results of the 2013 nrmp applicant survey€¦ · this report presents survey results by preferred...
TRANSCRIPT
Results of the 2013NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type
www.nrmp.org
September 2013
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, Executive Director, NRMP,
Suggested Citation National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2013 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident
Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2013.
Copyright ©2013 National Resident Matching Program.
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Response Rates ................................................................................................................................................. 2 All Specialties ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Charts for Individual Specialties Anesthesiology .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Child Neurology ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Dermatology .............................................................................................................................................. 36 Emergency Medicine ................................................................................................................................ 46 Family Medicine ........................................................................................................................................ 56 Internal Medicine ...................................................................................................................................... 66 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics ...................................................................................................................... 76 Neurology .................................................................................................................................................. 86 Neurological Surgery................................................................................................................................. 96 Obstetrics and Gynecology ...................................................................................................................... 106 Orthopaedic Surgery ................................................................................................................................ 116 Otolaryngology ........................................................................................................................................ 126 Pathology ................................................................................................................................................. 136 Pediatrics ................................................................................................................................................. 146 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ..................................................................................................... 156 Plastic Surgery ......................................................................................................................................... 166 Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................ 176
Radiation Oncology ................................................................................................................................. 186 Radiology-Diagnostic .............................................................................................................................. 196 Surgery-General ...................................................................................................................................... 206 Transitional Year ..................................................................................................................................... 216
Introduction
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted a survey of all applicants who participated in the 2013 Main Residency Match®. Similar surveys were conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2011.
The primary purpose of the survey was to shed light on the factors that applicants weigh in selecting programs (1) to which to apply and (2) to rank for the Match. 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.
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 medical school seniors and independent applicants. Independent applicants include prior allopathic medical school graduates, U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen 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 ReportsThis year, several changes were made to the survey questionnaire. In previous surveys, applicants were asked to indicate factors used in selecting programs for interview. In the 2013 survey, the question was changed to factors in selecting programs to apply. In addition, a new question was added to this survey asking respondents to indicate factors used in ranking programs.
Structural changes also were made to the questionnaire to facilitate logic and branching. In previous surveys, for example, applicants were asked to rate the importance of each factor in ranking programs, regardless whether each factor was used. In the 2013 survey, applicants could only rank a factor if they had used it in their decision making process. Those changes might result in different overall ratings from the previous years.
ResultsOverall, geographic location, quality, and reputation of program topped the list of factors that applicants considered most when applying to programs. When ranking programs, 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, while 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 not noticeably larger compared 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/>.
1
Yes No Yes NoAnesthesiology 543 629 43.2% 278 396 35.1%Child Neurology 47 38 61.8% 41 32 64.1%Dermatology 229 208 55.0% 43 93 23.1%Emergency Medicine 786 778 50.5% 291 364 40.0%Family Medicine 689 671 51.3% 1091 1645 33.2%Internal Medicine 1673 1873 44.7% 3054 2919 52.3%Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 196 146 67.1% 49 33 74.2%Neurological Surgery 126 112 56.3% 23 43 26.7%Neurology 185 180 51.4% 223 256 43.6%Obstetrics and Gynecology 583 450 64.8% 291 300 48.5%Orthopaedic Surgery 413 412 50.1% 52 129 20.2%Otolaryngology 217 160 67.8% 14 34 20.6%Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical 132 140 47.1% 260 265 49.1%Pediatrics 1057 826 64.0% 729 650 56.1%Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 108 118 45.8% 133 189 35.2%Plastic Surgery 83 88 47.2% 4 18 11.1%Psychiatry 337 362 46.5% 560 662 42.3%Radiation Oncology 84 82 51.2% 14 24 29.2%Radiology-Diagnostic 392 453 43.3% 175 234 37.4%Surgery-General 612 786 38.9% 386 678 28.5%Transitional Year 79 169 23.4% 20 55 18.2%Subtotal (21 specialties) 8571 8681 49.4% 7731 9019 42.9%Total (All specialties) 8696 8808 49.4% 7879 9335 42.2%
Response Rate
Independent ApplicantsCompleted Survey Completed Survey
U.S. Seniors
Response Rate
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 2
Response RatesThe overall response rate was 47.9 percent for the 21 largest preferred specialties detailed in this report, and 47.7 percent for all specialties. Response rates varied by specialty and applicant type (see table below). Specialties with 50 or fewer responses were excluded from this report.
All Specialties Combined
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 3
All SpecialtiesPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
95%
86%
90%
79%
73%
68%
74%
67%
68%
62%
60%
57%
58%
54%
55%
56%
56%
56%
60%
61%
76%
79%
73%
70%
70%
70%
56%
63%
55%
58%
54%
54%
52%
52%
51%
49%
48%
47%
42%
38%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Figure 1
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents
All SpecialtiesPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Figure 1
5NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
46%
39%
41%
38%
34%
31%
33%
33%
21%
21%
25%
19%
29%
21%
21%
1%
6%
47%
42%
36%
35%
38%
38%
30%
31%
39%
39%
29%
35%
22%
23%
21%
21%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
86%
67%
84%
80%
76%
51%
63%
70%
67%
51%
43%
48%
55%
49%
41%
48%
46%
45%
61%
52%
61%
50%
69%
56%
58%
40%
46%
53%
45%
36%
32%
44%
44%
43%
30%
37%
30%
29%
33%
26%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Figure 2All SpecialtiesPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
6NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Figure 2All SpecialtiesPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
41%
30%
33%
33%
25%
23%
29%
21%
17%
22%
23%
12%
23%
14%
14%
1%
5%
35%
25%
25%
23%
23%
22%
21%
16%
25%
26%
24%
20%
14%
13%
10%
17%
5%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
7NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
All SpecialtiesAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
Figure 3
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 8
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.5
3.9
4.2
3.8
4.6
3.9
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.0
3.6
4.1
3.6
3.8
3.7
4.2
4.1
3.7
4.6
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.3
3.9
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.7
4.2
3.6
4.1
3.7
4.2
4.1
3.6
4.4
3.8
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
All SpecialtiesAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
Figure 3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
4.0
4.2
4.2
3.6
4.0
3.4
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.6
4.1
3.9
4.3
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.8
4.5
4.1
3.8
4.3
3.6
3.4
4.3
3.7
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 9
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
Figure 4
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 10
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
98%
71%
60%
53%
34%
6%
7%
2%
87%
47%
60%
25%
12%
22%
10%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
All SpecialtiesMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
Figure 5
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
29
1511 11
50
7 6 6
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
65
9 8 7
64
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Figure 6All SpecialtiesLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not MatchBy Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
12NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
2.1
2.8
3.2
1.1
4.2
2.8
3.3
3.5
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
2.7
3.0
3.5
1.7
4.5
3.5
3.4
3.8
1.9
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Figure 7All SpecialtiesApplications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks†
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 13
†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 below and above the whiskers are outliers. 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.
Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants
Number of Interviews Attended by Applicants Number of Programs Ranked by Applicants
Figure 8All SpecialtiesApplicants' First Choice Specialty†By Specialty
Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants
Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 14
OT: OtolaryngologyPA: PathologyPD: Pediatrics (Categorical)PM: Physical Medicine & RehabilitationPS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)RD: Radiation OncologyRO: Radiology-DiagnosticSG: Surgery (Categorical)TR: Transitional (PGY-1 Only)
AN: AnesthesiologyCN: Child Neurology DM: Dermatology MP: Medicine/Pediatrics EM: Emergency MedicineFP: Family MedicineIM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)NE: NeurologyNS: Neurological SurgeryOB: Obstetrics-Gynecology
†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.
Figure 8All SpecialtiesApplicants' First Choice Specialty†By Specialty (Cont'd)
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 15
Number of Interviews Attended by 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.
OT: OtolaryngologyPA: PathologyPD: Pediatrics (Categorical)PM: Physical Medicine & RehabilitationPS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)RD: Radiation OncologyRO: Radiology-DiagnosticSG: Surgery (Categorical)TR: Transitional (PGY-1 Only)
AN: AnesthesiologyCN: Child Neurology DM: Dermatology MP: Medicine/Pediatrics EM: Emergency MedicineFP: Family MedicineIM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)NE: NeurologyNS: Neurological SurgeryOB: Obstetrics-Gynecology
Anesthesiology
16NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure AN-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
96%
87%
94%
78%
73%
67%
71%
70%
79%
59%
69%
67%
58%
59%
60%
65%
59%
50%
63%
63%
83%
79%
81%
71%
73%
64%
63%
69%
61%
48%
56%
59%
52%
56%
51%
56%
48%
36%
49%
42%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
AnesthesiologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
17NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure AN-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
38%
47%
41%
53%
30%
37%
31%
35%
7%
17%
40%
18%
28%
26%
41%
1%
8%
36%
45%
35%
43%
28%
30%
30%
32%
15%
22%
34%
30%
20%
20%
30%
13%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
AnesthesiologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
18NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure AN-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
85%
66%
91%
76%
75%
51%
60%
71%
79%
48%
53%
57%
62%
51%
46%
56%
51%
40%
64%
55%
67%
49%
76%
56%
54%
33%
49%
54%
54%
33%
31%
44%
42%
43%
36%
39%
30%
21%
39%
27%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
AnesthesiologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
19NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure AN-2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
32%
35%
34%
47%
22%
28%
22%
24%
6%
17%
38%
13%
21%
20%
32%
2%
8%
27%
31%
22%
33%
16%
19%
19%
16%
11%
16%
26%
13%
12%
12%
18%
11%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent ApplicantData are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
AnesthesiologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
20NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure AN-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.6
3.9
4.3
3.8
4.5
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.5
3.7
3.8
4.1
3.5
3.8
3.8
4.1
4.2
3.4
4.6
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.2
3.9
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.0
3.7
4.1
3.6
3.9
3.8
4.2
4.1
3.8
4.6
3.9
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
AnesthesiologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
21NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure AN-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.8
4.0
4.2
3.4
4.0
3.4
3.8
3.6
2.7
4.6
4.3
3.8
4.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.9
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.5
4.6
4.3
3.8
4.3
3.7
3.5
4.2
3.8
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
AnesthesiologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
22NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure AN-4AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
99%
71%
59%
55%
39%
6%
8%
2%
91%
50%
62%
32%
20%
14%
14%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
23NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure AN-5AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
30
1512 11
40
3 2 3
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
50
8 8 7
52
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
24NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure AN-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
2.1
3.4
3.1
1.1
4.5
2.5
4.2
3.9
1.5
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.3
2.5
3.2
3.3
1.4
4.3
3.1
3.3
3.7
1.6
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
AnesthesiologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
25NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Child Neurology
26NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure CN-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
91%
94%
98%
74%
87%
83%
96%
74%
66%
57%
64%
70%
87%
68%
64%
68%
45%
66%
66%
66%
58%
74%
79%
76%
87%
61%
68%
79%
61%
63%
50%
71%
53%
53%
55%
47%
42%
63%
42%
42%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Child NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
27NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure CN-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
68%
17%
40%
40%
30%
32%
36%
23%
11%
32%
21%
17%
34%
15%
6%
0%
6%
58%
21%
45%
39%
55%
29%
39%
32%
16%
45%
21%
34%
13%
18%
11%
16%
5%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Child NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
28NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure CN-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
87%
85%
89%
72%
81%
72%
79%
77%
74%
51%
49%
57%
72%
64%
64%
51%
55%
62%
66%
62%
55%
53%
76%
58%
68%
50%
55%
63%
58%
29%
29%
55%
50%
34%
39%
42%
29%
47%
39%
32%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Child NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
29NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure CN-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
70%
13%
38%
45%
34%
23%
36%
30%
11%
34%
17%
6%
30%
9%
4%
2%
6%
61%
13%
34%
21%
34%
13%
34%
11%
18%
37%
29%
21%
24%
11%
5%
5%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Child NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
30NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure CN-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.5
3.3
4.0
3.8
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.4
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.4
4.0
3.8
4.6
4.0
4.2
3.8
4.3
3.6
3.9
4.0
4.5
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.1
4.3
3.6
4.0
4.5
4.2
4.1
3.2
4.0
4.2
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Child NeurologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
31NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure CN-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.7
4.0
4.1
3.7
4.2
3.1
4.0
3.4
3.0
4.5
3.8
3.6
4.0
2.8
2.0
1.0
3.0
3.8
4.5
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.3
3.4
4.7
3.7
3.8
4.1
3.7
4.0
4.0
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Child NeurologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
32NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure CN-4Child NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
79%
47%
60%
34%
9%
11%
0%
97%
43%
54%
27%
8%
16%
19%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
33NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure CN-5Child NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
1815
11 10
22
16
7 6
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
45
10 8 8
70
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
34NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure CN-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.0
2.3
2.6
2.9
1.1
5.0
5.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.2
3.3
2.7
3.7
1.7
4.5
3.1
3.5
3.0
2.4
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Child NeurologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
35NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Dermatology
36NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure DM-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
92%
85%
89%
77%
80%
73%
78%
67%
67%
62%
53%
55%
63%
52%
55%
48%
54%
54%
59%
59%
87%
82%
71%
68%
76%
58%
68%
58%
45%
50%
50%
26%
45%
42%
42%
26%
32%
37%
61%
26%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
DermatologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
37NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure DM-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
51%
44%
35%
34%
30%
18%
35%
21%
13%
24%
16%
17%
21%
13%
10%
1%
6%
47%
37%
24%
29%
21%
32%
26%
21%
5%
24%
5%
16%
5%
8%
16%
3%
3%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
DermatologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
38NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure DM-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
81%
68%
83%
74%
84%
53%
61%
60%
65%
46%
36%
41%
56%
40%
34%
36%
38%
38%
56%
49%
77%
42%
67%
49%
60%
28%
44%
44%
42%
21%
23%
23%
42%
37%
14%
16%
16%
19%
49%
26%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
DermatologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
39NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure DM-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
40%
31%
22%
24%
23%
11%
23%
12%
11%
21%
12%
10%
14%
8%
6%
1%
3%
33%
12%
21%
16%
14%
9%
14%
9%
2%
12%
5%
0%
2%
7%
5%
5%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
DermatologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
40NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure DM-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.5
3.9
4.0
3.7
4.5
3.7
4.3
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.4
3.8
3.5
3.7
3.4
4.2
3.9
3.4
4.5
3.7
4.6
3.4
4.1
4.3
4.6
3.5
4.4
4.3
4.7
4.0
3.1
3.8
3.3
4.4
3.1
3.8
4.3
5.0
4.7
4.5
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
DermatologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
41NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure DM-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.7
4.1
4.2
3.1
3.6
3.1
3.7
3.3
2.8
4.6
4.2
3.5
4.1
3.5
2.6
3.0
2.5
4.3
4.3
4.2
3.7
3.8
4.2
3.5
3.0
4.7
4.0
3.6
4.9
3.7
2.5
5.0
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
DermatologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
42NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure DM-4DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
96%
61%
77%
44%
22%
8%
23%
2%
83%
38%
71%
21%
12%
19%
10%
12%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
43NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure DM-5DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
72
10 9 9
81
5 4 5
Matched Not Matched
0
20
40
60
80
100
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
85
6 6 6
83
1 1 1
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
44NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure DM-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.1
2.0
3.4
4.0
1.1
4.2
2.3
3.3
3.6
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
1.5
2.2
3.7
1.0
4.2
1.9
1.9
3.6
1.2
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
DermatologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
45NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Emergency Medicine
46NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure EM-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
96%
85%
87%
78%
73%
74%
59%
71%
72%
63%
63%
39%
41%
56%
58%
31%
48%
59%
56%
68%
86%
82%
74%
76%
72%
75%
42%
68%
62%
56%
56%
39%
46%
55%
60%
29%
44%
43%
51%
48%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Emergency MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
47NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure EM-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
25%
47%
31%
23%
34%
28%
36%
29%
25%
19%
16%
15%
39%
20%
33%
1%
5%
19%
51%
33%
29%
29%
34%
38%
29%
29%
19%
21%
19%
29%
24%
34%
4%
3%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Emergency MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
48NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure EM-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
90%
64%
81%
81%
77%
56%
48%
75%
74%
51%
45%
26%
38%
47%
39%
26%
37%
46%
56%
59%
69%
47%
65%
63%
62%
42%
31%
57%
49%
35%
32%
23%
36%
38%
31%
17%
18%
24%
38%
30%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Emergency MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
49NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure EM-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
21%
35%
23%
17%
27%
21%
33%
16%
21%
20%
13%
7%
27%
13%
20%
1%
4%
14%
28%
17%
17%
17%
17%
27%
12%
20%
14%
14%
8%
19%
11%
16%
4%
2%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Emergency MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
50NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure EM-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.6
4.0
4.1
3.8
4.5
3.9
3.9
4.4
4.4
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.7
3.5
4.2
4.0
3.8
4.6
4.1
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.9
4.4
4.1
3.7
4.4
4.3
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.5
4.4
4.0
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Emergency MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
51NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure EM-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.9
4.1
4.2
3.4
4.0
3.3
3.8
3.5
3.4
4.6
4.1
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.3
3.5
3.8
3.9
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.6
3.9
3.8
3.7
4.6
4.2
4.0
3.7
3.3
3.9
4.1
4.1
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Emergency MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
52NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure EM-4Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
99%
67%
74%
53%
32%
5%
6%
1%
93%
58%
67%
28%
17%
14%
18%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
53NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure EM-5Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
33
1712 12
43
6 7 6
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
40
8 7 7
50
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
54NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure EM-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.6
2.7
3.0
3.4
1.1
4.5
3.2
3.6
3.8
1.3
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.3
3.0
3.1
3.1
1.2
4.4
3.4
2.9
3.3
1.5
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Emergency MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
55NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Family Medicine
56NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure FP-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
95%
87%
81%
84%
76%
69%
40%
67%
74%
59%
54%
28%
48%
51%
47%
19%
50%
72%
55%
61%
75%
78%
64%
71%
71%
69%
39%
65%
58%
57%
54%
28%
49%
51%
47%
26%
38%
51%
43%
39%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Family MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
57NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure FP-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
14%
59%
55%
42%
43%
36%
30%
39%
70%
28%
22%
30%
39%
31%
28%
0%
5%
25%
51%
40%
37%
40%
42%
33%
36%
64%
41%
24%
38%
33%
31%
28%
10%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Family MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
58NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure FP-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
85%
72%
70%
85%
81%
51%
30%
72%
74%
49%
39%
20%
44%
46%
35%
17%
41%
59%
56%
54%
62%
49%
56%
57%
61%
37%
29%
56%
49%
35%
31%
20%
38%
41%
29%
15%
21%
31%
31%
26%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Family MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
59NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure FP-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
13%
48%
48%
36%
34%
27%
28%
27%
57%
28%
18%
21%
31%
22%
19%
1%
4%
15%
38%
28%
26%
23%
26%
23%
19%
43%
28%
17%
22%
20%
17%
15%
7%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Family MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
60NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure FP-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.6
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.7
3.8
3.7
4.5
4.4
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.8
3.7
4.1
3.9
3.9
4.5
4.0
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.4
3.9
4.0
4.4
4.2
3.6
3.9
3.9
3.7
4.1
3.7
4.2
3.9
3.8
4.5
3.8
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Family MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
61NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure FP-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
4.2
4.1
4.3
3.8
4.1
3.4
4.0
3.8
4.1
4.7
4.2
4.0
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.0
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.1
3.6
4.0
3.7
4.0
4.6
4.2
4.0
4.2
3.7
3.5
4.2
3.8
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Family MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
62NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure FP-4Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
79%
46%
41%
25%
4%
3%
2%
83%
51%
60%
21%
9%
31%
7%
8%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
63NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure FP-5Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
1714
10 9
15
7 6 6
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
50
8 7 6
57
1 1 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
64NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure FP-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
1.7
2.2
2.9
1.1
4.5
2.4
2.9
2.8
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.6
2.8
2.9
3.5
1.5
4.5
3.8
3.4
3.9
1.9
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Family MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
65NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Internal Medicine
66NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure IM-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
93%
87%
92%
79%
68%
74%
86%
68%
66%
64%
58%
74%
48%
55%
51%
67%
61%
58%
66%
56%
74%
80%
75%
68%
68%
72%
60%
62%
53%
60%
53%
67%
51%
53%
51%
59%
51%
47%
41%
35%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Internal MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
67NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure IM-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
62%
26%
54%
33%
34%
29%
39%
30%
15%
23%
29%
25%
26%
17%
15%
1%
5%
56%
40%
40%
33%
40%
36%
32%
28%
42%
43%
33%
41%
19%
21%
19%
30%
8%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Internal MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
68NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure IM-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
84%
66%
87%
77%
67%
54%
77%
70%
61%
51%
40%
63%
44%
48%
35%
57%
49%
44%
68%
46%
58%
51%
73%
53%
55%
43%
51%
51%
42%
36%
31%
59%
43%
45%
29%
46%
35%
30%
32%
24%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Internal MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
69NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure IM-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
54%
17%
44%
28%
25%
21%
32%
17%
12%
23%
26%
16%
20%
11%
10%
2%
4%
43%
23%
29%
21%
24%
21%
23%
14%
26%
28%
29%
26%
11%
12%
8%
25%
5%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Internal MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
70NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure IM-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.5
3.7
4.3
3.8
4.5
3.8
4.6
4.3
4.3
4.2
3.6
4.4
3.5
3.8
3.7
4.3
4.3
3.7
4.6
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.3
4.0
4.3
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.0
3.7
4.4
3.6
4.1
3.7
4.2
4.2
3.4
4.4
3.7
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Internal MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
71NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure IM-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
4.0
4.2
4.1
3.8
3.9
3.4
3.8
3.5
3.0
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.5
3.5
3.1
3.9
3.7
3.9
4.2
4.2
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.7
4.5
4.1
3.8
4.4
3.6
3.3
4.3
3.7
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Internal MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
72NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure IM-4Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
70%
55%
50%
37%
5%
3%
1%
86%
40%
61%
23%
12%
21%
8%
5%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
73NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure IM-5Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
25
1511 10
34
6 5 5
Matched Not Matched
0
20
40
60
80
100
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
94
9 8 8
85
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
74NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure IM-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
1.8
2.4
2.9
1.1
4.8
3.1
3.4
3.2
1.3
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
2.8
3.0
3.7
1.9
4.5
3.5
3.4
4.0
2.0
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Internal MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
75NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
76NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure MP-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
97%
85%
88%
77%
65%
74%
80%
75%
64%
61%
59%
40%
59%
57%
44%
42%
57%
59%
61%
65%
70%
80%
70%
76%
72%
83%
65%
80%
65%
59%
72%
43%
54%
54%
46%
41%
50%
63%
61%
52%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
77NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure MP-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
37%
19%
47%
22%
44%
21%
26%
35%
16%
31%
31%
24%
55%
19%
15%
0%
6%
37%
43%
39%
22%
59%
54%
37%
46%
39%
59%
37%
50%
48%
24%
30%
26%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
78NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure MP-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
88%
73%
81%
86%
71%
61%
76%
86%
73%
44%
47%
38%
60%
55%
30%
34%
45%
47%
66%
56%
56%
58%
58%
60%
63%
56%
54%
71%
56%
40%
54%
42%
48%
48%
31%
40%
38%
42%
42%
38%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
79NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure MP-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
35%
18%
38%
19%
34%
19%
22%
23%
13%
29%
32%
17%
45%
14%
10%
1%
3%
23%
31%
27%
23%
44%
42%
29%
25%
17%
48%
31%
25%
35%
17%
21%
23%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
80NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure MP-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.5
3.3
4.0
4.1
4.7
3.8
4.4
4.4
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.5
4.3
3.9
4.1
4.7
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.4
3.8
4.5
3.8
4.1
4.2
4.6
4.0
3.9
4.1
3.5
4.0
3.8
4.3
3.9
3.8
4.7
4.0
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Internal Medicine/PediatricsAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
81NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure MP-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
4.2
4.1
4.4
3.7
4.3
3.3
4.1
3.5
3.2
4.6
3.9
3.9
4.1
3.6
2.9
1.0
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.3
3.5
4.3
3.4
4.0
3.6
4.0
4.5
3.8
4.2
4.4
4.0
3.3
4.4
2.5
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Internal Medicine/PediatricsAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
82NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure MP-4Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
78%
62%
57%
33%
4%
16%
1%
93%
48%
65%
30%
11%
13%
20%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
83NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure MP-5Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
22
1511 10
18
7 7 6
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
40
11 8 7
68
5 4 4
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
84NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure MP-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.7
3.1
2.5
2.7
1.1
4.3
3.5
2.7
3.2
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.7
3.7
2.7
2.9
1.9
4.8
3.2
3.1
3.5
2.0
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Internal Medicine/PediatricsLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
85NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Neurology
86NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NE-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
95%
92%
97%
84%
83%
69%
85%
70%
67%
61%
57%
74%
62%
59%
57%
65%
55%
71%
61%
57%
76%
83%
80%
73%
82%
74%
80%
68%
59%
59%
60%
68%
52%
61%
55%
56%
54%
52%
38%
44%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
87NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NE-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
58%
16%
43%
50%
33%
30%
35%
27%
6%
21%
13%
14%
21%
17%
7%
1%
5%
66%
39%
38%
35%
42%
37%
30%
29%
17%
40%
23%
35%
20%
24%
19%
24%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
88NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NE-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
86%
68%
90%
80%
84%
45%
73%
72%
64%
51%
38%
60%
63%
55%
42%
57%
43%
55%
59%
46%
62%
53%
76%
57%
63%
41%
62%
56%
46%
38%
36%
49%
46%
47%
31%
40%
34%
31%
29%
32%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
89NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NE-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
52%
9%
29%
36%
21%
17%
26%
13%
2%
22%
13%
5%
18%
12%
1%
1%
5%
49%
25%
31%
26%
28%
21%
25%
17%
12%
27%
14%
24%
13%
16%
10%
19%
5%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
90NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NE-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.5
3.6
4.3
3.8
4.5
3.7
4.6
4.4
4.1
4.1
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.5
4.3
4.0
3.6
4.5
4.0
4.1
3.8
4.2
3.8
4.3
3.7
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.1
3.7
4.0
3.6
4.1
3.6
4.0
4.1
3.4
4.2
3.9
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
NeurologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
91NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NE-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
4.0
3.9
4.3
3.3
3.6
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.3
4.5
4.2
3.7
4.2
3.3
4.0
5.0
3.7
3.8
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.8
3.4
3.8
3.4
3.7
4.4
3.7
3.9
4.1
3.6
3.2
4.2
3.5
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
NeurologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
92NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NE-4NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
76%
62%
58%
41%
4%
6%
3%
90%
42%
62%
24%
14%
20%
13%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
93NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NE-5NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
2015
11 11
30
8 7 7
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
50
9 8 7
60
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
94NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NE-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
2.0
3.2
2.8
1.0
2.0
1.3
1.7
3.0
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
2.9
3.5
3.6
1.7
4.5
4.0
3.9
3.8
2.1
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
NeurologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
95NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Neurological Surgery
96NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NS-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
93%
86%
98%
85%
85%
58%
84%
76%
52%
75%
60%
43%
72%
68%
80%
60%
70%
65%
67%
61%
70%
91%
78%
57%
83%
70%
74%
70%
35%
70%
61%
35%
65%
48%
83%
13%
26%
48%
35%
26%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Neurological SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
97NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NS-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
78%
70%
34%
51%
28%
22%
46%
25%
3%
16%
11%
27%
30%
20%
11%
4%
12%
52%
57%
26%
35%
13%
22%
22%
13%
17%
26%
13%
26%
26%
4%
0%
17%
9%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Neurological SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
98NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NS-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
79%
73%
91%
85%
90%
40%
67%
65%
53%
65%
44%
30%
69%
58%
73%
43%
53%
52%
65%
51%
36%
41%
59%
45%
64%
23%
59%
45%
27%
27%
18%
5%
41%
18%
41%
5%
5%
9%
27%
9%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Neurological SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
99NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NS-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
70%
56%
24%
46%
18%
14%
49%
18%
5%
16%
6%
13%
23%
11%
6%
4%
6%
36%
23%
5%
14%
9%
0%
9%
0%
5%
9%
0%
5%
14%
0%
0%
18%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Neurological SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
100NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NS-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.2
4.0
4.3
3.7
4.7
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.1
4.1
3.5
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.2
4.0
3.4
4.5
3.8
3.1
4.0
3.4
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
3.3
4.4
3.0
2.0
3.2
3.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
4.0
4.5
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Neurological SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
101NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NS-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
4.0
4.4
4.2
3.3
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.2
4.6
4.3
3.4
4.2
3.4
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.5
3.9
4.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.1
4.0
2.0
5.0
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Neurological SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
102NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NS-4Neurological SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
65%
69%
59%
36%
12%
7%
3%
86%
23%
73%
14%
0%
9%
9%
14%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
103NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NS-5Neurological SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
46
22
15 15
60
1411 11
Matched Not Matched
0
20
40
60
80
100
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
91
12 12 8
72
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
104NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure NS-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.2
2.5
2.9
3.9
1.2
4.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
1.2
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
3.3
1.3
2.0
2.8
2.0
4.1
2.4
3.6
4.1
1.8
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Neurological SurgeryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
105NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Obstetrics and Gynecology
106NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OB-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
95%
84%
91%
79%
71%
68%
80%
62%
63%
56%
60%
64%
70%
40%
49%
63%
58%
54%
52%
62%
80%
77%
70%
69%
63%
68%
50%
59%
52%
55%
49%
48%
58%
49%
53%
49%
48%
35%
42%
38%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
107NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OB-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
47%
49%
37%
38%
39%
30%
26%
38%
27%
28%
29%
16%
41%
19%
6%
1%
7%
45%
55%
27%
33%
33%
34%
25%
30%
46%
29%
23%
25%
26%
22%
8%
15%
9%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
108NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OB-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
88%
74%
79%
85%
76%
53%
67%
69%
66%
53%
43%
57%
67%
43%
36%
58%
50%
44%
61%
52%
68%
57%
63%
67%
64%
42%
41%
59%
41%
40%
30%
39%
52%
41%
37%
37%
30%
23%
38%
29%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
109NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OB-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
42%
47%
27%
34%
33%
22%
24%
27%
18%
28%
25%
9%
33%
11%
4%
2%
6%
33%
37%
18%
23%
22%
24%
18%
19%
32%
26%
25%
15%
16%
11%
5%
11%
5%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
110NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OB-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.5
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.7
4.0
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.1
3.7
4.1
3.8
3.7
3.6
4.2
4.1
3.8
4.7
4.0
4.4
4.3
4.2
3.9
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.4
4.0
4.1
3.6
4.2
3.6
4.1
3.9
4.3
4.1
3.8
4.5
3.6
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Obstetrics and GynecologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
111NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OB-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.8
4.2
4.2
3.5
4.0
3.4
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.7
4.2
3.7
4.3
3.5
2.8
3.1
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.2
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.9
3.8
3.5
4.6
4.3
3.7
4.3
3.7
3.1
4.2
3.5
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Obstetrics and GynecologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
112NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OB-4Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
99%
74%
54%
59%
35%
5%
2%
0%
88%
60%
56%
32%
14%
18%
12%
5%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
113NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OB-5Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
30
1612 11
33
9 9 7
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
47
129 9
51
3 3 3
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
114NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OB-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.6
2.3
3.0
3.3
1.1
4.4
2.4
3.1
3.8
1.2
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.7
2.8
3.4
3.6
1.3
4.4
3.5
3.2
3.5
1.7
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Obstetrics and GynecologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
115NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Orthopaedic Surgery
116NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OS-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
93%
85%
89%
85%
81%
47%
69%
65%
61%
72%
65%
50%
62%
53%
62%
67%
57%
31%
59%
64%
88%
76%
80%
69%
84%
61%
67%
59%
49%
59%
55%
31%
59%
51%
67%
51%
37%
37%
43%
37%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
117NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OS-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
53%
47%
27%
50%
21%
23%
36%
22%
30%
14%
15%
14%
15%
19%
17%
0%
4%
55%
55%
20%
45%
24%
31%
29%
20%
27%
16%
14%
24%
18%
12%
10%
6%
8%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
118NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OS-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
84%
65%
83%
89%
85%
33%
57%
66%
63%
57%
41%
40%
59%
48%
51%
58%
46%
23%
59%
55%
58%
40%
77%
60%
65%
21%
42%
50%
42%
35%
38%
23%
48%
35%
29%
25%
27%
15%
35%
33%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
119NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OS-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
49%
36%
18%
45%
14%
15%
31%
14%
24%
13%
13%
10%
13%
13%
9%
1%
4%
35%
27%
10%
23%
6%
15%
25%
10%
17%
8%
13%
10%
6%
8%
6%
4%
10%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
120NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OS-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.4
4.2
4.2
3.7
4.6
3.8
4.0
4.4
4.1
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.7
3.6
3.9
4.0
3.3
4.5
3.8
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.5
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.4
4.0
4.1
3.5
4.1
3.3
3.9
3.6
4.2
4.2
2.7
4.6
3.7
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Orthopaedic SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
121NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OS-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.4
4.2
4.1
3.1
3.6
3.0
3.9
3.3
3.4
4.6
4.2
3.4
4.3
3.3
2.8
2.7
3.4
3.4
3.9
3.8
4.0
3.0
3.1
3.5
3.6
2.9
4.7
4.0
2.8
4.4
3.3
2.7
4.5
3.6
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Orthopaedic SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
122NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OS-4Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
97%
57%
85%
47%
23%
9%
7%
3%
92%
47%
61%
27%
8%
24%
14%
14%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
123NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OS-5Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
62
1612 12
72
7 6 6
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
60
7 6 6
70
2 2 3
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
124NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OS-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.1
2.6
3.2
3.9
1.1
3.8
3.0
3.9
4.0
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.6
2.6
2.7
3.3
1.5
4.1
2.7
3.1
3.6
1.5
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Orthopaedic SurgeryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
125NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Otolaryngology
126NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OT-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
92%
86%
90%
79%
85%
63%
72%
62%
61%
73%
61%
54%
71%
49%
65%
67%
56%
31%
59%
59%
69%
77%
92%
69%
85%
85%
54%
77%
46%
62%
69%
46%
62%
31%
54%
23%
15%
23%
31%
23%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
OtolaryngologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
127NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OT-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
60%
59%
26%
46%
28%
20%
25%
16%
4%
14%
12%
18%
32%
12%
5%
1%
6%
54%
46%
23%
38%
31%
54%
15%
23%
23%
31%
8%
15%
15%
8%
15%
23%
8%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
OtolaryngologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
128NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OT-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
85%
72%
86%
81%
86%
45%
63%
61%
62%
59%
46%
48%
66%
54%
50%
60%
47%
23%
63%
50%
29%
29%
57%
43%
64%
0%
50%
36%
14%
14%
36%
21%
43%
29%
7%
0%
0%
0%
14%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
OtolaryngologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
129NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OT-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
54%
47%
16%
43%
21%
14%
24%
12%
5%
18%
10%
7%
27%
8%
3%
1%
4%
36%
21%
7%
0%
7%
29%
7%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
7%
7%
7%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
OtolaryngologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
130NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OT-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.2
3.9
4.2
3.4
4.6
4.1
4.4
4.6
4.0
3.9
3.4
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.5
4.0
4.1
3.5
4.6
3.8
3.8
3.5
4.3
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.0
4.0
2.8
4.0
3.8
3.0
4.5
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
OtolaryngologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
131NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OT-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.5
4.2
4.2
3.5
3.7
3.0
3.5
3.4
2.8
4.6
4.0
3.7
4.4
3.3
3.0
5.0
3.3
5.0
3.8
4.0
3.3
4.0
4.8
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
OtolaryngologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
132NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OT-4OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
66%
78%
53%
20%
10%
12%
2%
86%
21%
86%
14%
7%
21%
7%
14%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
133NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OT-5OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
56
1512 11
62
6 7 7
Matched Not Matched
0
20
40
60
80
100
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
89
4 4 4
82
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
134NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure OT-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.1
2.8
2.9
3.7
1.1
4.2
2.9
3.2
3.6
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
5.0
3.4
3.2
4.2
1.5
4.6
3.0
3.9
3.0
1.4
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
OtolaryngologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
135NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Pathology
136NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PA-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
95%
89%
90%
76%
80%
53%
82%
66%
70%
50%
57%
81%
57%
61%
60%
73%
63%
61%
59%
55%
79%
79%
73%
67%
73%
60%
63%
58%
48%
49%
52%
62%
48%
50%
48%
57%
55%
48%
38%
31%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
PathologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
137NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PA-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
66%
20%
16%
36%
26%
38%
40%
34%
6%
11%
27%
10%
7%
28%
8%
0%
5%
60%
29%
17%
28%
35%
35%
24%
29%
19%
38%
27%
32%
12%
22%
12%
18%
9%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
PathologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
138NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PA-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
88%
74%
89%
77%
86%
43%
66%
66%
71%
49%
53%
75%
65%
53%
54%
66%
55%
51%
62%
52%
60%
52%
73%
53%
63%
33%
56%
49%
42%
30%
31%
51%
40%
44%
31%
43%
36%
30%
33%
24%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
PathologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
139NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PA-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
62%
19%
20%
34%
19%
36%
40%
26%
5%
11%
29%
12%
8%
26%
9%
0%
5%
45%
16%
12%
16%
21%
17%
18%
14%
9%
27%
24%
15%
6%
9%
3%
14%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
PathologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
140NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PA-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.5
3.6
4.3
3.7
4.5
3.9
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.3
3.7
4.4
3.5
3.8
3.3
4.2
4.1
2.9
4.6
3.8
4.3
3.6
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.6
4.1
3.6
3.9
3.6
4.1
4.1
3.3
4.2
3.8
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
PathologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
141NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PA-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.9
4.1
4.1
3.4
3.6
3.3
3.9
3.5
3.3
4.6
4.0
3.5
4.4
3.1
3.2
3.7
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.3
3.3
4.5
4.1
3.3
4.2
3.4
3.0
4.5
3.6
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
PathologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
142NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PA-4PathologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
77%
51%
50%
40%
9%
3%
0%
84%
45%
55%
25%
9%
24%
8%
8%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
143NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PA-5PathologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
20
1410 9
13
4 4 4
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
50
8 7 6
50
1 1 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
144NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PA-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
1.7
1.9
3.1
1.1
4.0
3.7
4.0
3.0
1.7
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
2.4
2.3
3.7
1.6
4.7
3.4
3.3
4.1
2.2
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
PathologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
145NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Pediatrics
146NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PD-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
96%
86%
89%
79%
66%
73%
79%
62%
69%
63%
63%
58%
80%
58%
60%
60%
54%
65%
62%
60%
77%
78%
74%
72%
66%
73%
55%
61%
58%
62%
55%
50%
63%
55%
54%
53%
50%
55%
45%
41%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
147NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PD-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
39%
24%
49%
35%
35%
38%
32%
43%
12%
24%
35%
19%
38%
25%
13%
1%
5%
43%
37%
33%
32%
42%
42%
26%
36%
36%
42%
35%
35%
33%
27%
14%
21%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
148NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PD-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
89%
71%
82%
82%
70%
58%
68%
68%
70%
53%
47%
50%
77%
56%
48%
52%
43%
55%
68%
53%
67%
54%
69%
62%
58%
46%
46%
53%
50%
40%
35%
39%
59%
47%
33%
43%
31%
36%
36%
29%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
149NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PD-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
34%
16%
42%
30%
29%
29%
28%
29%
10%
27%
35%
10%
31%
16%
9%
1%
4%
33%
22%
25%
19%
24%
23%
20%
22%
23%
29%
33%
19%
23%
15%
7%
16%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
150NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PD-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.5
3.6
4.2
3.9
4.6
3.9
4.4
4.4
4.4
3.9
3.6
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.5
4.3
4.0
3.9
4.7
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.4
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.2
3.8
3.7
4.1
3.7
4.1
3.7
4.3
4.0
3.7
4.6
3.7
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
PediatricsAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
151NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PD-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
4.1
4.2
4.2
3.7
4.1
3.3
3.9
3.6
3.4
4.6
4.1
3.9
4.3
3.4
3.3
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.2
4.2
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.7
4.6
4.0
3.9
4.3
3.7
3.6
4.3
4.2
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
PediatricsAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
152NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PD-4PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
75%
57%
56%
35%
3%
2%
1%
90%
54%
56%
29%
14%
18%
8%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
153NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PD-5PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
22
1511 10
20
5 4 5
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
50
10 8 7
51
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
154NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PD-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
1.8
2.3
3.1
1.1
4.4
2.5
2.8
2.9
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.6
2.4
2.6
3.3
1.7
4.4
3.3
3.2
3.8
2.1
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
PediatricsLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
155NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
156NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PM-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
91%
87%
88%
70%
69%
48%
53%
64%
73%
50%
57%
54%
49%
51%
48%
62%
42%
61%
53%
61%
85%
86%
86%
79%
79%
61%
56%
77%
77%
69%
61%
61%
55%
61%
44%
63%
54%
58%
50%
53%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
157NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PM-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
47%
51%
40%
52%
36%
35%
26%
37%
12%
19%
29%
26%
13%
25%
22%
2%
9%
42%
66%
28%
58%
33%
39%
35%
38%
18%
17%
30%
20%
13%
23%
22%
2%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
158NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PM-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
84%
66%
82%
73%
77%
36%
39%
70%
75%
39%
44%
50%
51%
50%
38%
51%
32%
55%
44%
55%
72%
56%
77%
68%
70%
26%
38%
68%
66%
42%
36%
55%
50%
48%
33%
44%
38%
43%
39%
45%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
159NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PM-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
44%
44%
26%
52%
25%
26%
24%
26%
5%
20%
26%
11%
7%
13%
18%
2%
10%
34%
34%
14%
42%
15%
26%
28%
20%
10%
15%
28%
9%
6%
13%
11%
4%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
160NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PM-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.5
4.0
4.2
3.6
4.4
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.4
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.5
3.8
3.8
4.4
4.0
3.6
4.4
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.0
3.8
4.4
3.6
4.0
4.4
4.2
3.8
3.6
4.0
3.5
3.7
3.7
4.1
4.0
3.3
4.3
3.8
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Physical Medicine and RehabilitationAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
161NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PM-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.8
4.2
4.1
3.5
3.7
3.3
4.0
3.6
3.4
4.7
4.1
4.1
4.2
3.7
3.4
4.5
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.3
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.9
3.5
3.2
4.6
4.0
3.6
4.1
3.4
3.1
3.8
3.6
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Physical Medicine and RehabilitationAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
162NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PM-4Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
96%
72%
60%
49%
35%
5%
8%
4%
93%
60%
62%
44%
18%
17%
17%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
163NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PM-5Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
25
1611 10
40
7 7 7
Matched Not Matched
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
30
129 9
32
4 4 4
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
164NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PM-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
2.2
3.6
3.3
1.1
4.2
2.2
3.2
3.4
1.3
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.6
2.7
3.3
3.0
1.2
4.5
3.2
3.4
3.3
1.2
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Physical Medicine and RehabilitationLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
165NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Plastic Surgery
166NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PS-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
92%
85%
100%
84%
86%
69%
81%
69%
65%
70%
69%
65%
53%
51%
62%
69%
74%
43%
62%
61%
67%
100%
100%
67%
100%
67%
100%
100%
67%
100%
67%
67%
33%
67%
100%
33%
67%
33%
33%
67%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Plastic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
167NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PS-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
68%
55%
20%
24%
31%
34%
36%
27%
14%
12%
26%
18%
51%
19%
11%
4%
7%
100%
33%
33%
0%
67%
33%
33%
0%
0%
33%
33%
0%
67%
0%
0%
0%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Plastic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
168NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PS-2
0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
83%
65%
85%
88%
91%
51%
74%
71%
59%
67%
41%
49%
49%
39%
45%
65%
60%
33%
57%
48%
50%
75%
100%
75%
100%
25%
75%
100%
50%
50%
50%
25%
50%
25%
50%
25%
25%
25%
50%
50%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Plastic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
169NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PS-2
0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
57%
41%
16%
18%
18%
17%
22%
11%
9%
16%
22%
9%
41%
11%
5%
1%
6%
100%
25%
25%
25%
50%
25%
50%
25%
0%
25%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Plastic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
170NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PS-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.4
4.2
4.4
3.3
4.5
4.1
4.5
4.5
4.1
4.1
3.4
4.0
3.3
3.6
3.4
4.1
4.1
3.8
4.4
3.9
3.5
3.0
4.5
4.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
3.8
4.5
4.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
3.5
5.0
4.5
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Plastic SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
171NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PS-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.5
4.3
4.3
3.2
3.6
2.5
3.4
3.0
2.7
4.7
4.1
3.3
4.4
3.3
2.5
3.0
5.0
4.5
4.8
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.7
5.0
5.0
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Plastic SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
172NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PS-4Plastic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
100%
67%
56%
52%
24%
10%
35%
4%
75%
50%
100%
25%
0%
0%
0%
25%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
173NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PS-5Plastic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
53
1813 12
55
4 4 4
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
55
3 36
42
1 1 1
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
174NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PS-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
3.9
2.6
2.4
3.8
1.0
4.3
3.2
3.4
3.3
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
5.0
5.0
4.3
2.5
3.3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Plastic SurgeryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
175NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Psychiatry
176NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PY-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
95%
84%
89%
74%
70%
68%
72%
68%
75%
54%
60%
62%
50%
58%
44%
48%
42%
68%
58%
63%
76%
78%
69%
69%
73%
70%
57%
63%
62%
57%
56%
48%
49%
46%
47%
39%
40%
51%
41%
38%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
PsychiatryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
177NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PY-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
40%
10%
33%
52%
43%
39%
29%
35%
12%
29%
9%
15%
9%
24%
42%
0%
4%
46%
22%
33%
45%
43%
45%
25%
34%
32%
42%
19%
29%
17%
24%
31%
16%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
PsychiatryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
178NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PY-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
87%
66%
80%
78%
72%
58%
59%
73%
78%
49%
45%
47%
50%
48%
35%
41%
38%
55%
61%
55%
65%
49%
65%
54%
59%
38%
46%
55%
55%
36%
35%
38%
41%
38%
28%
27%
23%
31%
35%
30%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
PsychiatryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
179NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PY-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
36%
9%
27%
49%
31%
33%
28%
28%
11%
29%
10%
11%
9%
18%
33%
0%
3%
36%
12%
22%
33%
29%
27%
18%
20%
21%
30%
12%
16%
10%
14%
18%
13%
5%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
PsychiatryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
180NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PY-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.6
3.2
4.1
3.7
4.5
3.8
4.4
4.3
4.5
4.0
3.8
4.1
3.7
3.9
3.8
4.2
3.9
3.5
4.6
4.2
4.4
3.7
4.1
4.0
4.4
3.9
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.1
3.9
4.2
3.8
4.2
3.9
4.3
4.0
3.4
4.6
3.8
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
PsychiatryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
181NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PY-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
4.2
4.1
4.2
3.4
4.2
3.6
4.0
3.8
3.2
4.7
4.3
3.6
4.1
3.4
3.5
3.0
3.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.0
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.8
4.5
4.2
3.7
4.3
3.7
3.5
4.5
3.9
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
PsychiatryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
182NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PY-4PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
97%
74%
59%
50%
27%
5%
3%
1%
85%
47%
57%
22%
13%
24%
8%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
183NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PY-5PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
20
149 9
20
5 5 5
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
45
8 7 6
50
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
184NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure PY-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.3
1.7
2.3
3.0
1.1
4.3
2.0
2.3
3.0
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
2.4
2.6
3.5
1.6
4.4
3.5
3.5
3.7
1.9
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
PsychiatryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
185NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Radiation Oncology
186NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RD-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
96%
95%
96%
81%
82%
55%
86%
70%
73%
54%
64%
12%
66%
69%
58%
11%
61%
47%
62%
64%
83%
75%
92%
67%
92%
50%
83%
67%
67%
67%
58%
33%
67%
67%
67%
25%
58%
58%
42%
58%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Radiation OncologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
187NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RD-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
84%
53%
35%
34%
23%
34%
45%
31%
4%
5%
16%
12%
14%
18%
15%
3%
9%
83%
50%
33%
33%
42%
17%
33%
25%
25%
50%
17%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Radiation OncologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
188NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RD-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
82%
75%
95%
80%
86%
36%
71%
73%
70%
46%
48%
14%
73%
48%
49%
12%
54%
35%
59%
57%
62%
46%
85%
62%
69%
38%
77%
46%
54%
46%
38%
31%
69%
46%
62%
31%
54%
46%
31%
38%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Radiation OncologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
189NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RD-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
82%
39%
19%
24%
16%
20%
35%
16%
8%
10%
16%
10%
16%
12%
12%
2%
11%
69%
15%
15%
23%
31%
15%
38%
23%
0%
38%
8%
0%
15%
15%
0%
8%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Radiation OncologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
190NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RD-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.2
3.8
4.5
3.8
4.4
3.7
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.2
3.6
4.1
3.4
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.4
2.7
4.6
3.8
4.4
4.5
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.4
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.3
3.4
4.3
3.2
4.5
3.0
3.6
4.7
3.5
4.8
3.2
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Radiation OncologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
191NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RD-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.5
3.6
4.2
4.1
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.6
3.0
4.5
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.0
3.6
4.3
4.7
4.3
3.8
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.5
2.0
3.5
4.3
3.5
4.0
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Radiation OncologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
192NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RD-4Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
69%
65%
56%
32%
6%
25%
6%
92%
77%
77%
0%
8%
31%
38%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
193NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RD-5Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
56
1612 12
80
4 4 4
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
63
6 6 6
41
1 1 1
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
194NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RD-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.0
2.6
3.3
3.7
1.2
4.9
2.1
3.3
4.6
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.1
2.3
3.0
3.2
1.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Radiation OncologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
195NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Radiology-Diagnostic
196NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RO-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
97%
81%
93%
80%
76%
61%
80%
71%
74%
59%
64%
63%
66%
58%
63%
64%
53%
47%
58%
62%
86%
82%
74%
73%
73%
62%
66%
65%
54%
54%
54%
55%
53%
56%
55%
56%
55%
40%
46%
40%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
197NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RO-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
52%
45%
35%
57%
29%
38%
29%
42%
18%
13%
20%
15%
14%
27%
51%
2%
7%
47%
41%
35%
49%
26%
37%
24%
39%
27%
28%
29%
27%
11%
29%
32%
15%
8%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
198NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RO-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
87%
58%
88%
76%
74%
44%
73%
68%
68%
47%
48%
55%
65%
53%
51%
54%
43%
33%
51%
52%
71%
54%
73%
58%
62%
39%
51%
55%
52%
41%
34%
43%
52%
45%
38%
45%
32%
24%
36%
33%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
199NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RO-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
45%
31%
22%
48%
20%
28%
18%
28%
15%
18%
18%
8%
10%
18%
40%
2%
6%
36%
27%
22%
44%
19%
27%
17%
22%
18%
14%
24%
14%
7%
16%
20%
12%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
200NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RO-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.6
3.9
4.4
3.7
4.5
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.1
3.8
4.1
3.7
3.9
3.8
4.2
4.1
3.7
4.5
4.2
4.2
3.8
4.2
3.9
4.1
3.9
4.2
4.2
4.0
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.5
4.0
3.7
4.0
4.2
3.6
4.4
3.7
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Radiology-DiagnosticAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
201NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RO-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
4.0
4.1
4.2
3.6
4.1
3.4
3.8
3.6
3.0
4.6
4.2
3.9
4.4
3.7
3.6
4.1
3.4
3.8
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.4
4.5
4.1
4.0
4.3
3.6
3.3
4.6
4.4
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Radiology-DiagnosticAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
202NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RO-4Radiology-DiagnosticPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
99%
66%
64%
59%
40%
6%
10%
2%
90%
52%
61%
40%
22%
17%
20%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
203NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RO-5Radiology-DiagnosticPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
45
20
14 14
48
2 1 1
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
50
8 7 7
50
2 1 2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
204NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure RO-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
2.2
3.2
3.1
1.1
4.4
3.6
3.8
3.8
1.8
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
2.4
3.1
3.3
1.5
4.7
3.1
3.2
3.5
1.6
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Radiology-DiagnosticLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
205NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Surgery-General
206NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure SG-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
93%
80%
87%
78%
73%
60%
76%
64%
54%
64%
53%
61%
55%
48%
59%
67%
64%
41%
57%
59%
69%
79%
76%
68%
70%
60%
62%
60%
38%
54%
48%
49%
57%
53%
60%
53%
50%
33%
37%
33%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Surgery-GeneralPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
207NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure SG-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
59%
49%
31%
28%
30%
29%
32%
24%
31%
16%
34%
18%
25%
19%
15%
3%
10%
54%
51%
28%
22%
33%
31%
26%
20%
35%
38%
27%
33%
21%
19%
13%
22%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Surgery-GeneralPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
208NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure SG-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
83%
63%
84%
80%
78%
39%
68%
69%
53%
50%
37%
52%
53%
47%
44%
59%
56%
36%
59%
46%
49%
45%
71%
52%
53%
31%
48%
46%
28%
28%
24%
40%
43%
42%
34%
40%
31%
18%
29%
21%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Surgery-GeneralPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
209NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure SG-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
54%
38%
25%
21%
21%
19%
28%
16%
24%
18%
30%
10%
21%
12%
11%
2%
9%
42%
26%
16%
12%
19%
15%
16%
9%
21%
20%
23%
18%
13%
9%
5%
18%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Surgery-GeneralPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
210NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure SG-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.3
3.9
4.2
3.7
4.5
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.2
3.6
4.1
3.5
3.8
3.7
4.1
4.3
3.4
4.6
3.9
4.0
4.3
4.4
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.0
4.1
3.7
4.3
3.9
4.1
3.4
4.2
4.4
3.3
4.5
3.6
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Surgery-GeneralAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
211NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure SG-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
3.9
4.3
4.2
3.8
3.9
3.4
3.8
3.5
3.6
4.5
3.9
3.7
4.4
3.6
3.3
3.2
3.5
3.7
4.3
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.9
4.6
4.1
3.7
4.2
3.8
3.5
4.2
3.5
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Surgery-GeneralAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
212NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure SG-4Surgery-GeneralPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
98%
73%
60%
60%
42%
8%
4%
1%
86%
50%
64%
26%
13%
30%
10%
13%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
213NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure SG-5Surgery-GeneralPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
38
1613 12
52
10 8 9
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
77
4 4 5
60
1 1 3
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
214NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure SG-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
2.1
3.6
3.5
1.2
4.0
2.5
3.3
3.0
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.6
2.5
4.0
3.9
1.7
4.6
3.1
3.9
3.7
1.9
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Surgery-GeneralLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
215NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Transitional Year
216NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure TR-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of thearea
96%
81%
82%
78%
69%
39%
42%
69%
71%
65%
53%
21%
50%
47%
54%
29%
38%
64%
60%
61%
74%
53%
68%
42%
63%
47%
26%
53%
58%
58%
47%
21%
42%
53%
37%
37%
21%
47%
21%
16%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Transitional YearPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type
217NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure TR-1
* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
33%
40%
44%
68%
19%
49%
38%
38%
29%
4%
8%
11%
31%
28%
7%
1%
11%
53%
26%
32%
37%
32%
21%
21%
26%
21%
42%
16%
42%
16%
47%
5%
11%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties
Transitional YearPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
218NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure TR-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balance
Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
89%
54%
79%
68%
66%
32%
34%
63%
66%
37%
39%
25%
39%
51%
46%
27%
28%
54%
58%
51%
42%
37%
63%
26%
42%
42%
21%
53%
42%
16%
26%
16%
26%
21%
11%
21%
11%
21%
21%
16%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Transitional YearPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs
219NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure TR-2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
31%
27%
30%
62%
17%
42%
30%
34%
27%
13%
7%
7%
27%
20%
11%
0%
10%
42%
5%
26%
16%
16%
21%
11%
16%
16%
21%
16%
16%
16%
26%
5%
11%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
Transitional YearPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)
220NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure TR-3
1 2 3 4 5
Geographic location
Quality of educational curriculum and training
Reputation of program
Quality of residents in program
Quality of faculty
Diversity of patient problems
Academic medical center program
Quality of program director
Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty
supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care
Cost of living
Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution
Size of program
Quality of hospital facility
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduates
Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests
Housestaff morale
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
4.7
4.2
4.0
3.6
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.3
4.4
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.9
3.8
4.1
3.6
4.5
4.1
4.4
2.0
3.8
4.5
4.6
4.5
3.5
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.4
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.9
4.5
3.7
4.0
4.0
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Transitional YearAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type
221NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure TR-3
1 2 3 4 5
Opportunity to conduct research
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Availability of electronic health records
Call schedule
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation
Salary
Quality of ancillary support staff
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Community-based program
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution
ABMS board pass rates
Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice
Opportunity for international experience
Other Benefits
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
H-1B visa sponsorshi
Presence of a previous match violation
4.5
4.1
4.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.9
3.2
4.4
4.0
4.2
4.3
3.7
3.1
3.7
4.0
5.0
4.4
4.0
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.0
3.7
4.7
4.3
3.6
3.7
3.0
2.0
5.0
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1
* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"
Transitional YearAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)
222NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure TR-4Transitional YearPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences
I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.
I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a
"safety net"
I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview
100%
67%
67%
49%
27%
3%
7%
7%
63%
26%
47%
16%
5%
42%
5%
16%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
223NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure TR-5Transitional YearPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
25
1510 9
30
118 8
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
30
2 3 3
75
1 1 1
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
224NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013
Figure TR-6
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.6
3.0
3.1
2.0
1.0
3.6
2.6
1.7
2.6
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.8
4.8
4.6
4.5
2.0
4.8
4.1
4.4
3.8
2.4
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Transitional YearLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
225NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013