INTRODUCTION: Applicant interviews for urology residency positions are a stressful and costly process for students, faculty, and staff. We conducted a prospective survey to better determine what urology applicants perceive as an ideal interview process to gain sufficient knowledge about a training program. METHODS: A questionnaire was anonymously completed by all urology residency applicants interviewing at the Medical College of Wisconsin from 2007 to 2013. Questionnaire subject headings included "ideal interview format," "factors contributing to understanding the residency program," and "factors contributing to final rank list order." RESULTS: Questionnaires were distributed to and completed by 221 senior medical students applying for a urology residency position. Most respondents (>80%) reported they would prefer to partake in 5 to 7 faculty interviews in an office setting with the total interview process spanning half to three-fourths of the workday. Spending time with current residents was considered the most valuable tool to acquire knowledge about a residency program. The most important criteria when ranking a program were resident satisfaction, resident operative experience, and perceived strength of faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Academic urology programs may wish to consider applicant ideals when organizing residency interviews. Interaction with current residents appears to be the most valuable resource allowing applicants to garner knowledge about a urology training program.
INTRODUCTION: Applicant interviews for urology residency positions are a stressful and costly process for students, faculty, and staff. We conducted a prospective survey to better determine what urology applicants perceive as an ideal interview process to gain sufficient knowledge about a training program. METHODS: A questionnaire was anonymously completed by all urology residency applicants interviewing at the Medical College of Wisconsin from 2007 to 2013. Questionnaire subject headings included "ideal interview format," "factors contributing to understanding the residency program," and "factors contributing to final rank list order." RESULTS: Questionnaires were distributed to and completed by 221 senior medical students applying for a urology residency position. Most respondents (>80%) reported they would prefer to partake in 5 to 7 faculty interviews in an office setting with the total interview process spanning half to three-fourths of the workday. Spending time with current residents was considered the most valuable tool to acquire knowledge about a residency program. The most important criteria when ranking a program were resident satisfaction, resident operative experience, and perceived strength of faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Academic urology programs may wish to consider applicant ideals when organizing residency interviews. Interaction with current residents appears to be the most valuable resource allowing applicants to garner knowledge about a urology training program.
Authors: Kate A Hanson; Michael S Borofsky; Lindsay A Hampson; Benjamin N Breyer; Nora G Kern; Simon L Conti; Stephanie J Kielb; Mathew D Sorensen Journal: Urology Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 2.649