results of the 2015 nrmp applicant · pdf fileresults of the 2015 nrmp applicant survey by...
TRANSCRIPT
Results of the 2015NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type
www.nrmp.org
September 2015
Requests for permission to use these data, as well as questions about the content of this publication or the National Resident Matching Program data and reports, may be directed to
Mei Liang, Director of Research, NRMP, at [email protected]
Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, President and CEO, NRMP, at [email protected].
Suggested CitationNational Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2015 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident Matching
Program, Washington, DC. 2015.
Copyright © 2015 National Resident Matching Program, 2121 K Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20037 USA. All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy, and/or distribute any documentation
and/or related images from this publication shall be expressly obtained from the NRMP.
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Response Rates ................................................................................................................................................. 2 All Specialties ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Charts for Individual Specialties Anesthesiology .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Child Neurology ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Dermatology .............................................................................................................................................. 30 Emergency Medicine ................................................................................................................................ 38 Family Medicine ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Internal Medicine ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics ...................................................................................................................... 62 Neurology .................................................................................................................................................. 70 Neurological Surgery................................................................................................................................. 78 Obstetrics and Gynecology ........................................................................................................................ 86 Orthopaedic Surgery .................................................................................................................................. 94 Otolaryngology ........................................................................................................................................ 102 Pathology ................................................................................................................................................. 110 Pediatrics ................................................................................................................................................. 118 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ..................................................................................................... 126 Plastic Surgery ......................................................................................................................................... 134 Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................ 142
Radiation Oncology ................................................................................................................................. 150 Radiology-Diagnostic .............................................................................................................................. 158 Surgery-General ...................................................................................................................................... 166
Introduction
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted a survey of all applicants who participated in the 2015 Main Residency Match®. Similar surveys were conducted in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013.
The primary purpose of the survey was to elucidate the factors applicants weigh in applying to and ranking programs. The survey was fielded during the 18 days between the Rank Order List Deadline and Match Week so that applicant Match outcomes would not influence respondents' answers.
The survey was sent to all applicants who certified a rank order list (ROL) by the Rank Order List Deadline. Some applicants could certify a blank ROL. Between the Rank Order List Deadline and the time when the matching algorithm was processed, however, some applicants still could be withdrawn from the Match. The responses of those who certified a blank rank order list and those who were withdrawn from the Match were not included in this report.
This report presents survey results by preferred specialty and applicant type. Preferred specialty is defined as the specialty listed first on an applicant's ROL. Applicant type includes U.S. allopathic medical school seniors and independent applicants. Independent applicants include prior allopathic medical school graduates, U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen students and graduates of international medical schools, students and graduates of schools of osteopathy, students and graduates of Canadian medical schools, and graduates of the Fifth Pathway program.
Changes from Previous ReportsThis year, several changes were made to the survey questionnaire. In previous surveys, applicants were asked to indicate factors used in selecting programs for application and to rate the importance in selecting programs for ranking. In the 2015 survey, both questions were expanded. Applicants were asked about the factors that influenced both application and ranking choices, and the relative importance of each of those factors.
Additional attributes were introduced in the 2015 survey. "Quality of ambulatory care facilities," "overall goodness of fit," "having friends at the program," and "support network in the area" were added to the list of factors used in selecting programs for application. The above four factors and "interview day experience" were added to the list of factors used in selecting programs for ranking.
ResultsOverall, geographic location, reputation of program, and perceived goodness of fit topped the list of factors that applicants considered most when applying to programs. When ranking programs, the newly added overall goodness of fit became the number one consideration. Applicants also valued such factors as career path, future fellowship training opportunities, housestaff morale, and work/life balance. Although there was commonality among all applicants, differences were observed among specialties. For example, applicants who applied to Family Medicine and Internal Medicine programs were more interested in future fellowship training opportunities, but the opportunity to conduct certain procedures was of more importance to applicants to Neurological Surgery programs.
The median number of applications submitted by independent applicants was much higher than for U.S. seniors, but U.S. seniors obtained more interviews than did independent applicants. It also is worth noting that even though matched applicants did not apply to more programs, they attended more interviews and thus were able to rank more programs than unmatched applicants. The greatest number of applications was submitted to Orthopaedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Dermatology, Plastic Surgery, and Neurological Surgery; however, the numbers of interviews obtained and programs ranked in those specialties were comparable to other specialties.
The NRMP hopes that program directors, medical school officials, and applicants find these data useful as they prepare for and participate in the Match.
_________________________The NRMP's data reporting and research activities are guided by its Data Release and Research Committee. NRMP data and reports can be found at: www.nrmp.org/data/ <http://www.nrmp.org/data/>.
1
Yes No Yes No
Anesthesiology 547 598 47.8% 303 406 42.7%Child Neurology 48 33 59.3% 30 34 46.9%
Dermatology 236 232 50.4% 49 114 30.1%Emergency Medicine 706 829 46.0% 284 333 46.0%
Family Medicine 699 677 50.8% 1010 1732 36.8%Internal Medicine 1740 1822 48.8% 3061 2920 51.2%
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 197 153 56.3% 57 62 47.9%Neurological Surgery 132 118 52.8% 26 61 29.9%
Neurology 208 208 50.0% 262 243 51.9%Obstetrics and Gynecology 576 558 50.8% 239 281 46.0%
Orthopaedic Surgery 425 453 48.4% 42 110 27.6%Otolaryngology 207 157 56.9% 14 30 31.8%
Pathology 150 139 51.9% 224 229 49.4%Pediatrics 1074 892 54.6% 673 606 52.6%
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 101 122 45.3% 124 209 37.2%Plastic Surgery 73 89 45.1% 15 14 51.7%
Psychiatry 354 457 43.6% 486 686 41.5%Radiation Oncology 94 98 49.0% 5 31 13.9%
Radiology-Diagnostic 281 370 43.2% 196 246 44.3%Surgery-General 547 562 49.3% 284 497 36.4%
All Other 130 136 48.9% 73 87 45.6%
No Preferred Specialty 229 555 29.2% 289 303 48.8%Total (All specialties) 8754 9258 49.4% 7746 9234 45.6%
Response Rate
Independent ApplicantsCompleted Survey Completed Survey
U.S. Seniors
Response Rate
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 2
Response RatesIn the 2015 Applicant Survey, 35,713 electronic surveys were sent, and 16,500 complete or partial reponses were received. After excluding respondents who were withdrawn after the Rank Order List Deadline (62), he overall response rate was 47.5 percent for the 20 largest preferred specialties detailed in this report, as well as for all specialties combined. Response rates varied by specialty and applicant type (see table below). Specialties with 50 or fewer responses were excluded from this report.
All Specialties Combined
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 3
All SpecialtiesPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
4
Figure 1
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.54.24.74.54.44.54.34.43.74.33.94.54.14.14.24.44.13.63.84.24.04.13.93.94.03.83.93.64.23.93.73.43.53.53.73.43.73.73.63.83.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
87%83%80%70%68%68%64%64%58%57%57%56%56%55%53%53%52%52%52%50%48%43%34%33%33%29%29%28%26%25%24%24%22%21%18%15%15%13%7%5%5%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
All SpecialtiesPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Figure 1
5NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.24.24.64.44.34.54.24.43.84.43.84.44.34.14.14.44.23.84.14.24.04.13.94.04.04.04.13.84.44.03.73.63.73.83.93.63.94.03.74.14.14.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
66%60%54%56%50%55%48%54%47%46%33%38%50%42%32%44%44%39%50%47%39%41%29%29%30%24%29%23%29%36%20%23%19%24%32%13%16%24%
9%6%5%
16%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
Figure 2
All SpecialtiesPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
6NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.54.54.64.34.54.64.44.64.34.44.44.24.34.23.83.94.14.23.84.14.24.23.93.94.13.73.94.14.14.03.53.83.63.93.73.93.63.93.83.83.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
87%81%80%74%71%66%63%62%62%61%56%49%48%47%47%47%46%45%44%43%42%42%39%29%26%26%26%25%23%22%22%21%20%17%14%13%13%11%
8%4%4%4%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
Figure 2
All SpecialtiesPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
7NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.64.44.44.34.44.54.54.64.34.44.44.24.24.33.94.23.94.43.94.14.34.24.04.14.13.94.14.14.34.23.83.93.84.23.94.13.74.13.94.14.14.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
68%67%58%53%52%52%37%47%49%43%41%41%35%27%37%38%43%25%43%33%31%37%35%24%22%23%19%20%25%27%24%19%13%14%13%17%21%
9%17%
6%3%5%
13%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
Figure 3
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 8
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
92%
76%
69%
64%
47%
6%
5%
2%
75%
53%
69%
32%
23%
12%
17%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
All SpecialtiesMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
Figure 4
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
30
1612 12
54
6 6 6
Matched Not Matched
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
75
9 8 8
68
2 2 2
Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Figure 5All SpecialtiesLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not MatchBy Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
10NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.2
3.1
2.8
2.3
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.1
4.1
3.5
2.9
2.8
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.5
3.2
3.1
2.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
4.4
3.6
3.4
3.3
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.7
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, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
Figure 6All SpecialtiesApplications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks in Preferred Specialty†
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 11
†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.
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 7All SpecialtiesApplications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks in Preferred Specialty†
By Preferred Specialty
Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants
Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 12
†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)
AN: AnesthesiologyCN: Child Neurology DM: Dermatology MP: Medicine/Pediatrics EM: Emergency MedicineFP: Family MedicineIM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)NE: NeurologyNS: Neurological SurgeryOB: Obstetrics-Gynecology
Figure 7All SpecialtiesApplicants' First Choice Specialty†
By Specialty (Cont'd)
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 13
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.
OS: Orthopedic SurgeryOT: OtolaryngologyPA: PathologyPD: Pediatrics (Categorical)PM: Physical Medicine & RehabilitationPS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)RD: Radiation OncologyRO: Radiology-DiagnosticSG: Surgery (Categorical)
AN: AnesthesiologyCN: Child Neurology DM: Dermatology MP: Medicine/Pediatrics EM: Emergency MedicineFP: Family MedicineIM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)NE: NeurologyNS: Neurological SurgeryOB: Obstetrics-Gynecology
Anesthesiology
14NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure AN-1AnesthesiologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.64.34.74.54.44.54.44.53.64.34.04.54.14.24.24.34.03.73.94.03.83.73.83.83.93.73.93.74.43.93.53.43.53.53.33.53.53.63.53.53.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
90%84%79%68%67%67%75%63%56%58%65%58%61%51%53%60%53%59%52%44%43%35%33%29%24%29%35%40%33%15%23%27%24%23%6%
33%4%
13%14%5%6%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
15NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure AN-1AnesthesiologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.24.24.64.44.34.54.44.33.54.44.04.64.24.14.14.34.23.74.04.13.83.63.83.93.83.84.13.84.53.93.63.73.83.93.63.84.04.03.93.84.14.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
72%66%54%53%55%56%55%56%47%46%37%41%52%41%33%46%42%43%52%39%33%27%24%26%21%23%33%35%32%20%16%25%20%17%11%23%
8%16%10%
5%6%9%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
16NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure AN-2AnesthesiologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.54.64.54.44.44.64.44.54.54.44.44.24.34.13.83.84.24.23.84.04.23.93.93.94.13.83.83.94.34.03.53.63.63.63.53.43.53.93.73.44.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
89%81%84%74%78%65%63%66%62%76%57%61%52%49%47%48%47%53%54%53%35%35%29%26%29%19%35%24%15%32%26%26%21%19%
5%15%
2%27%
7%5%4%5%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
17NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure AN-2AnesthesiologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.54.44.44.34.44.54.44.44.44.34.34.24.24.23.84.13.84.33.83.84.03.93.83.73.93.94.03.64.34.23.73.53.84.14.13.63.73.83.93.63.94.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
68%63%65%52%57%50%44%50%48%47%46%43%38%31%32%38%41%27%47%39%23%27%22%22%22%15%32%18%15%29%28%18%13%15%
6%13%
5%17%
8%7%3%4%8%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
18NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure AN-3AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
93%
78%
67%
68%
50%
9%
4%
3%
82%
61%
72%
42%
34%
19%
13%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
19NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure AN-4AnesthesiologyPercentage 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
31
1512 11
55
4 36
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
52
8 8 7
40
2 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, excluding preliminary programs).
20NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure AN-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
AnesthesiologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
3.9
2.5
2.4
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.1
5.0
4.0
2.3
3.3
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.8
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.5
3.8
2.6
2.7
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
4.7
3.5
3.1
3.7
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
21NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Child Neurology
22NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure CN-1Child NeurologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.54.14.44.44.84.54.34.53.64.24.14.54.03.84.24.24.03.84.04.44.14.24.13.84.43.83.03.44.54.53.43.63.72.93.83.53.73.33.53.05.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
87%83%77%64%77%74%62%66%74%60%53%43%53%51%57%51%43%57%47%45%62%62%32%32%30%28%6%
21%9%
17%15%23%17%19%9%4%
19%11%4%9%2%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
23NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure CN-1Child NeurologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
3.94.14.74.44.84.74.54.53.94.84.04.44.24.13.94.64.23.64.44.34.34.33.64.14.23.84.04.54.34.53.33.73.64.03.53.84.24.22.74.0
3.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
57%73%60%67%60%73%63%80%60%63%33%60%60%43%37%40%57%47%67%63%40%63%33%40%30%20%27%20%13%27%30%20%17%17%13%13%20%33%10%
3%0%
10%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
24NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure CN-2Child NeurologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.94.64.24.54.34.64.84.54.64.44.64.14.44.44.24.04.03.94.23.84.14.44.14.13.83.73.54.04.14.03.73.54.03.64.14.33.52.73.82.73.33.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
84%82%87%71%71%78%76%78%73%60%78%47%36%47%49%62%56%40%62%56%60%53%60%33%20%24%24%22%33%
9%13%31%11%29%18%
7%4%7%9%7%7%4%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
25NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure CN-2Child NeurologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.44.44.64.24.44.64.64.64.24.44.54.05.04.44.24.54.04.33.94.44.64.44.44.34.44.64.24.63.34.33.74.03.64.14.04.73.54.65.0
3.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
80%57%43%57%70%70%47%60%63%57%60%40%37%13%33%47%60%30%40%37%33%47%53%27%20%27%17%20%30%10%13%23%20%17%23%
7%10%
7%17%
3%0%0%7%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
26NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure CN-3Child NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
95%
84%
70%
66%
52%
5%
5%
0%
86%
62%
66%
41%
21%
24%
10%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
27NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure CN-4Child 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
2217
12 12
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
26
107 7
46
5 4 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, excluding preliminary programs).
28NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure CN-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Child NeurologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.7
2.9
3.4
2.8
1.8
1.9
2.1
1.8
1.2
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.3
3.2
3.3
2.7
1.9
2.2
1.2
2.0
1.9
3.8
2.6
3.0
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.4
1.7
2.3
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
29NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Dermatology
30NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure DM-1DermatologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.54.14.84.54.34.64.44.53.84.34.04.54.13.94.24.14.03.73.84.33.84.03.74.04.13.84.03.74.34.13.43.43.43.73.63.23.83.63.34.24.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
82%75%72%62%57%62%63%66%56%54%49%49%40%46%49%41%46%45%41%51%39%44%28%29%35%24%30%23%15%26%14%15%15%19%12%7%
22%9%6%5%4%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
31NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure DM-1DermatologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.44.04.74.54.44.64.24.53.64.53.74.64.04.14.24.14.23.64.04.24.14.13.54.34.14.24.33.94.33.93.83.64.13.93.84.04.13.93.84.03.55.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
74%62%72%66%43%62%57%70%43%47%49%49%30%28%40%34%40%38%47%45%36%49%13%23%38%23%34%28%15%23%23%15%21%26%13%13%17%19%11%
4%9%2%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
32NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure DM-2DermatologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.54.54.54.44.64.64.54.64.54.44.34.04.44.23.83.94.14.03.83.94.34.13.94.04.23.74.04.14.34.13.63.73.73.94.04.03.64.34.03.54.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
87%82%79%73%73%75%63%57%70%66%57%42%37%49%50%57%37%46%37%41%46%48%46%36%21%31%22%24%27%12%31%16%14%13%25%14%
8%8%5%4%2%4%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
33NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure DM-2DermatologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.94.64.34.54.24.44.84.74.84.14.44.44.14.04.44.43.94.24.23.74.74.54.14.04.04.03.64.64.24.74.64.13.54.54.53.65.04.34.85.0
4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
72%70%63%63%44%58%30%42%42%37%40%21%23%28%26%30%37%33%21%30%28%28%40%19%14%21%19%16%14%14%23%16%
5%9%
14%19%
5%9%9%2%0%7%0%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
34NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure DM-3DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
92%
73%
85%
52%
30%
25%
7%
7%
54%
54%
74%
23%
3%
8%
21%
8%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
35NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure DM-4DermatologyPercentage 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
85
10 9 9
95
5 5 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
56
5 4 5
60
2 2 3
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, excluding preliminary programs).
36NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure DM-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
DermatologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
3.8
3.2
3.3
2.0
2.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.0
4.2
2.7
3.3
2.0
3.0
1.6
1.4
2.0
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.1
2.2
3.2
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.9
4.2
2.9
3.5
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.8
2.2
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
37NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Emergency Medicine
38NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure EM-1Emergency MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.54.04.74.53.94.54.44.43.54.34.14.63.63.94.13.94.13.73.84.33.93.73.74.04.03.83.93.84.23.83.83.33.53.53.73.53.73.83.73.93.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
91%83%82%72%53%67%75%66%41%64%64%56%40%52%54%34%54%58%53%58%53%24%28%30%36%33%36%15%14%26%32%27%22%18%22%26%5%9%9%6%5%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
39NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure EM-1Emergency MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.44.04.74.54.04.54.34.43.54.33.84.43.73.84.13.94.23.84.04.33.83.73.83.94.03.94.33.74.33.93.63.43.73.43.63.33.63.73.84.14.13.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
80%67%71%67%41%58%58%62%44%51%45%48%39%36%40%29%49%43%57%52%41%20%31%36%24%30%41%19%20%19%27%33%24%23%21%31%
9%19%10%
8%3%2%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
40NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure EM-2Emergency MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.54.64.54.14.44.54.44.64.44.04.04.04.34.23.63.84.23.73.84.14.33.93.93.84.13.94.03.94.04.13.53.93.63.93.63.83.73.83.73.93.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
90%83%83%77%70%69%61%68%62%70%42%28%42%46%50%34%46%52%27%47%44%49%20%23%20%27%12%28%23%11%29%25%25%15%
5%12%15%20%
5%4%4%3%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
41NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure EM-2Emergency MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.54.54.54.14.44.54.54.64.33.94.13.94.24.23.93.93.94.03.74.04.34.04.14.04.14.03.84.14.34.33.53.73.83.63.54.03.54.13.84.43.64.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
80%76%72%64%53%59%48%52%50%54%30%22%26%34%41%35%47%33%25%40%29%39%14%22%19%20%13%27%14%17%34%24%22%15%
7%13%13%20%
9%3%4%4%2%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
42NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure EM-3Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
92%
75%
80%
65%
43%
6%
4%
0%
84%
76%
77%
44%
26%
25%
15%
5%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
43NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure EM-4Emergency 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
39
1913 13
60
7 7 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
9 8 8
53
3 2 3
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, excluding preliminary programs).
44NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure EM-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Emergency MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
3.3
2.6
2.8
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.1
4.5
3.9
2.6
3.1
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.2
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.6
3.5
2.3
3.1
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.6
4.5
3.6
2.7
3.8
1.6
2.0
1.4
1.5
1.5
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
45NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Family Medicine
46NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure FP-1Family MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.64.04.74.63.74.54.44.53.64.34.04.43.63.94.34.04.13.73.84.24.13.93.93.74.23.94.13.64.24.03.93.53.63.54.03.53.93.73.53.94.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
91%73%83%74%32%72%72%66%49%60%57%56%29%49%57%21%52%48%48%50%63%12%47%29%42%28%49%32%23%36%31%29%29%21%62%24%41%22%7%7%4%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
47NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure FP-1Family MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.44.14.74.54.14.64.44.53.84.53.94.54.13.94.24.24.23.94.14.24.23.94.14.04.24.24.23.84.44.13.83.83.83.94.13.64.04.13.74.24.04.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
66%52%60%56%32%53%52%54%43%46%35%38%29%34%33%22%43%41%47%48%42%22%28%26%31%23%37%23%22%36%25%26%22%20%52%17%23%26%
9%10%
4%10%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
48NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure FP-2Family MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.94.64.74.64.24.54.64.44.64.44.04.24.14.54.23.83.94.13.83.84.24.23.73.84.04.23.84.04.14.24.23.63.93.74.03.84.23.74.04.03.94.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
89%80%81%76%59%71%57%61%61%66%25%15%40%51%39%36%43%44%20%35%53%42%11%24%38%33%27%24%30%20%39%24%24%21%34%14%48%15%13%
3%7%3%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
49NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure FP-2Family MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.64.54.54.34.54.54.54.64.44.24.34.14.44.44.04.24.04.24.04.34.34.14.04.24.24.04.34.14.34.33.94.03.94.24.04.33.94.24.14.24.24.6
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
70%66%59%54%41%54%37%46%47%45%24%19%25%26%36%32%40%24%20%31%35%36%16%21%20%24%19%20%23%20%31%22%18%15%20%13%37%12%17%
7%6%3%6%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
50NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure FP-3Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
93%
79%
54%
52%
34%
2%
6%
1%
71%
56%
68%
26%
17%
9%
25%
9%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
51NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure FP-4Family 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
2015
11 11
30
8 7 8
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
54
8 7 6
65
1 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, excluding preliminary programs).
52NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure FP-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Family MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
2.8
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.1
4.4
3.2
3.1
3.4
1.5
2.4
1.6
2.3
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.7
3.3
2.7
3.1
1.8
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
4.5
3.6
3.3
3.7
2.5
2.3
1.7
1.9
1.7
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
53NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Internal Medicine
54NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure IM-1Internal MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.54.34.64.54.74.64.24.43.64.23.94.54.44.34.24.54.13.63.94.34.04.34.03.74.03.83.63.64.13.93.73.43.53.53.73.33.83.73.53.73.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
86%88%80%68%83%70%59%59%46%56%51%61%73%59%53%65%52%49%51%59%46%56%45%28%35%33%18%24%35%28%20%21%18%19%11%11%16%16%7%3%3%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
55NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure IM-1Internal MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.24.24.54.34.44.54.24.43.84.43.84.44.44.24.04.44.23.84.24.24.04.14.03.93.94.04.13.84.33.93.73.73.73.83.83.64.04.13.74.14.04.2
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
63%60%49%55%54%56%46%52%47%45%31%36%61%46%31%52%44%38%51%50%38%49%35%28%33%27%28%22%37%40%17%22%18%31%36%10%18%27%10%
5%5%
22%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
56NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure IM-2Internal MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.54.54.64.44.54.64.34.64.34.74.64.44.34.23.73.94.04.43.84.24.34.33.84.04.13.63.94.14.13.83.53.83.74.03.73.93.74.03.84.03.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
85%79%78%69%76%57%65%60%60%54%71%61%55%45%46%36%44%39%61%39%38%46%49%24%37%27%21%27%25%28%13%17%17%12%14%12%
7%7%
10%5%2%3%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
57NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure IM-2Internal MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.54.34.44.34.44.44.44.54.24.54.54.34.24.33.94.24.04.53.94.14.34.34.04.14.13.94.14.04.34.23.84.03.84.14.04.13.64.23.94.14.24.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
66%68%56%51%56%49%35%46%50%41%46%49%39%27%39%38%44%24%55%33%31%40%44%24%27%25%18%22%28%34%23%18%11%14%15%22%24%
7%21%
7%3%5%
18%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
58NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure IM-3Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
91%
74%
66%
63%
52%
3%
5%
1%
75%
48%
71%
30%
22%
10%
17%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
59NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure IM-4Internal 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
29
1512 11
39
3 3 4
Matched Not Matched
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
107
9 8 8
88
2 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, excluding preliminary programs).
60NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure IM-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Internal MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.1
2.7
2.9
2.1
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.1
4.7
3.4
2.6
3.3
1.4
1.8
2.0
1.5
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.4
3.1
3.4
2.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.7
4.3
3.4
3.6
3.2
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
61NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
62NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure MP-1Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.44.04.74.64.44.54.24.33.64.43.94.54.04.04.14.14.03.43.94.44.14.03.93.64.23.84.03.24.04.04.13.33.63.63.73.34.03.53.63.53.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
90%78%81%73%72%71%71%60%62%63%69%57%46%51%61%45%54%60%56%59%60%29%37%20%45%30%18%13%30%38%46%20%22%28%20%16%32%19%4%5%3%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
63NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure MP-1Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.44.14.74.44.34.64.24.43.64.43.64.54.24.33.94.24.14.04.24.34.03.83.94.34.24.24.13.74.34.03.93.53.92.94.43.63.84.13.64.53.85.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
71%54%55%68%52%55%55%52%54%59%39%55%36%43%36%36%52%41%48%54%41%36%34%30%38%27%32%21%27%39%32%21%25%16%25%18%23%25%11%
4%9%7%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
64NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure MP-2Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.94.54.44.64.14.44.54.54.64.24.44.14.14.44.13.73.94.03.93.54.34.44.03.73.74.23.43.74.14.03.73.24.13.63.93.83.43.63.64.04.33.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
91%87%85%77%69%57%67%75%66%63%67%44%48%51%52%47%47%54%41%45%57%59%27%19%32%43%
7%27%34%29%18%17%44%18%33%19%12%
9%11%
2%2%4%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
65NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure MP-2Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
5.04.74.34.63.94.54.64.54.54.04.34.24.04.24.13.64.33.64.14.13.84.33.93.54.24.13.64.04.14.13.93.64.34.44.13.73.93.73.43.64.04.54.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
76%67%59%61%43%54%56%57%48%43%52%39%39%26%28%41%46%30%41%37%46%33%30%33%30%24%19%17%33%26%20%20%24%15%26%17%22%11%15%
9%6%4%6%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
66NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure MP-3Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
93%
87%
70%
73%
50%
19%
3%
2%
82%
59%
63%
39%
31%
31%
4%
2%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
67NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure MP-4Internal 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
24
1511 11
19
9 7 7
Matched Not Matched
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
31
10 9 9
30
4 3 3
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, excluding preliminary programs).
68NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure MP-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Internal Medicine/PediatricsLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.5
2.9
2.7
3.1
1.8
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.1
4.4
2.7
2.7
3.1
1.7
2.4
1.9
2.1
1.2
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.4
3.4
2.3
3.9
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.5
4.6
3.5
3.6
3.8
2.5
2.2
1.7
2.1
1.6
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
69NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Neurology
70NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NE-1NeurologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.44.34.64.44.74.64.24.53.74.33.84.54.24.04.24.43.93.63.84.24.34.14.23.84.03.93.43.74.33.93.63.63.53.63.63.23.33.83.24.13.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
88%87%77%72%80%73%56%71%62%57%61%54%62%55%50%58%55%51%58%52%57%59%35%31%34%30%14%32%15%27%17%22%22%17%7%8%
15%13%4%3%4%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
71NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NE-1NeurologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.24.24.44.34.54.54.14.43.84.53.84.34.34.14.04.44.33.84.14.14.04.13.94.03.94.04.13.84.53.73.93.64.03.53.63.43.94.03.73.74.24.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
66%67%51%56%62%58%45%61%49%44%34%39%58%45%29%52%44%45%53%48%41%57%30%29%28%21%24%31%23%32%14%21%18%26%16%
9%14%25%10%
4%5%
20%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
72NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NE-2NeurologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.54.54.54.34.54.54.44.64.34.54.44.24.34.13.94.04.24.13.84.34.24.23.84.03.93.63.94.14.13.53.73.83.63.74.13.93.24.23.73.23.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
88%83%80%80%78%77%68%72%63%57%68%57%49%39%51%53%51%49%55%46%52%49%57%31%33%26%35%27%21%16%11%24%16%21%11%10%
7%7%7%2%3%4%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
73NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NE-2NeurologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.64.34.54.44.54.44.54.64.34.64.44.34.14.43.84.33.94.43.84.14.34.34.04.04.13.94.14.04.44.13.84.03.84.13.84.13.14.13.94.34.34.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
70%70%59%53%61%58%35%49%53%42%52%44%36%29%37%42%45%29%52%34%33%37%48%26%21%25%25%15%26%23%16%19%
8%14%12%16%
7%6%
19%6%3%3%
15%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
74NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NE-3NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
91%
76%
63%
69%
59%
7%
6%
3%
73%
49%
72%
33%
22%
19%
13%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
75NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NE-4NeurologyPercentage 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
24
1712 11
21
9 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
60
9 8 7
50
2 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, excluding preliminary programs).
76NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NE-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
NeurologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.1
3.5
2.8
2.2
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.1
2.5
2.0
3.5
1.5
4.5
1.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.4
3.8
3.4
2.9
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
4.3
3.8
3.6
3.5
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.7
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
77NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Neurological Surgery
78NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NS-1Neurological SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.14.24.74.54.64.54.04.63.64.33.74.63.84.13.84.24.33.43.84.14.04.33.84.23.83.94.13.63.64.13.43.33.63.53.72.92.83.73.92.53.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
77%84%83%77%79%69%52%79%70%68%56%57%45%60%44%51%66%56%56%39%57%69%22%53%27%34%53%32%6%
17%24%7%8%
25%2%5%4%8%7%2%7%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
79NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NS-1Neurological SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
3.94.24.44.14.54.63.94.13.94.23.43.84.13.84.04.44.23.64.33.63.84.83.74.23.42.84.83.44.53.83.83.05.05.05.04.04.34.03.5
4.74.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
42%73%54%65%81%62%35%69%69%58%35%42%46%50%15%50%65%35%50%46%31%77%27%46%19%15%50%19%
8%27%19%
4%4%8%4%4%
12%31%
8%0%
12%19%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
80NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NS-2Neurological SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.54.34.74.44.64.74.34.54.14.64.54.34.14.44.04.03.94.23.54.14.24.44.23.74.13.94.04.34.74.33.53.73.64.53.84.03.33.84.3
4.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
87%77%69%87%70%79%61%61%59%47%64%42%52%34%56%62%38%36%31%42%45%29%66%49%17%20%38%34%14%
5%40%
8%15%
7%3%
19%2%9%3%3%0%6%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
81NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NS-2Neurological SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.53.94.64.34.64.24.54.63.74.74.24.13.34.73.84.33.44.33.43.94.24.74.54.54.33.75.04.55.04.6
4.05.0
5.05.03.54.54.0
4.04.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
62%65%46%69%65%62%38%50%50%31%58%46%42%12%38%46%46%27%31%23%31%19%54%35%
8%15%15%
4%23%
4%35%
0%8%4%0%4%4%8%
15%4%0%4%
19%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
82NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NS-3Neurological SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
92%
80%
76%
77%
46%
9%
3%
2%
76%
40%
84%
24%
16%
20%
20%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
83NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NS-4Neurological 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
23
16 16
63
10 9 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
80
9 7 7
75
3 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, excluding preliminary programs).
84NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure NS-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Neurological SurgeryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.0
3.4
3.4
2.5
2.3
2.2
1.8
2.0
1.0
3.5
3.6
3.3
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.5
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.3
3.4
3.9
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.4
2.4
4.7
4.6
2.8
2.5
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.7
1.4
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
85NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Obstetrics and Gynecology
86NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OB-1Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.54.24.74.54.44.54.24.43.84.23.94.54.14.04.24.34.03.53.74.13.94.23.73.84.03.64.03.54.43.93.73.23.33.63.73.23.33.53.53.73.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
90%84%76%73%73%66%58%62%73%52%57%49%64%62%60%60%50%49%42%52%49%50%30%27%38%24%37%30%23%33%35%22%23%20%21%3%9%9%4%6%6%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
87NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OB-1Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.24.24.64.54.04.64.24.43.84.33.64.34.14.04.04.44.23.94.04.23.84.03.54.03.84.04.33.64.53.73.93.43.53.83.73.23.53.83.24.44.34.6
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
70%54%58%57%41%53%41%47%53%45%31%37%40%39%32%31%44%33%46%46%31%32%23%29%23%20%31%22%21%31%23%20%18%15%43%
6%11%16%
3%9%6%
11%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
88NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OB-2Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.94.64.54.64.34.44.64.44.64.24.54.44.14.34.13.93.74.04.23.64.04.24.23.93.74.03.63.94.04.34.23.23.83.53.43.83.93.73.73.63.73.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
89%85%81%77%71%67%62%61%65%56%61%59%52%56%51%61%44%43%53%40%42%47%45%25%24%32%26%23%32%19%34%19%26%20%
9%12%16%
1%6%3%5%5%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
89NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OB-2Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.54.34.64.24.54.54.64.54.24.04.34.14.24.33.94.13.94.33.94.24.44.24.13.84.13.84.14.24.44.33.64.13.74.24.03.84.34.03.34.03.94.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
73%71%60%58%46%53%38%43%50%38%31%38%34%32%37%43%43%24%34%29%20%37%31%27%12%19%19%17%16%21%30%17%14%13%
9%12%29%
1%10%
3%3%9%7%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
90NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OB-3Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
90%
77%
68%
70%
54%
5%
7%
2%
75%
59%
62%
38%
27%
16%
15%
6%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
91NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OB-4Obstetrics 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
35
1613 12
42
10 8 9
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
60
10 9 9
50
3 3 3
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, excluding preliminary programs).
92NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OB-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Obstetrics and GynecologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
3.3
3.1
2.6
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.1
4.6
3.7
2.8
3.0
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.5
3.6
2.8
3.1
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.6
4.5
3.8
3.0
3.5
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.5
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
93NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Orthopaedic Surgery
94NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OS-1Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.34.24.74.74.24.54.24.53.64.33.84.64.14.23.94.64.23.63.73.93.64.03.63.93.73.74.03.74.33.73.43.43.53.63.53.13.33.53.53.93.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
84%86%80%75%67%68%62%72%67%57%56%55%48%58%51%68%62%56%53%33%30%49%24%36%17%30%44%37%12%16%19%16%14%29%19%10%16%12%8%5%5%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
95NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OS-1Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.04.14.24.34.24.44.14.33.74.33.54.44.24.44.34.43.93.23.84.13.23.74.24.33.64.04.33.45.04.63.03.03.24.13.83.03.04.03.04.75.03.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
57%62%52%57%43%57%33%55%26%45%14%40%38%43%21%45%45%33%36%26%26%40%14%19%17%24%29%17%10%21%10%
7%14%19%10%
5%2%7%2%7%2%
14%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
96NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OS-2Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.94.44.44.74.34.54.64.44.54.24.24.64.34.24.33.73.73.94.23.63.83.93.94.13.73.83.83.74.04.24.13.43.43.43.73.63.73.24.03.73.84.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
85%75%77%79%73%75%58%56%64%60%52%60%50%43%52%53%46%44%32%45%23%23%44%32%14%12%37%25%12%10%24%13%11%
9%12%21%14%
5%5%4%4%4%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
97NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OS-2Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.64.54.44.54.54.24.44.34.34.44.34.54.44.44.34.24.74.04.34.64.04.54.34.33.83.93.03.74.34.64.53.54.03.64.03.84.03.03.33.05.0
3.8100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
70%60%63%70%57%65%40%60%45%35%40%40%45%20%38%18%30%23%33%25%10%13%43%15%13%20%13%23%15%13%25%
8%10%13%
3%13%10%
5%10%
3%3%0%
18%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
98NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OS-3Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
89%
71%
88%
60%
35%
9%
10%
5%
71%
61%
82%
24%
13%
26%
16%
11%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
99NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OS-4Orthopaedic 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
70
1512 12
75
7 6 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
3 3 3
54
3 3 3
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, excluding preliminary programs).
100NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OS-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Orthopaedic SurgeryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
3.7
3.2
3.6
2.7
2.4
2.2
1.6
1.8
1.1
3.3
3.8
3.0
2.5
2.1
1.7
1.3
1.5
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
2.9
2.8
3.6
2.1
1.1
1.9
1.6
1.3
2.4
4.3
3.6
3.7
2.6
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.3
1.9
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
101NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Otolaryngology
102NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OT-1OtolaryngologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.24.14.74.54.44.44.04.53.64.23.84.64.13.94.04.34.23.63.54.03.84.13.64.13.73.73.93.84.53.93.43.33.53.33.32.93.23.74.04.04.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
82%76%74%60%70%60%56%66%74%46%51%51%47%52%54%55%47%49%41%36%20%54%18%41%28%23%37%30%7%
17%26%16%12%20%4%7%
10%8%4%4%5%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
103NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OT-1OtolaryngologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.33.84.93.84.34.33.84.23.64.03.44.24.54.03.24.54.33.03.83.83.54.34.33.54.04.04.63.72.54.03.12.02.02.5
3.74.05.0
3.04.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
67%83%75%75%83%67%42%83%67%42%67%50%67%67%42%
100%33%25%42%42%33%92%25%33%25%17%50%33%25%25%58%
8%8%
17%8%0%
25%17%
8%0%
17%8%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
104NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OT-2OtolaryngologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.44.44.64.14.44.64.24.34.04.44.34.14.24.43.83.63.84.13.53.73.94.24.03.53.63.63.83.54.23.93.03.33.33.73.43.62.84.03.44.23.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
88%80%80%71%68%77%61%53%52%55%53%53%46%49%48%58%38%44%34%45%15%32%50%39%12%20%36%21%18%
5%25%12%20%
7%8%
13%3%4%3%3%3%3%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
105NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OT-2OtolaryngologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.94.44.04.34.04.44.54.04.84.34.24.44.03.44.54.03.24.04.33.03.64.04.53.74.03.73.53.05.05.04.03.03.02.5
3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
100%73%64%73%45%64%55%45%55%36%82%73%36%45%36%64%45%36%36%18%45%18%73%27%27%27%18%
9%9%9%
18%9%
45%18%
0%18%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
106NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OT-3OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
85%
68%
86%
61%
34%
16%
9%
5%
91%
64%
82%
55%
9%
64%
0%
0%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
107NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OT-4OtolaryngologyPercentage 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
67
1512 12
73
6 6 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
98
10 8 8
84
3 3 3
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, excluding preliminary programs).
108NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure OT-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
OtolaryngologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
3.9
3.1
3.2
2.9
2.3
2.2
1.6
1.6
1.0
3.4
3.3
2.8
3.3
1.7
1.8
1.4
1.6
1.3
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.8
2.4
1.6
3.4
1.3
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.4
3.8
3.5
2.6
4.0
2.0
2.0
1.2
1.0
1.7
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
109NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Pathology
110NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PA-1PathologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.54.24.64.34.64.64.34.33.74.23.84.54.34.14.14.54.03.83.94.34.04.03.74.03.93.93.33.44.03.83.53.63.63.23.63.53.13.73.04.43.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
89%87%79%77%76%71%72%75%62%54%58%58%77%59%52%68%48%56%50%34%53%62%16%35%23%33%16%25%24%15%8%
36%26%17%3%8%5%9%6%7%4%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
111NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PA-1PathologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.24.14.54.24.54.64.14.43.64.43.74.34.24.14.14.44.23.64.04.34.04.13.74.13.84.13.83.84.43.83.83.73.93.53.63.74.04.03.74.23.94.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
65%60%46%51%59%54%49%61%49%38%27%30%55%47%27%52%39%38%46%33%43%56%15%33%27%24%19%18%21%33%16%20%21%16%11%
8%6%
22%5%5%5%
20%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
112NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PA-2PathologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.64.54.44.34.44.54.24.64.44.64.54.14.34.24.04.14.14.44.04.14.34.24.23.54.23.73.84.04.23.83.74.43.84.83.83.63.84.34.64.24.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
83%78%80%73%74%76%65%58%57%68%62%62%48%43%36%43%50%45%67%50%41%29%51%34%13%18%25%34%17%26%13%31%
6%20%
6%9%3%3%8%3%9%3%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
113NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PA-2PathologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.54.44.44.34.44.54.44.54.24.54.54.34.14.44.04.33.94.43.94.14.44.24.33.83.94.04.14.14.54.13.73.83.94.04.04.24.14.23.73.94.24.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
67%67%58%51%54%59%29%40%54%43%51%50%38%21%32%39%38%18%48%31%28%31%46%26%10%19%15%21%17%21%13%23%
8%17%
3%9%6%6%
18%3%4%2%
20%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
114NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PA-3PathologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
91%
80%
53%
57%
42%
3%
7%
3%
75%
53%
61%
29%
18%
7%
17%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
115NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PA-4PathologyPercentage 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
1611 109
2 2 2
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
70
10 8 8
50
1 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, excluding preliminary programs).
116NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PA-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
PathologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.2
2.5
2.9
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
1.1
5.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.4
2.8
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.7
1.7
4.6
3.4
3.5
3.1
2.2
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.7
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
117NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Pediatrics
118NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PD-1PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.64.14.74.54.44.54.34.43.94.24.04.64.13.94.34.34.03.73.84.34.04.03.93.84.13.83.63.54.13.93.83.43.63.53.63.33.73.73.53.73.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
91%83%83%69%71%67%66%58%79%53%59%57%58%52%58%56%51%52%60%55%55%34%39%40%33%27%16%29%36%26%29%29%31%23%14%8%
18%12%6%6%3%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
119NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PD-1PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.34.14.64.44.34.54.24.43.94.43.84.44.14.14.04.34.13.74.14.14.14.03.73.94.04.04.03.64.34.03.83.53.73.83.73.43.84.13.63.84.14.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
72%63%59%63%56%60%55%56%61%48%40%41%46%44%37%50%45%42%56%53%48%40%31%30%32%24%29%20%37%39%29%27%24%22%28%
9%18%21%
7%4%3%
14%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
120NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PD-2PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.94.64.64.64.24.44.74.34.64.44.44.44.14.44.24.04.04.14.23.84.14.34.03.94.14.23.64.04.14.13.83.53.93.63.83.73.93.63.63.73.83.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
88%85%83%75%70%60%68%61%64%65%56%47%43%53%47%66%54%45%46%47%49%47%31%36%27%26%25%23%23%31%12%25%26%24%17%14%10%
4%6%3%5%3%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
121NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PD-2PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.64.44.54.34.54.54.54.64.24.44.54.24.44.24.04.23.94.33.84.24.24.24.04.04.13.74.24.14.24.23.74.03.84.23.94.03.74.14.03.74.34.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
71%73%62%59%54%54%41%50%53%47%42%45%36%26%43%51%48%27%38%35%37%38%34%23%22%23%14%20%26%33%20%22%23%16%16%16%16%
3%15%
5%2%3%
10%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
122NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PD-3PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
92%
75%
68%
68%
51%
3%
4%
1%
79%
58%
64%
35%
25%
7%
13%
5%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
123NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PD-4PediatricsPercentage 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
1512 11
35
6 5 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
59
11 9 8
60
2 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, excluding preliminary programs).
124NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PD-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
PediatricsLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.3
2.7
2.8
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.1
4.5
3.3
2.8
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.1
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.6
3.0
2.9
2.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
4.5
3.7
3.5
3.2
2.5
2.1
1.8
1.7
1.6
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
125NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
126NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PM-1Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.64.24.84.54.34.54.64.53.84.44.34.73.94.04.24.34.13.93.94.14.23.83.93.84.04.04.13.84.24.23.93.93.93.93.73.63.83.74.04.23.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
88%84%85%71%56%73%80%70%61%73%71%59%63%56%56%57%49%54%58%48%55%44%39%39%42%32%42%57%28%26%17%36%31%21%13%23%25%11%10%9%
13%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
127NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PM-1Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.34.04.84.44.34.64.34.53.54.43.94.44.24.04.04.34.03.54.04.04.34.03.73.83.83.94.23.74.44.03.43.43.43.53.53.63.83.93.74.23.93.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
69%68%70%57%42%52%63%53%47%49%38%47%50%48%39%51%44%42%49%25%42%42%22%21%24%25%41%40%23%19%14%25%19%16%11%17%13%18%10%
5%8%3%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
128NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PM-2Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.64.64.64.24.54.64.54.64.54.34.34.34.24.23.83.94.33.94.04.34.34.03.74.14.13.84.04.04.14.03.53.63.73.73.83.33.64.34.44.03.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
90%87%85%76%78%69%65%69%70%86%48%60%45%58%54%59%60%61%55%52%59%44%45%48%33%34%61%23%27%35%52%43%12%31%20%17%
8%12%
6%8%3%6%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
129NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PM-2Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.94.64.44.54.14.64.54.64.74.44.24.44.24.24.13.74.04.04.23.64.34.14.03.83.73.73.54.13.84.24.23.53.43.64.13.63.63.84.23.74.24.05.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
77%71%62%61%68%59%52%61%54%58%38%52%46%28%46%43%47%37%50%44%43%33%34%30%17%19%38%26%18%23%38%22%
9%15%15%13%
9%17%
8%5%4%7%2%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
130NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PM-3Physical 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 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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
91%
82%
65%
70%
51%
11%
9%
7%
75%
66%
73%
45%
35%
9%
12%
4%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
131NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PM-4Physical 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
30
1712 12
30
7 6 5
Matched Not Matched
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
35
1411 10
36
3 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, excluding preliminary programs).
132NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PM-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Physical Medicine and RehabilitationLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.1
4.1
2.8
2.5
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.0
4.6
4.1
3.0
2.8
1.6
1.5
2.0
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 preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.3
3.6
2.2
2.7
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.7
4.4
4.0
3.1
3.5
1.7
2.1
1.5
1.7
1.5
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
133NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Plastic Surgery
134NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PS-1Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.14.54.64.54.64.54.24.53.74.53.94.64.04.33.84.34.33.63.53.93.94.03.94.13.83.83.73.24.53.63.43.53.63.53.13.33.33.44.03.54.5
80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
77%77%72%68%70%56%54%73%63%56%54%52%37%56%37%58%56%46%35%42%30%56%15%48%21%21%41%27%15%15%32%17%17%14%10%14%11%8%3%3%6%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
135NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PS-1Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.54.24.64.64.74.43.74.94.04.34.54.54.34.34.04.04.63.04.04.04.54.84.74.33.54.03.6
4.53.73.03.53.73.0
4.5
5.0
3.5100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
40%67%47%33%47%47%20%47%33%40%13%27%20%27%13%40%33%20%47%33%13%40%20%40%27%20%33%
0%13%20%27%13%20%13%
0%13%
0%0%0%7%0%
13%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
136NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PS-2Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.54.34.74.54.74.54.54.54.34.54.44.24.34.43.93.84.33.93.93.64.13.84.13.73.83.73.93.84.44.03.63.73.33.33.73.04.73.34.03.53.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
93%77%84%91%83%87%64%72%71%58%70%54%57%35%59%64%43%49%46%46%45%38%65%46%17%19%22%22%17%10%38%12%42%
9%9%
23%12%
4%4%4%3%6%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
137NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PS-2Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.84.24.14.54.24.63.84.64.74.84.24.74.04.84.05.04.74.03.34.34.54.34.55.05.0
3.74.05.04.03.53.83.0
3.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
67%53%33%60%40%80%47%40%33%20%33%33%20%
7%27%20%33%20%27%20%20%27%47%27%13%
7%0%
20%20%
7%13%13%27%
7%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%7%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
138NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PS-3Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
99%
83%
84%
65%
43%
41%
4%
10%
67%
47%
87%
0%
0%
0%
20%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
139NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PS-4Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percentage 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
61
1813 13
65
3 3 3
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
46
5 5 5
48
2 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, excluding preliminary programs).
140NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PS-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.1
3.0
3.3
3.0
2.3
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.1
2.6
3.4
3.8
3.0
2.4
1.6
2.2
2.0
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
2.3
2.3
4.7
1.0
1.0
2.3
2.3
1.0
2.0
3.5
2.1
3.9
3.0
2.8
2.4
2.6
2.3
2.3
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
141NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Psychiatry
142NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PY-1PsychiatryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.64.14.74.54.44.54.44.43.74.44.04.54.04.04.14.34.03.63.94.44.24.03.93.84.23.83.63.84.23.93.63.43.73.43.73.63.54.04.03.84.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
88%80%81%71%70%66%73%70%50%62%60%57%63%48%53%46%49%58%55%54%61%38%25%32%40%27%9%
48%9%
32%14%33%30%20%19%39%18%14%11%6%3%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
143NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PY-1PsychiatryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.34.14.54.44.34.54.34.43.64.43.94.44.14.04.04.24.33.84.04.34.04.03.83.94.14.14.03.94.44.13.83.73.63.83.83.93.84.13.74.24.34.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
62%58%58%55%47%55%50%56%41%48%34%37%48%38%32%35%45%39%45%46%42%40%22%27%35%21%14%31%16%41%16%24%21%19%32%21%13%25%10%
6%6%
14%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
144NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PY-2PsychiatryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.64.64.54.34.54.64.54.64.54.54.24.04.34.23.83.94.14.13.84.24.34.13.84.04.23.94.04.24.23.83.64.03.83.83.63.83.84.14.14.04.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
89%82%81%74%67%68%62%67%64%73%52%39%39%51%43%38%46%48%44%45%55%47%36%27%17%32%44%22%30%
8%7%
29%10%23%14%12%13%32%10%
6%5%4%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
145NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PY-2PsychiatryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.64.54.44.34.44.44.54.64.34.34.14.14.14.33.94.14.04.03.94.14.34.13.94.14.13.94.14.24.44.13.73.73.84.13.74.13.84.23.94.24.14.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
71%70%57%54%52%57%36%48%49%49%39%33%30%28%37%28%44%28%41%33%35%41%33%22%18%28%27%18%30%14%11%19%11%16%
9%13%18%17%17%
7%4%5%
12%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
146NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PY-3PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
93%
78%
66%
63%
43%
2%
4%
2%
68%
46%
67%
33%
19%
8%
19%
7%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
147NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PY-4PsychiatryPercentage 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
1310 9
25
85 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
8 8 7
60
2 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, excluding preliminary programs).
148NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure PY-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
PsychiatryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.2
2.5
2.7
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.1
3.6
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.4
2.0
2.4
2.5
1.8
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.5
3.0
2.9
2.6
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.6
4.5
3.6
3.5
3.3
2.4
2.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
149NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Radiation Oncology
150NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RD-1Radiation OncologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.24.44.74.44.64.74.34.53.64.23.84.43.84.34.14.13.83.74.04.04.24.63.73.94.03.93.63.44.63.84.13.33.53.53.34.04.14.33.74.23.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
82%77%76%71%74%65%64%71%60%62%44%59%16%59%43%15%53%51%56%29%44%74%34%32%22%36%30%22%14%14%13%19%16%19%7%7%8%
13%8%7%4%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
151NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RD-1Radiation OncologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.34.54.54.34.84.64.04.74.54.04.54.34.84.04.54.74.32.54.53.03.04.53.3
4.03.5
3.5
3.05.03.55.0
5.0
4.54.0
5.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
60%40%40%60%
100%100%
60%60%40%80%40%60%80%40%40%60%60%40%40%20%20%40%60%
0%40%40%
0%40%
0%20%20%40%20%
0%0%
20%0%
40%20%
0%0%
20%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
152NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RD-2Radiation OncologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.54.44.54.54.64.54.44.54.34.64.84.44.24.03.84.14.24.33.84.34.04.63.73.84.13.64.14.04.23.93.64.03.53.94.33.03.83.73.63.84.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
86%77%79%78%80%79%65%64%57%69%60%12%62%45%45%55%55%38%12%45%36%33%79%35%22%20%22%31%17%21%27%17%10%13%13%10%
1%6%8%6%5%5%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
153NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RD-2Radiation OncologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
5.05.05.04.55.04.73.04.35.05.04.65.04.74.55.04.04.04.05.03.5
4.04.54.05.04.04.04.03.05.04.04.54.0
5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
40%60%20%40%40%60%20%80%20%20%
100%20%60%40%20%20%20%20%40%40%
0%20%40%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%40%20%
0%0%0%0%
40%0%0%0%0%0%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
154NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RD-3Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
92%
73%
80%
63%
45%
21%
5%
6%
40%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
60%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
155NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RD-4Radiation 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
60
15 13 13
64
6 5 6
Matched Not Matched
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Median number ofapplication submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number ofprograms ranked
32
4 4 4
41
1 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, excluding preliminary programs).
156NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RD-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Radiation OncologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
3.9
3.4
3.2
2.5
2.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.0
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.8
2.0
2.0
2.5
1.8
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.8
5.0
4.3
3.5
3.3
1.7
2.7
1.0
1.0
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
157NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Radiology-Diagnostic
158NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RO-1Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.54.34.74.54.54.64.44.53.74.44.04.54.24.24.24.43.93.83.84.03.94.04.04.03.93.74.03.74.33.73.13.43.63.63.23.63.53.43.63.43.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
89%85%75%63%71%67%70%62%63%53%58%47%68%50%53%65%48%56%56%38%43%48%26%34%25%21%30%41%25%16%11%30%32%20%9%
31%6%9%7%6%6%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
159NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RO-1Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.34.24.64.24.34.54.24.33.74.34.04.44.34.33.94.54.03.94.13.93.93.83.94.13.73.84.23.64.54.03.63.73.73.53.73.64.14.23.33.74.14.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
74%69%56%57%58%56%55%59%52%50%34%38%57%41%36%51%44%45%60%36%29%39%25%32%25%19%31%32%28%25%16%24%24%23%14%23%
6%18%
9%6%6%
16%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
160NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RO-2Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.54.64.54.44.44.64.34.64.34.44.44.24.44.34.03.94.14.33.93.94.04.14.03.94.13.93.94.04.44.13.63.53.63.93.83.33.73.64.03.83.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
85%80%83%71%77%66%54%59%59%67%62%61%46%43%46%59%52%51%53%51%37%36%42%33%19%19%35%22%17%25%31%24%
8%23%
5%11%
6%29%
7%5%5%5%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
161NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RO-2Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.74.54.54.34.34.44.54.44.54.44.54.34.34.14.33.84.14.14.34.13.84.24.14.23.94.33.84.24.04.44.23.93.54.04.03.83.63.94.13.73.43.94.6
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
75%73%68%58%59%59%39%48%49%54%46%50%42%30%41%45%50%36%45%42%24%34%38%26%18%16%29%17%17%28%25%28%10%17%
6%16%10%22%11%
5%4%4%
14%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
162NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RO-3Radiology-DiagnosticPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
90%
78%
58%
73%
56%
7%
6%
4%
81%
61%
69%
46%
35%
17%
12%
9%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
163NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RO-4Radiology-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
40
25
15 15
40
6 5 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
56
12 10 10
27
2 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, excluding preliminary programs).
164NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure RO-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Radiology-DiagnosticLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.1
3.7
2.6
2.3
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.1
4.3
3.2
3.6
1.8
1.5
2.0
2.3
2.0
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.6
3.7
3.0
2.7
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.5
4.2
3.5
3.0
2.6
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.6
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
165NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Surgery-General
166NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure SG-1Surgery-GeneralPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.34.14.64.54.34.44.04.43.64.23.84.54.14.34.14.54.23.43.74.13.84.13.64.03.93.63.93.44.13.93.63.33.43.53.73.53.63.93.43.63.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
84%83%79%69%69%66%45%66%55%59%52%59%58%67%47%65%57%46%49%46%41%60%27%38%27%27%34%17%44%22%25%17%16%17%23%10%5%
11%8%5%7%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
167NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure SG-1Surgery-GeneralPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.14.24.74.44.14.63.94.43.84.53.74.54.44.34.14.44.23.64.14.23.93.94.24.23.93.84.23.74.44.03.93.43.53.73.73.73.93.83.54.64.04.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
64%58%55%58%47%51%38%56%49%50%31%40%44%46%28%44%42%34%51%36%34%44%23%37%20%26%28%11%29%29%19%15%12%16%34%
5%10%19%
5%5%4%
14%
Geographic locationReputation of program
Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program
Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training
Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program
Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**
Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities
Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records
Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures
Call scheduleABMS board pass rates
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience
SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave
Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
168NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure SG-2Surgery-GeneralPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.54.44.64.34.44.64.44.44.14.34.54.44.34.33.73.74.04.23.64.04.14.24.13.74.03.73.74.04.14.03.33.83.33.63.84.03.33.83.53.64.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
88%82%76%76%71%67%67%63%61%42%61%61%61%44%52%44%44%39%45%39%36%35%54%30%19%20%13%20%20%37%22%16%19%10%
3%11%17%
6%4%6%4%6%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
169NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure SG-2Surgery-GeneralPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
4.84.54.24.54.44.54.54.44.54.14.44.54.34.14.33.94.23.74.43.84.24.34.14.44.14.03.73.94.14.44.23.84.03.54.33.73.93.74.33.44.34.24.2
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%
63%59%58%59%50%48%41%48%50%30%38%44%38%25%39%41%45%25%34%27%26%30%35%30%16%17%
8%24%21%27%24%14%13%
7%8%
12%18%
3%10%
2%2%5%9%
Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience
Geographic locationQuality of residents in program
Reputation of programQuality of faculty
House staff moraleQuality of program director
Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance
Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training
Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area
Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program
Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area
Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems
Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload
Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location
Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates
Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary
Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave
Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program
Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program
Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Average RatingPercent Citing Factor
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care
170NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure SG-3Surgery-GeneralPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
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 preferred specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)
I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview
93%
77%
66%
67%
55%
6%
6%
2%
79%
60%
71%
37%
26%
17%
16%
12%
U.S. Senior Independent Applicant
171NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure SG-4Surgery-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
42
1813 13
51
7 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
90
9 8 8
80
3 3 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, excluding preliminary programs).
172NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Figure SG-5
U.S. Seniors
Independent Applicants
Surgery-GeneralLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Re-enter the Match next year
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
4.4
3.8
2.9
2.3
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.1
4.3
3.8
2.7
2.5
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.0
Matched Not Matched
1 2 3 4 5
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty
Pursue a graduate degree
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
Re-enter the Match next year
4.6
4.0
3.0
2.5
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4
4.5
4.1
3.2
2.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.5
Matched Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"
173NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015