4.1

4.1

4.0

4.1

3.8

3.9

3.8

4.0

3.2





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.7

3.4

3.7

3.8

3.5

3.4

3.6

3.4

3.1

3.4

3.5

3.2

3.3

3.2

3.0

3.1

3.5

2.8

2.5

3.1

3.5

4.0

3.6

3.6

3.7

3.5

3.9

3.0

3.3

3.4

2.9

3.1

3.0

2.8

2.8

2.6

1.6

3.2

2.4

3.0


Figure P-1 PediatricsMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






57.5%

47.1%

43.5%

42.0%

33.8%

52.7%

50.1%

42.7%

38.6%

46.3%

37.4%

66.9%

45.0%

51.4%

53.7%

40.8%

36.5%

41.0%

42.3%

34.8%

56.7%

33.7%

36.8%

40.7%

30.2%

51.4%

60.2%

34.7%

40.5%

45.0%

23.5%

78.1%

34.2%

47.6%

65.0%

33.6%

28.8%

38.5%

40.9%

16.8%


Figure P-2 PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

48.8%

31.4%

24.8%

40.3%

35.0%

35.5%

48.6%

38.2%

24.6%

31.2%

30.4%

28.2%

31.8%

40.1%

26.8%

23.6%

24.6%

26.3%

19.8%

25.3%

48.2%

39.7%

18.1%

34.2%

33.7%

34.0%

61.8%

25.4%

21.7%

28.3%

13.7%

21.2%

16.5%

26.5%

17.7%

10.6%

2.0%

30.0%

11.8%

17.2%


Figure P-2 PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









97.1%

36.5%

74.1%

72.0%

86.2%

30.9%

25.4%

9.6%

98.0%

8.4%

86.9%

46.2%

96.6%

50.2%

6.1%

1.0%


Figure P-3 PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure P-4 PediatricsMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

33.0

8.0 7.0 6.0

40.5

2.0 2.0 2.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

17.014.0

10.0 9.0

18.013.0

8.0 7.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

318318

211211


899899

1515



Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation


Figure PMR-1 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.6

4.6

4.4

4.3

4.3

4.4

4.2

4.0

4.3

3.9

4.2

4.1

4.3

4.2

3.8

4.0

3.7

3.9

3.9

4.1

4.6

4.6

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.4

4.4

4.2

4.6

4.0

4.3

4.1

4.0

4.1

3.8

3.9

3.8

4.1

3.9

4.0





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.8

3.6

3.7

3.9

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.5

3.0

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

3.0

2.8

2.4

2.6

2.7

3.1

3.7

4.2

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.8

3.6

3.5

3.1

3.4

2.9

3.1

3.0

2.7

3.0

2.8

1.6

2.3

2.8

3.1


Figure PMR-1 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






53.1%

45.1%

43.4%

42.5%

37.2%

54.0%

49.6%

46.0%

43.4%

38.9%

37.2%

65.5%

46.9%

53.1%

47.8%

42.5%

32.7%

39.8%

39.8%

43.4%

58.2%

46.8%

45.6%

44.3%

34.2%

55.7%

60.8%

31.6%

51.9%

41.8%

32.9%

83.5%

39.2%

50.6%

50.6%

41.8%

30.4%

44.3%

45.6%

35.4%


Figure PMR-2 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

45.1%

31.0%

31.0%

41.6%

37.2%

36.3%

51.3%

34.5%

27.4%

31.0%

26.5%

24.8%

24.8%

38.9%

25.7%

19.5%

9.7%

19.5%

22.1%

24.8%

49.4%

44.3%

27.8%

30.4%

38.0%

43.0%

45.6%

34.2%

25.3%

34.2%

12.7%

21.5%

21.5%

20.3%

24.1%

17.7%

1.3%

15.2%

17.7%

20.3%


Figure PMR-2 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









99.1%

25.5%

77.5%

71.2%

91.3%

35.6%

28.6%

12.4%

97.4%

16.9%

87.0%

42.3%

94.9%

42.3%

10.4%

9.0%


Figure PMR-3 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure PMR-4 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

21.0

10.0 9.0 8.0

39.0

3.0 3.0 2.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

20.015.0

10.0 9.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

8080

3333


7979

U.Matched


Plastic Surgery


Figure PS-1 Plastic SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.9

4.7

4.9

4.7

4.3

4.4

3.9

4.2

3.3

3.4

4.7

4.0

4.1

3.3

4.0

4.0

3.7

4.3

3.0

4.3

4.7

4.6

4.7

4.6

4.3

4.3

4.1

4.3

3.9

3.9

4.4

4.4

3.8

3.8

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.1

3.4

4.1





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.7

3.5

2.8

2.7

2.8

2.8

3.2

3.6

2.2

2.5

2.9

2.6

2.0

1.6

2.1

2.5

2.3

2.7

2.2

2.9

3.7

3.9

3.3

3.2

3.0

3.4

3.4

3.5

2.7

2.8

2.4

2.5

2.5

2.3

2.5

3.1

1.8

3.2

2.1

2.7


Figure PS-1 Plastic SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






42.9%

57.1%

57.1%

28.6%

14.3%

42.9%

42.9%

28.6%

0.0%

14.3%

57.1%

71.4%

42.9%

57.1%

71.4%

57.1%

14.3%

28.6%

14.3%

28.6%

50.7%

31.0%

38.0%

33.8%

29.6%

45.1%

45.1%

36.6%

32.4%

29.6%

25.4%

69.0%

31.0%

45.1%

59.2%

36.6%

29.6%

39.4%

26.8%

28.2%


Figure PS-2 Plastic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

57.1%

14.3%

0.0%

28.6%

0.0%

0.0%

28.6%

42.9%

0.0%

0.0%

14.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

14.3%

14.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

14.3%

47.9%

29.6%

16.9%

21.1%

18.3%

29.6%

42.3%

35.2%

19.7%

18.3%

11.3%

14.1%

12.7%

25.4%

11.3%

19.7%

5.6%

23.9%

11.3%

14.1%


Figure PS-2 Plastic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









100.0%

14.3%

57.1%

85.7%

71.4%

0.0%

42.9%

14.3%

98.6%

11.9%

74.6%

57.4%

97.1%

42.6%

41.2%

7.4%


Figure PS-3 Plastic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure PS-4 Plastic SurgeryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

37.0

3.5 3.5 4.0

36.0

6.03.0 3.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

42.5

14.5 12.5 12.5

42.0

6.0 5.5 5.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

44

33


4343

2828



Psychiatry


Figure PSY-1 PsychiatryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.5

4.5

4.4

4.2

4.2

4.3

3.9

4.2

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.1

4.2

4.2

4.1

3.8

3.8

4.0

3.9

3.6

4.7

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.4

4.7

4.0

4.6

4.3

4.4

4.0

4.1

4.0

4.0

3.8

3.8

3.8

4.0

2.4





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.9

3.5

3.7

3.6

3.7

3.5

3.4

3.5

3.3

3.3

3.6

3.2

3.4

3.2

3.0

3.1

3.3

2.5

2.9

3.1

3.8

4.2

3.5

3.0

3.8

3.7

3.3

3.0

3.0

3.5

2.9

3.3

3.1

2.8

3.0

2.6

1.6

2.4

3.2

3.1


Figure PSY-1 PsychiatryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






54.7%

46.8%

43.5%

38.9%

33.0%

48.3%

47.1%

44.0%

40.9%

47.6%

37.6%

61.4%

44.8%

49.6%

49.4%

36.1%

33.8%

37.9%

41.4%

25.1%

59.0%

35.2%

40.1%

39.4%

29.6%

50.2%

62.9%

34.9%

45.6%

45.9%

27.7%

74.6%

38.8%

48.9%

59.6%

26.4%

24.8%

33.9%

40.7%

11.4%


Figure PSY-2 PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

46.5%

32.0%

27.4%

35.8%

35.5%

36.3%

41.4%

38.4%

25.1%

34.3%

30.9%

27.6%

32.2%

36.8%

26.9%

17.4%

19.2%

16.9%

23.3%

23.5%

54.4%

45.0%

18.6%

19.2%

35.8%

37.5%

39.7%

31.6%

20.2%

33.2%

13.7%

21.2%

18.2%

24.4%

18.2%

13.4%

1.3%

12.4%

22.5%

16.3%


Figure PSY-2 PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









95.6%

36.4%

67.6%

74.1%

87.4%

28.1%

19.6%

9.6%

99.0%

16.8%

83.0%

50.5%

96.1%

40.1%

6.3%

2.0%


Figure PSY-3 PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure PSY-4 PsychiatryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

38.0

8.0 7.0 7.0

48.0

2.0 2.0 2.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

15.011.0

8.0 7.0

21.5

6.0 5.0 4.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

193193

198198


297297

1010



Radiation Oncology


Figure RO-1 Radiation OncologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






5.0

4.7

4.6

4.4

4.9

4.9

4.1

4.4

4.4

4.1

4.6

4.0

4.7

3.9

4.1

4.1

4.1

3.6

3.6

3.5

4.7

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.2

4.3

4.4

3.9

4.3

3.9

4.1

4.4

3.9

4.0

4.2

4.1

3.9

2.6

3.8

3.4





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

3.2

4.3

4.0

3.3

3.2

3.0

3.4

4.3

3.6

4.0

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.8

3.2

3.0

5.0

2.5

2.7

3.1

2.6

3.8

3.4

3.0

3.1

3.4

3.4

4.2

3.0

3.1

2.5

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.3

2.3

1.6

1.9

2.0

2.5


Figure RO-1 Radiation OncologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






71.4%

57.1%

42.9%

57.1%

57.1%

71.4%

71.4%

57.1%

57.1%

28.6%

57.1%

71.4%

71.4%

85.7%

57.1%

57.1%

28.6%

14.3%

28.6%

42.9%

58.8%

33.8%

46.3%

38.8%

28.8%

47.5%

48.8%

23.8%

32.5%

31.3%

33.8%

73.8%

35.0%

50.0%

68.8%

36.3%

35.0%

5.0%

32.5%

21.3%


Figure RO-2 Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

14.3%

28.6%

42.9%

28.6%

28.6%

28.6%

57.1%

57.1%

28.6%

42.9%

14.3%

14.3%

42.9%

28.6%

14.3%

14.3%

0.0%

14.3%

0.0%

28.6%

15.0%

33.8%

18.8%

21.3%

18.8%

31.3%

45.0%

56.3%

13.8%

25.0%

10.0%

16.3%

12.5%

12.5%

15.0%

12.5%

0.0%

8.8%

15.0%

12.5%


Figure RO-2 Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









85.7%

14.3%

71.4%

85.7%

100.0%

28.6%

42.9%

14.3%

98.7%

12.7%

92.4%

73.4%

97.4%

57.0%

21.5%

5.1%


Figure RO-3 Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure RO-4 Radiation OncologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

52.0

8.0 8.0 8.0

63.5

4.0 3.5 3.5





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

43.0

13.0 11.0 11.0

47.5

5.5 4.5 4.5





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

22

55


7070

1010



Transitional Year


Figure TY-1 Transitional YearMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






4.4

4.2

4.1

3.9

3.9

4.3

3.5

3.9

4.1

4.1

3.8

4.0

4.0

4.3

4.1

4.0

4.3

4.1

4.1

3.8

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.2

4.4

4.3

4.4

3.9

3.9

3.8

4.0

4.1

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.8

4.1

3.6





1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

4.1

3.5

4.0

3.4

3.6

3.2

3.2

3.7

3.3

3.1

3.6

3.6

3.9

3.5

2.8

3.5

3.5

3.1

2.9

3.2

3.4

4.0

3.6

3.4

3.9

3.6

3.5

3.1

3.0

3.1

2.9

3.1

2.8

2.8

2.9

2.8

1.5

2.9

2.2

3.0


Figure TY-1 Transitional YearMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Quality of faculty


Housestaff morale


Geographic location


Work/life balance






Academic setting






59.1%

50.0%

40.9%

27.3%

22.7%

50.0%

50.0%

27.3%

45.5%

40.9%

18.2%

59.1%

31.8%

54.5%

45.5%

36.4%

36.4%

31.8%

54.5%

27.3%

50.7%

37.0%

38.4%

42.5%

30.1%

43.8%

52.1%

38.4%

32.9%

37.0%

24.7%

61.6%

31.5%

49.3%

47.9%

30.1%

28.8%

31.5%

39.7%

27.4%


Figure TY-2 Transitional YearPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type




0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Board pass rates

Call schedule

Cost of living

Size of program








Salary

Match violation




Other Benefits

45.5%

22.7%

22.7%

18.2%

31.8%

36.4%

40.9%

40.9%

27.3%

31.8%

31.8%

31.8%

36.4%

31.8%

22.7%

18.2%

18.2%

22.7%

13.6%

18.2%

35.6%

26.0%

20.5%

23.3%

32.9%

28.8%

47.9%

28.8%

16.4%

17.8%

9.6%

15.1%

17.8%

28.8%

12.3%

17.8%

4.1%

15.1%

8.2%

12.3%


Figure TY-2 Transitional YearPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)




0% 50% 100%









95.0%

42.9%

70.0%

90.9%

81.8%

33.3%

25.0%

5.0%

100.0%

15.9%

87.0%

69.4%

97.2%

45.7%

15.5%

8.6%


Figure TY-3 Transitional YearPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type



Figure TY-4 Transitional YearMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

32.0

0.5 0.5 0.5

18.5

2.0 2.0 2.0





Matched Not Matched


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

20.0

10.0 8.0 7.0

30.0

8.0 8.0 6.0





Matched Not Matched

US Seniors

77

1515


5555

1818



Documents

2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending