Martin C Tom1, Camille Berriochoa1, Chandana A Reddy1, Rahul D Tendulkar2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: tendulr@ccf.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report trends in applicant interview experiences and post-interview communication (PIC) between the 2016 and 2018 radiation oncology interview cycles. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous survey was sent to all 203 residency applicants to a single institution during the 2018 Match, and the results were compared to a similar 2016 survey. RESULTS: Response rates in 2018 and 2016 were 53% and 56%, respectively. Applicants from 2018 were asked less frequently than 2016 applicants about where else they were interviewing (71% vs 84%, P = .024) and how highly they planned to rank a program (11% vs 23%, P = .018). A higher proportion of 2018 programs explicitly discouraged PIC (median, 53% vs 33%, P < .0001), and more 2018 respondents chose not to send any thank-you notes/emails (42% vs 17%, P < .0001). When comparing 2018 results to 2016, no significant differences were observed in the proportion of applicants who notified their top program that they would rank that program highly (54% vs 60%, P = .354). No difference was observed in the rate of reported distress associated with a sense of obligation to send PIC (49% vs 46%, P = .664), and similar rates of respondents said they would feel relieved if PIC was discouraged (94% vs 89%, P = .223). Most respondents again reported that they would prefer a policy to actively discourage applicants from notifying their top programs of their high rank (60% vs 66%, P = .974). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to 2016, respondents in 2018 reported that fewer programs are engaging in potential Match violations, and more are actively discouraging PIC, possibly as a result of increased awareness from recent publications. A similar number of applicants continued to engage in "gamesmanship," but more are choosing not to send thank-you notes/emails. Most respondents continue to prefer a policy discouraging PIC.
PURPOSE: To report trends in applicant interview experiences and post-interview communication (PIC) between the 2016 and 2018 radiation oncology interview cycles. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous survey was sent to all 203 residency applicants to a single institution during the 2018 Match, and the results were compared to a similar 2016 survey. RESULTS: Response rates in 2018 and 2016 were 53% and 56%, respectively. Applicants from 2018 were asked less frequently than 2016 applicants about where else they were interviewing (71% vs 84%, P = .024) and how highly they planned to rank a program (11% vs 23%, P = .018). A higher proportion of 2018 programs explicitly discouraged PIC (median, 53% vs 33%, P < .0001), and more 2018 respondents chose not to send any thank-you notes/emails (42% vs 17%, P < .0001). When comparing 2018 results to 2016, no significant differences were observed in the proportion of applicants who notified their top program that they would rank that program highly (54% vs 60%, P = .354). No difference was observed in the rate of reported distress associated with a sense of obligation to send PIC (49% vs 46%, P = .664), and similar rates of respondents said they would feel relieved if PIC was discouraged (94% vs 89%, P = .223). Most respondents again reported that they would prefer a policy to actively discourage applicants from notifying their top programs of their high rank (60% vs 66%, P = .974). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to 2016, respondents in 2018 reported that fewer programs are engaging in potential Match violations, and more are actively discouraging PIC, possibly as a result of increased awareness from recent publications. A similar number of applicants continued to engage in "gamesmanship," but more are choosing not to send thank-you notes/emails. Most respondents continue to prefer a policy discouraging PIC.