Elisabeth M Sebesta1, Michael J Lipsky1, Michele Nunez1, Kimberly L Cooper1, Gina M Badalato2. 1. Department of Urology, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 2. Department of Urology, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: gmb2107@cumc.columbia.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of violations to the National Resident Matching Program Code of Conduct during the Urology Match. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sent a survey to all 285 applicants to a single urologic program during 2017 Match cycle; the questions pertained to illegal interview questions, postinterview communication, second-look qualifications, and the applicant's perceived impact of these factors. RESULTS: At total of 166 responses were obtained (response rate 58%). Ninety-six (58%) applicants received follow-up communication from at least 1 program, the majority from multiple programs. Of those who received postinterview communication, 13% reported verbal communication, and 19% felt misled by communication to believe they had a higher chance of matching at a program. Fifty (30%) respondents did a second-look visit, and 44% reported feeling obligated to do so in order to match. Finally, 141 of 166 (85%) applicants reported being asked illegal questions regarding personal life, rank list, and/or other interviews. Female applicants reported being asked illegal questions significantly more frequently than male applicants (P < .01). CONCLUSION: During the 2017 Urology Match, a high proportion of applicants experienced violations of the National Resident Matching Program Code of Conduct. Violations included illegal questions, postinterview written and verbal communication, and pressure to do second-look visits. These findings corroborate numerous anecdotal reports, and may provide the groundwork to improve the fairness of the residency application process for the future.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of violations to the National Resident Matching Program Code of Conduct during the Urology Match. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sent a survey to all 285 applicants to a single urologic program during 2017 Match cycle; the questions pertained to illegal interview questions, postinterview communication, second-look qualifications, and the applicant's perceived impact of these factors. RESULTS: At total of 166 responses were obtained (response rate 58%). Ninety-six (58%) applicants received follow-up communication from at least 1 program, the majority from multiple programs. Of those who received postinterview communication, 13% reported verbal communication, and 19% felt misled by communication to believe they had a higher chance of matching at a program. Fifty (30%) respondents did a second-look visit, and 44% reported feeling obligated to do so in order to match. Finally, 141 of 166 (85%) applicants reported being asked illegal questions regarding personal life, rank list, and/or other interviews. Female applicants reported being asked illegal questions significantly more frequently than male applicants (P < .01). CONCLUSION: During the 2017 Urology Match, a high proportion of applicants experienced violations of the National Resident Matching Program Code of Conduct. Violations included illegal questions, postinterview written and verbal communication, and pressure to do second-look visits. These findings corroborate numerous anecdotal reports, and may provide the groundwork to improve the fairness of the residency application process for the future.
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: Reesa L Monir; Kristina Michaudet; Joseph G Monir; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Charlie Michaudet; Lou Ann Cooper; Heather Harrell Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-01-20