Adam Y Nasreddine1,2, Robert Gallo2,3. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 3. Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Bone and Joint Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The competitiveness of orthopaedics and recent changes in the residency application process have resulted in increased costs to both applicants and programs. Our purpose was to investigate changes in the orthopaedic residency application process between 1992 and 2017. Also, we aimed to determine an ideal number of applications that each student can submit without jeopardizing his or her probability of matching into an orthopaedic residency slot while concurrently reducing the excessive number of applications that are received by program selection committees. METHODS: Retrospective data from both the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) were collected and analyzed for changes in the characteristics of applications, applicants, and programs over the study period. Using these data, the probability of matching into orthopaedics through the years was calculated and compared in order to propose an ideal number of applications for a medical student to submit to match into an orthopaedic residency. RESULTS: Over the study period of 25 years, there has been an increase in the number of residency positions offered and a decrease in the number of applicants per offered position among U.S. senior medical students. Nonetheless, the average number of submitted applications per applicant significantly increased from 1992 to 2017, from 28 to 80 applications (p < 0.001). As a result, the overall costs to apply and review applications also have increased. There was no association between the increased number of submitted applications and the match rate. Our analysis showed that 50 applications per student offer is the most effective option without compromising the overall applicant match rate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these data, we suggest encouraging students to limit the number of applications that they submit. This limit could reduce the cost for both applicants and programs while likely maintaining the current match rate and competitiveness of the specialty.
BACKGROUND: The competitiveness of orthopaedics and recent changes in the residency application process have resulted in increased costs to both applicants and programs. Our purpose was to investigate changes in the orthopaedic residency application process between 1992 and 2017. Also, we aimed to determine an ideal number of applications that each student can submit without jeopardizing his or her probability of matching into an orthopaedic residency slot while concurrently reducing the excessive number of applications that are received by program selection committees. METHODS: Retrospective data from both the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) were collected and analyzed for changes in the characteristics of applications, applicants, and programs over the study period. Using these data, the probability of matching into orthopaedics through the years was calculated and compared in order to propose an ideal number of applications for a medical student to submit to match into an orthopaedic residency. RESULTS: Over the study period of 25 years, there has been an increase in the number of residency positions offered and a decrease in the number of applicants per offered position among U.S. senior medical students. Nonetheless, the average number of submitted applications per applicant significantly increased from 1992 to 2017, from 28 to 80 applications (p < 0.001). As a result, the overall costs to apply and review applications also have increased. There was no association between the increased number of submitted applications and the match rate. Our analysis showed that 50 applications per student offer is the most effective option without compromising the overall applicant match rate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these data, we suggest encouraging students to limit the number of applications that they submit. This limit could reduce the cost for both applicants and programs while likely maintaining the current match rate and competitiveness of the specialty.
Authors: Adam M Gordon; Charles A Conway; Bhavya K Sheth; Matthew L Magruder; Rushabh M Vakharia; William N Levine; Afshin E Razi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Alisa Malyavko; Yumin Kim; Tara G Harmon; Theodore Quan; Alex Gu; Simone A Bernstein; Sean A Tabaie; Savyasachi Thakkar Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2021-09-08
Authors: Tonya W An; Jensen K Henry; Oduche Igboechi; Pengcheng Wang; Aditya Yerrapragada; Carol A Lin; Guy D Paiement Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 3.020