Evaluating Urology Residency Applications: What Matters Most and What Comes Next?
- PDF / 400,950 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 89 Downloads / 215 Views
EDUCATION (G BADALATO, SECTION EDITOR)
Evaluating Urology Residency Applications: What Matters Most and What Comes Next? Mitchell M. Huang 1
&
Marisa M. Clifton 1
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Purpose of Review In light of the announcement that the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam will transition to pass/fail reporting, we reviewed recent literature on evaluating residency applicants with a focus on identifying objective measurements of applicant potential. Recent Findings References from attending urologists, Step 1 scores, overall academic performance, and research publications are among the most important criteria used to assess applicants. There has been a substantial increase in the average number of applications submitted per applicant, with both applicants and residency directors indicating support for a cap on the number of applications that may be submitted. Additionally, there are increasing efforts to promote diversity with the goal of improving care and representation in urology. Despite progress in standardizing interview protocols, inappropriate questioning remains an issue. Summary Opportunities to improve residency application include promoting diversity, enforcing prohibitions of illegal practices, limiting application numbers, and finding more transparent and equitable screening measures to replace Step 1. Keywords Urology residency . Urology match . Residency application . Medical education
Introduction The annual urology match organized by the American Urological Association (AUA) in conjunction with the Society of Academic Urologists (SAU) determines where aspiring urologists will undergo their residency training. The urology residency match has long been recognized as one of the most competitive application processes within the field of medicine—a reputation that is not unearned, as the AUA reports 20% of applicants who submitted a rank list in the most recent application cycle did not successfully match [1]. In recent years, both the resident selection process and the field of urology have undergone important changes, as evidenced by the expansion in the body of literature about the residency match over the past 5 years. Searches for “urology residency” AND “application” in PubMed, Embase, and Google scholar This article is part of the Topical Collection on Education * Mitchell M. Huang [email protected] 1
The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Park 213 Baltimore MD 21287 USA
from January 2010 to March 2020 reveal a nearly fourfold increase in publications pertaining to urology resident selection in the past 5 years (Fig. 1). Recent developments include demographic changes, with studies demonstrating that urology has had the highest rate of growth in female residents compared with other surgical fields and that rate of women matching into urology is at an all-time high [1, 2]. Concurrently, greater awareness of
Data Loading...
