Tara N Nikonow1, Timothy D Lyon2, Stephen V Jackman2, Timothy D Averch2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: nikonowtn@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The urology match is highly competitive but there is a paucity of published data regarding the costs and barriers that applicants face. We gathered data on contributors to cost in the 2014 urology residency match. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants offered an interview at each of 18 participating institutions. Information on demographics, interview related costs, access to financial aid, frequency of away rotations and second look invitations was collected. RESULTS: A total of 173 respondents spent a median of $7,000 on the urology match. Applicants attended a mean of 14 interviews with an average per interview cost of $500. Overall 95% of respondents did at least 1 away rotation and 79% reported being asked to return for a second look interview at least once. Of the respondents 66% did not receive any financial aid for interviews and only 28% believed their financial aid departments provided adequate financial planning. Of those surveyed 20% indicated that their financial situation limited the number of interviews they attended. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that $3,122,000 was spent by applicants on the 2014 urology match. One in 5 applicants reported limiting the number of interviews they attended due to financial concerns. Adequate financial planning resources were not widely available. Nearly all applicants went on an away rotation and encouragement to return for second look interviews was common. These factors may contribute to financial and regional bias in the match process, and are potential targets for reform.
PURPOSE: The urology match is highly competitive but there is a paucity of published data regarding the costs and barriers that applicants face. We gathered data on contributors to cost in the 2014 urology residency match. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants offered an interview at each of 18 participating institutions. Information on demographics, interview related costs, access to financial aid, frequency of away rotations and second look invitations was collected. RESULTS: A total of 173 respondents spent a median of $7,000 on the urology match. Applicants attended a mean of 14 interviews with an average per interview cost of $500. Overall 95% of respondents did at least 1 away rotation and 79% reported being asked to return for a second look interview at least once. Of the respondents 66% did not receive any financial aid for interviews and only 28% believed their financial aid departments provided adequate financial planning. Of those surveyed 20% indicated that their financial situation limited the number of interviews they attended. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that $3,122,000 was spent by applicants on the 2014 urology match. One in 5 applicants reported limiting the number of interviews they attended due to financial concerns. Adequate financial planning resources were not widely available. Nearly all applicants went on an away rotation and encouragement to return for second look interviews was common. These factors may contribute to financial and regional bias in the match process, and are potential targets for reform.
Authors: Kevan Sternberg; Jaime Jordan; Mary R C Haas; Shuhan He; Nicole M Deiorio; Lalena M Yarris; Teresa M Chan Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2020-10
Authors: Eric Shappell; Abra Fant; Benjamin Schnapp; Jill P Craig; James Ahn; Christine Babcock; Michael A Gisondi Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2017-02-07
Authors: Christine A Heisler; Sylvia Botros-Brey; Hanzhang Wang; Ann Tran; Bertille Gaigbe-Togbe; Ava Leegant; Anne Hardart Journal: Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle) Date: 2022-08-04
Authors: Evan Spencer; David Ambinder; Cindy Christiano; John Phillips; Muhammad Choudhury; Gerald Matthews; Sean Fullerton; Lori Dyer; Paul Zelkovic; Majid Eshghi; Nathan C Wong Journal: Urology Date: 2021-07-17 Impact factor: 2.649