Results of the 2015

NRMP Applicant Survey

by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type

September 2015
www.nrmp.org
Requests for permission to use these data, as well as questions about the content of this publication or
the National Resident Matching Program data and reports, may be directed to
Mei Liang, Director of Research, NRMP, at datarequest@nrmp.org

Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, President and CEO, NRMP,
at admin@nrmp.org.

Suggested Citation
National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2015
NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident Matching
Program, Washington, DC. 2015.

Copyright © 2015 National Resident Matching Program, 2121 K Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington,
DC 20037 USA. All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy, and/or distribute any documentation
and/or related images from this publication shall be expressly obtained from the NRMP.
Table of Contents

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................1
Response Rates .................................................................................................................................................2
All Specialties ...................................................................................................................................................3
Charts for Individual Specialties
Anesthesiology ..........................................................................................................................................14
Child Neurology ........................................................................................................................................22
Dermatology ..............................................................................................................................................30
Emergency Medicine ................................................................................................................................38
Family Medicine........................................................................................................................................46
Internal Medicine ......................................................................................................................................54
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics ......................................................................................................................62
Neurology ..................................................................................................................................................70
Neurological Surgery.................................................................................................................................78
Obstetrics and Gynecology........................................................................................................................86
Orthopaedic Surgery..................................................................................................................................94
Otolaryngology ........................................................................................................................................102
Pathology .................................................................................................................................................110
Pediatrics .................................................................................................................................................118
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation .....................................................................................................126
Plastic Surgery .........................................................................................................................................134
Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................142
Radiation Oncology .................................................................................................................................150
Radiology-Diagnostic ..............................................................................................................................158
Surgery-General ......................................................................................................................................166
 Introduction
The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted
a survey of all applicants who participated in the 2015 Main
Residency Match®. Similar surveys were conducted in 2008,
2009, 2011, and 2013.
The primary purpose of the survey was to elucidate the factors
applicants weigh in applying to and ranking programs. The
survey was fielded during the 18 days between the Rank Order
List Deadline and Match Week so that applicant Match
outcomes would not influence respondents' answers.
The survey was sent to all applicants who certified a rank
order list (ROL) by the Rank Order List Deadline. Some
applicants could certify a blank ROL. Between the Rank
Order List Deadline and the time when the matching algorithm
was processed, however, some applicants still could be
withdrawn from the Match. The responses of those who
certified a blank rank order list and those who were withdrawn
from the Match were not included in this report.
This report presents survey results by preferred specialty and
applicant type. Preferred specialty is defined as the specialty
listed first on an applicant's ROL. Applicant type includes
U.S. allopathic medical school seniors and independent
applicants. Independent applicants include prior allopathic
medical school graduates, U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen
students and graduates of international medical schools,
students and graduates of schools of osteopathy, students and
graduates of Canadian medical schools, and graduates of the
Fifth Pathway program.
Changes from Previous Reports
This year, several changes were made to the survey
questionnaire. In previous surveys, applicants were asked to
indicate factors used in selecting programs for application and
to rate the importance in selecting programs for ranking. In the
2015 survey, both questions were expanded. Applicants were
asked about the factors that influenced both application and
ranking choices, and the relative importance of each of those
factors.
Additional attributes were introduced in the 2015 survey.
"Quality of ambulatory care facilities," "overall goodness of
fit," "having friends at the program," and "support network in
the area" were added to the list of factors used in selecting
programs for application. The above four factors and
"interview day experience" were added to the list of factors
used in selecting programs for ranking.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015
Results
Overall, geographic location, reputation of program, and
perceived goodness of fit topped the list of factors that
applicants considered most when applying to programs.
When ranking programs, the newly added overall goodness
of fit became the number one consideration. Applicants also
valued such factors as career path, future fellowship training
opportunities, housestaff morale, and work/life balance.
Although there was commonality among all applicants,
differences were observed among specialties. For example,
applicants who applied to Family Medicine and Internal
Medicine programs were more interested in future fellowship
training opportunities, but the opportunity to conduct certain
procedures was of more importance to applicants to
Neurological Surgery programs.
The median number of applications submitted by
independent applicants was much higher than for U.S.
seniors, but U.S. seniors obtained more interviews than did
independent applicants. It also is worth noting that even
though matched applicants did not apply to more programs,
they attended more interviews and thus were able to rank
more programs than unmatched applicants. The greatest
number of applications was submitted to Orthopaedic
Surgery, Otolaryngology, Dermatology, Plastic Surgery, and
Neurological Surgery; however, the numbers of interviews
obtained and programs ranked in those specialties were
comparable to other specialties.
The NRMP hopes that program directors, medical school
officials, and applicants find these data useful as they prepare
for and participate in the Match.
_________________________
The NRMP's data reporting and research activities are guided
by its Data Release and Research Committee. NRMP data
and reports can be found at: www.nrmp.org/data/
<http://www.nrmp.org/data/>.
1
Response Rates
In the 2015 Applicant Survey, 35,713 electronic surveys were sent, and 16,500 complete or partial reponses were
received. After excluding respondents who were withdrawn after the Rank Order List Deadline (62), he overall response
rate was 47.5 percent for the 20 largest preferred specialties detailed in this report, as well as for all specialties combined.
Response rates varied by specialty and applicant type (see table below). Specialties with 50 or fewer responses were
excluded from this report.

U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants

Completed Survey Response Completed Survey Response
Yes No Rate Yes No Rate
Anesthesiology 547 598 47.8% 303 406 42.7%
Child Neurology 48 33 59.3% 30 34 46.9%
Dermatology 236 232 50.4% 49 114 30.1%
Emergency Medicine 706 829 46.0% 284 333 46.0%
Family Medicine 699 677 50.8% 1010 1732 36.8%
Internal Medicine 1740 1822 48.8% 3061 2920 51.2%
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 197 153 56.3% 57 62 47.9%
Neurological Surgery 132 118 52.8% 26 61 29.9%
Neurology 208 208 50.0% 262 243 51.9%
Obstetrics and Gynecology 576 558 50.8% 239 281 46.0%
Orthopaedic Surgery 425 453 48.4% 42 110 27.6%
Otolaryngology 207 157 56.9% 14 30 31.8%
Pathology 150 139 51.9% 224 229 49.4%
Pediatrics 1074 892 54.6% 673 606 52.6%
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 101 122 45.3% 124 209 37.2%
Plastic Surgery 73 89 45.1% 15 14 51.7%
Psychiatry 354 457 43.6% 486 686 41.5%
Radiation Oncology 94 98 49.0% 5 31 13.9%
Radiology-Diagnostic 281 370 43.2% 196 246 44.3%
Surgery-General 547 562 49.3% 284 497 36.4%
All Other 130 136 48.9% 73 87 45.6%
No Preferred Specialty 229 555 29.2% 289 303 48.8%
Total (All specialties) 8754 9258 49.4% 7746 9234 45.6%

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 2

 All Specialties Combined

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 3

 All Specialties
Figure 1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 87% 4.5
Reputation of program 83% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 80% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 70% 4.5
Academic medical center program 68% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 68% 4.5
Work/life balance 64% 4.3
Quality of faculty 64% 4.4
Size of program 58% 3.7
Quality of program director 57% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 57% 3.9
House staff morale 56% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 56% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 55% 4.1
Support network in the area 53% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 53% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 52% 4.1
Cost of living 52% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 52% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 50% 4.2
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 48% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 43% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 34% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 33% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 33% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 29% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 29% 3.9
Call schedule 28% 3.6
ABMS board pass rates 26% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 25% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 24% 3.7
Salary 24% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 22% 3.5
Having friends at the program 21% 3.5
Community-based setting 18% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 15% 3.4
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 15% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 13% 3.7
Alternative duty hours 7% 3.6
Other Benefits 5% 3.8
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 4

 All Specialties
Figure 1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 66% 4.2
Reputation of program 60% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 54% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 56% 4.4
Academic medical center program 50% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 55% 4.5
Work/life balance 48% 4.2
Quality of faculty 54% 4.4
Size of program 47% 3.8
Quality of program director 46% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 33% 3.8
House staff morale 38% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 50% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 42% 4.1
Support network in the area 32% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 44% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 44% 4.2
Cost of living 39% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 50% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 47% 4.2
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 39% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 41% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 29% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 29% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 30% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 24% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 29% 4.1
Call schedule 23% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 29% 4.4
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 36% 4.0
Opportunity for international experience 20% 3.7
Salary 23% 3.6
Vacation/parental/sick leave 19% 3.7
Having friends at the program 24% 3.8
Community-based setting 32% 3.9
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 13% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 16% 3.9
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 24% 4.0
Alternative duty hours 9% 3.7
Other Benefits 6% 4.1
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 4.1
H-1B visa sponsorship 16% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 5

 All Specialties
Figure 2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 87% 4.8
Interview day experience 81% 4.5
Geographic location 80% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 74% 4.6
Reputation of program 71% 4.3
Quality of faculty 66% 4.5
House staff morale 63% 4.6
Quality of program director 62% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 62% 4.6
Work/life balance 61% 4.3
Academic medical center program 56% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 49% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 48% 4.2
Support network in the area 47% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 47% 4.2
Size of program 47% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 46% 3.9
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 45% 4.1
Future fellowship training opportunities 44% 4.2
Cost of living 43% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 42% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 42% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 39% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 29% 3.9
Availability of electronic health records 26% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 26% 4.1
Call schedule 26% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 25% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 23% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 22% 4.1
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 22% 4.0
Salary 21% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 20% 3.8
Vacation/parental/sick leave 17% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 14% 3.9
Having friends at the program 13% 3.7
Community-based setting 13% 3.9
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 11% 3.6
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 8% 3.9
Alternative duty hours in program 4% 3.8
Other Benefits 4% 3.8
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 6

 All Specialties
Figure 2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 68% 4.7
Interview day experience 67% 4.6
Geographic location 58% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 53% 4.4
Reputation of program 52% 4.3
Quality of faculty 52% 4.4
House staff morale 37% 4.5
Quality of program director 47% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 49% 4.6
Work/life balance 43% 4.3
Academic medical center program 41% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 41% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 35% 4.2
Support network in the area 27% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 37% 4.3
Size of program 38% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 43% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 25% 3.9
Future fellowship training opportunities 43% 4.4
Cost of living 33% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 31% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 37% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 35% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 24% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 22% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 23% 4.1
Call schedule 19% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 20% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 25% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 27% 4.3
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 24% 4.2
Salary 19% 3.8
Opportunity for international experience 13% 3.9
Vacation/parental/sick leave 14% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 13% 4.2
Having friends at the program 17% 3.9
Community-based setting 21% 4.1
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 9% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 17% 4.1
Alternative duty hours in program 6% 3.9
Other Benefits 3% 4.1
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 4.1
H-1B visa sponsorship 13% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 7

 All Specialties
Figure 3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
75%

76%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
53%

69%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
69%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 64%

competitive programs 32%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 47%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 23%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 6%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 12%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 5%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 17%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 2%

but did not interview 6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 8

 All Specialties
Figure 4 Median Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
60
54
50

40

30
30

20 16
12 12
10 6 6 6

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
applications submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

80 75
Independent Applicants
70 68

60

50

40

30

20

10 9 8 8
2 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
applications submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 9

 All Specialties
Figure 5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors

Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.2

specialty 4.1
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.1
and re-enter the Match next year 3.5
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.9
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.3
competitive back-up specialty 2.8
1.9
Re-enter the Match next year
1.9
1.9
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.8
1.8
Pursue a graduate degree
1.7
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
1.8
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.1
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants

Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.5

specialty 4.4
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.2
and re-enter the Match next year 3.6
3.1
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.4
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.8
competitive back-up specialty 3.3
1.8
Pursue a graduate degree
2.2
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
2.1
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.6
the U.S. 1.8
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1.6
Re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 10

 All Specialties
Figure 6 Applications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks in Preferred Specialty†

Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants

Number of Interviews Attended by Applicants Number of Programs Ranked by Applicants

†Self-reported data

The boxes in a boxplot represent the interquartile range (or IQR, which is the range between the 25th and 75th percentiles) and the line in the box
is the median. The upper bound of the whisker is the upper fence, which is 1.5 IQR above the 75% percentile; the lower bound of the whisker is
the lower fence, which is 1.5 IQR below the 25th percentile. The circles and asterisks below and above the whiskers are outliers and extreme
values. Scales in these graphs are adjusted to show a close-up of the boxplots. Some extreme values and outliers are not shown in the graphs.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 11
 All Specialties
Figure 7 Applications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks in Preferred Specialty†
By Preferred Specialty

Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants

Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants

AN: Anesthesiology
CN: Child Neurology OT: Otolaryngology
DM: Dermatology PA: Pathology
MP: Medicine/Pediatrics PD: Pediatrics (Categorical)
EM: Emergency Medicine PM: Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
FP: Family Medicine PS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
IM: Internal Medicine (Categorical) PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)
NE: Neurology RD: Radiation Oncology
NS: Neurological Surgery RO: Radiology-Diagnostic
OB: Obstetrics-Gynecology SG: Surgery (Categorical)
†Self-reported data

The boxes in a boxplot represent the interquartile range (or IQR, which is the range between the 25th and 75th percentiles) and the line in the
box is the median. The upper bound of the whisker is the upper fence, which is 1.5 IQR above the 75% percentile; the lower bound of the
whisker is the lower fence, which is 1.5 IQR below the 25th percentile. The circles and asterisks below and above the whiskers are outliers
and extreme values. Scales in these graphs are adjusted to show a close-up of the boxplots. Some extreme values and outliers are not shown
in the graphs.

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 12

 All Specialties
Figure 7 Applicants' First Choice Specialty†
By Specialty (Cont'd)
Number of Interviews Attended by Applicants

Number of Programs Ranked by Applicants

AN: Anesthesiology OS: Orthopedic Surgery

CN: Child Neurology OT: Otolaryngology
DM: Dermatology PA: Pathology
MP: Medicine/Pediatrics PD: Pediatrics (Categorical)
EM: Emergency Medicine PM: Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
FP: Family Medicine PS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
IM: Internal Medicine (Categorical) PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)
NE: Neurology RD: Radiation Oncology
NS: Neurological Surgery RO: Radiology-Diagnostic
OB: Obstetrics-Gynecology SG: Surgery (Categorical)

†Self-reported data

The boxes in a boxplot represent the interquartile range (or IQR, which is the range between the 25th and 75th percentiles) and the line in the
box is the median. The upper bound of the whisker is the upper fence, which is 1.5 IQR above the 75% percentile; the lower bound of the
whisker is the lower fence, which is 1.5 IQR below the 25th percentile. The circles and asterisks below and above the whiskers are outliers
and extreme values. Scales in these graphs are adjusted to show a close-up of the boxplots. Some extreme values and outliers are not shown
in the graphs.

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 13

 Anesthesiology

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 14

 Anesthesiology
Figure AN-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 90% 4.6
Reputation of program 84% 4.3
Perceived goodness of fit 79% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 68% 4.5
Academic medical center program 67% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 67% 4.5
Work/life balance 75% 4.4
Quality of faculty 63% 4.5
Size of program 56% 3.6
Quality of program director 58% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 65% 4.0
House staff morale 58% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 61% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 51% 4.2
Support network in the area 53% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 60% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 53% 4.0
Cost of living 59% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 52% 3.9
Diversity of patient problems 44% 4.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 43% 3.8
Opportunity to conduct research 35% 3.7
Availability of electronic health records 33% 3.8
Size of patient caseload 29% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 24% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 29% 3.7
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 35% 3.9
Call schedule 40% 3.7
ABMS board pass rates 33% 4.4
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 15% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 23% 3.5
Salary 27% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 24% 3.5
Having friends at the program 23% 3.5
Community-based setting 6% 3.3
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 33% 3.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 4% 3.5
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 13% 3.6
Alternative duty hours 14% 3.5
Other Benefits 5% 3.5
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 15

 Anesthesiology
Figure AN-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 72% 4.2
Reputation of program 66% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 54% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 53% 4.4
Academic medical center program 55% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 56% 4.5
Work/life balance 55% 4.4
Quality of faculty 56% 4.3
Size of program 47% 3.5
Quality of program director 46% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 37% 4.0
House staff morale 41% 4.6
Future fellowship training opportunities 52% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 41% 4.1
Support network in the area 33% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 46% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 42% 4.2
Cost of living 43% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 52% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 39% 4.1
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 33% 3.8
Opportunity to conduct research 27% 3.6
Availability of electronic health records 24% 3.8
Size of patient caseload 26% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 21% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 23% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 33% 4.1
Call schedule 35% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 32% 4.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 20% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 16% 3.6
Salary 25% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 20% 3.8
Having friends at the program 17% 3.9
Community-based setting 11% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 23% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 8% 4.0
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 16% 4.0
Alternative duty hours 10% 3.9
Other Benefits 5% 3.8
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 4.1
H-1B visa sponsorship 9% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 16

 Anesthesiology
Figure AN-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 89% 4.8
Interview day experience 81% 4.5
Geographic location 84% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 74% 4.5
Reputation of program 78% 4.4
Quality of faculty 65% 4.4
House staff morale 63% 4.6
Quality of program director 66% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 62% 4.5
Work/life balance 76% 4.5
Academic medical center program 57% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 61% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 52% 4.2
Support network in the area 49% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 47% 4.1
Size of program 48% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 47% 3.8
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 53% 4.2
Future fellowship training opportunities 54% 4.2
Cost of living 53% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 35% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 35% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 29% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 26% 3.9
Availability of electronic health records 29% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 19% 4.1
Call schedule 35% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 24% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 15% 3.9
ABMS board pass rates 32% 4.3
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 26% 4.0
Salary 26% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 21% 3.6
Vacation/parental/sick leave 19% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 5% 3.6
Having friends at the program 15% 3.5
Community-based setting 2% 3.4
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 27% 3.5
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 7% 3.9
Alternative duty hours in program 5% 3.7
Other Benefits 4% 3.4
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 17

 Anesthesiology
Figure AN-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 68% 4.7
Interview day experience 63% 4.5
Geographic location 65% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 52% 4.4
Reputation of program 57% 4.3
Quality of faculty 50% 4.4
House staff morale 44% 4.5
Quality of program director 50% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 48% 4.4
Work/life balance 47% 4.4
Academic medical center program 46% 4.3
Preparation for fellowship training 43% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 38% 4.2
Support network in the area 31% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 32% 4.2
Size of program 38% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 41% 4.1
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 27% 3.8
Future fellowship training opportunities 47% 4.3
Cost of living 39% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 23% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 27% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 22% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 22% 3.8
Availability of electronic health records 22% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 15% 3.9
Call schedule 32% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 18% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 15% 3.6
ABMS board pass rates 29% 4.3
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 28% 4.2
Salary 18% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 13% 3.5
Vacation/parental/sick leave 15% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 6% 4.1
Having friends at the program 13% 4.1
Community-based setting 5% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 17% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 8% 3.8
Alternative duty hours in program 7% 3.9
Other Benefits 3% 3.6
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 3.9
H-1B visa sponsorship 8% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 18

 Anesthesiology
Figure AN-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

93%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
82%

78%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
61%

67%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
72%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 68%

competitive programs 42%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 50%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 34%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 9%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 19%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 4%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 13%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 3%

but did not interview 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 19

 Anesthesiology
Figure AN-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60
55

50

40
31
30

20
15
12 11
10 6
4 3
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

60 Independent Applicants
52
50

40
40

30

20

10 8 8 7
2 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 20

 Anesthesiology
Figure AN-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.4
specialty 5.0
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.9
and re-enter the Match next year 4.0
2.5
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.3
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.4
competitive back-up specialty 3.3
1.7
Re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1.8
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.4
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
1.3
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
1.8
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.0
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.5
specialty 4.7
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.8
and re-enter the Match next year 3.5
2.6
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.1
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.7
competitive back-up specialty 3.7
1.4
Pursue a graduate degree
1.7
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
1.8
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.3
the U.S. 1.6
1.5
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1.5
Re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 21

 Child Neurology

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 22

 Child Neurology
Figure CN-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 87% 4.5
Reputation of program 83% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 77% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 64% 4.4
Academic medical center program 77% 4.8
Quality of educational curriculum and training 74% 4.5
Work/life balance 62% 4.3
Quality of faculty 66% 4.5
Size of program 74% 3.6
Quality of program director 60% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 53% 4.1
House staff morale 43% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 53% 4.0
Career paths of recent program graduates 51% 3.8
Support network in the area 57% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 51% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 43% 4.0
Cost of living 57% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 47% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 45% 4.4
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 62% 4.1
Opportunity to conduct research 62% 4.2
Availability of electronic health records 32% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 32% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 30% 4.4
Quality of ancillary support staff 28% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 6% 3.0
Call schedule 21% 3.4
ABMS board pass rates 9% 4.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 17% 4.5
Opportunity for international experience 15% 3.4
Salary 23% 3.6
Vacation/parental/sick leave 17% 3.7
Having friends at the program 19% 2.9
Community-based setting 9% 3.8
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 4% 3.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 19% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 11% 3.3
Alternative duty hours 4% 3.5
Other Benefits 9% 3.0
Presence of a previous match violation 2% 5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 23

 Child Neurology
Figure CN-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 57% 3.9
Reputation of program 73% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 60% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 67% 4.4
Academic medical center program 60% 4.8
Quality of educational curriculum and training 73% 4.7
Work/life balance 63% 4.5
Quality of faculty 80% 4.5
Size of program 60% 3.9
Quality of program director 63% 4.8
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 33% 4.0
House staff morale 60% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 60% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 43% 4.1
Support network in the area 37% 3.9
Preparation for fellowship training 40% 4.6
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 57% 4.2
Cost of living 47% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 67% 4.4
Diversity of patient problems 63% 4.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 40% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 63% 4.3
Availability of electronic health records 33% 3.6
Size of patient caseload 40% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 30% 4.2
Quality of ancillary support staff 20% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 27% 4.0
Call schedule 20% 4.5
ABMS board pass rates 13% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 27% 4.5
Opportunity for international experience 30% 3.3
Salary 20% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 17% 3.6
Having friends at the program 17% 4.0
Community-based setting 13% 3.5
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 13% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 20% 4.2
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 33% 4.2
Alternative duty hours 10% 2.7
Other Benefits 3% 4.0
Presence of a previous match violation 0%
H-1B visa sponsorship 10% 3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 24

 Child Neurology
Figure CN-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 84% 4.9
Interview day experience 82% 4.6
Geographic location 87% 4.2
Quality of residents in program 71% 4.5
Reputation of program 71% 4.3
Quality of faculty 78% 4.6
House staff morale 76% 4.8
Quality of program director 78% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 73% 4.6
Work/life balance 60% 4.4
Academic medical center program 78% 4.6
Preparation for fellowship training 47% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 36% 4.4
Support network in the area 47% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 49% 4.2
Size of program 62% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 56% 4.0
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 40% 3.9
Future fellowship training opportunities 62% 4.2
Cost of living 56% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 60% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 53% 4.4
Opportunity to conduct research 60% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 33% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 20% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 24% 3.7
Call schedule 24% 3.5
Quality of ancillary support staff 22% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 33% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 9% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 13% 3.7
Salary 31% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 11% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 29% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 18% 4.1
Having friends at the program 7% 4.3
Community-based setting 4% 3.5
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 7% 2.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 9% 3.8
Alternative duty hours in program 7% 2.7
Other Benefits 7% 3.3
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 25

 Child Neurology
Figure CN-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 80% 4.7
Interview day experience 57% 4.4
Geographic location 43% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 57% 4.6
Reputation of program 70% 4.2
Quality of faculty 70% 4.4
House staff morale 47% 4.6
Quality of program director 60% 4.6
Quality of educational curriculum and training 63% 4.6
Work/life balance 57% 4.2
Academic medical center program 60% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 40% 4.5
Career paths of recent program graduates 37% 4.0
Support network in the area 13% 5.0
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 33% 4.4
Size of program 47% 4.2
Quality of hospital facilities 60% 4.5
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 30% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 40% 4.3
Cost of living 37% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 33% 4.4
Diversity of patient problems 47% 4.6
Opportunity to conduct research 53% 4.4
Size of patient caseload 27% 4.4
Availability of electronic health records 20% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 27% 4.4
Call schedule 17% 4.6
Quality of ancillary support staff 20% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 30% 4.6
ABMS board pass rates 10% 3.3
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 13% 4.3
Salary 23% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 20% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 17% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 23% 4.1
Having friends at the program 7% 4.0
Community-based setting 10% 4.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 7% 3.5
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 17% 4.6
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 5.0
Other Benefits 0%
Presence of a previous match violation 0%
H-1B visa sponsorship 7% 3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 26

 Child Neurology
Figure CN-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

95%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
86%

84%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
62%

70%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
66%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 66%

competitive programs 41%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 52%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 21%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 5%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 24%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 5%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 10%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 0%

but did not interview 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 27

 Child Neurology
Figure CN-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50

40

30
22
20 17
12 12
10

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

50 Independent Applicants
46

40

30
26

20

10
10 7 7
5 4 4

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 28

 Child Neurology
Figure CN-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.7
specialty
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.9
and re-enter the Match next year
3.4
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.8
competitive back-up specialty
1.8
Re-enter the Match next year
1.9
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.1
Pursue a graduate degree
1.8
Pursue non-clinical training
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.2
the U.S.
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.3
specialty 3.8
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.2
and re-enter the Match next year 2.6
3.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.0
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.7
competitive back-up specialty 2.4
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
2.1
2.2
Pursue non-clinical training
1.9
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.2
the U.S. 1.4
2.0
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1.9
Re-enter the Match next year
2.3
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 29

 Dermatology

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 30

 Dermatology
Figure DM-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 82% 4.5
Reputation of program 75% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 72% 4.8
Quality of residents in program 62% 4.5
Academic medical center program 57% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 62% 4.6
Work/life balance 63% 4.4
Quality of faculty 66% 4.5
Size of program 56% 3.8
Quality of program director 54% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 49% 4.0
House staff morale 49% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 40% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 46% 3.9
Support network in the area 49% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 41% 4.1
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 46% 4.0
Cost of living 45% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 41% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 51% 4.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 39% 3.8
Opportunity to conduct research 44% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 28% 3.7
Size of patient caseload 29% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 35% 4.1
Quality of ancillary support staff 24% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 30% 4.0
Call schedule 23% 3.7
ABMS board pass rates 15% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 26% 4.1
Opportunity for international experience 14% 3.4
Salary 15% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 15% 3.4
Having friends at the program 19% 3.7
Community-based setting 12% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 7% 3.2
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 22% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 9% 3.6
Alternative duty hours 6% 3.3
Other Benefits 5% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 4.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 31

 Dermatology
Figure DM-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 74% 4.4
Reputation of program 62% 4.0
Perceived goodness of fit 72% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 66% 4.5
Academic medical center program 43% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 62% 4.6
Work/life balance 57% 4.2
Quality of faculty 70% 4.5
Size of program 43% 3.6
Quality of program director 47% 4.5
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 49% 3.7
House staff morale 49% 4.6
Future fellowship training opportunities 30% 4.0
Career paths of recent program graduates 28% 4.1
Support network in the area 40% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 34% 4.1
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 40% 4.2
Cost of living 38% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 47% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 45% 4.2
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 36% 4.1
Opportunity to conduct research 49% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 13% 3.5
Size of patient caseload 23% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 38% 4.1
Quality of ancillary support staff 23% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 34% 4.3
Call schedule 28% 3.9
ABMS board pass rates 15% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 23% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 23% 3.8
Salary 15% 3.6
Vacation/parental/sick leave 21% 4.1
Having friends at the program 26% 3.9
Community-based setting 13% 3.8
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 13% 4.0
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 17% 4.1
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 19% 3.9
Alternative duty hours 11% 3.8
Other Benefits 4% 4.0
Presence of a previous match violation 9% 3.5
H-1B visa sponsorship 2% 5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 32

 Dermatology
Figure DM-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 87% 4.8
Interview day experience 82% 4.5
Geographic location 79% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 73% 4.5
Reputation of program 73% 4.4
Quality of faculty 75% 4.6
House staff morale 63% 4.6
Quality of program director 57% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 70% 4.6
Work/life balance 66% 4.5
Academic medical center program 57% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 42% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 37% 4.0
Support network in the area 49% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 50% 4.2
Size of program 57% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 37% 3.9
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 46% 4.1
Future fellowship training opportunities 37% 4.0
Cost of living 41% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 46% 3.9
Diversity of patient problems 48% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 46% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 36% 3.9
Availability of electronic health records 21% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 31% 4.2
Call schedule 22% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 24% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 27% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 12% 4.3
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 31% 4.1
Salary 16% 3.6
Opportunity for international experience 14% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 13% 3.7
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 25% 3.9
Having friends at the program 14% 4.0
Community-based setting 8% 4.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 8% 3.6
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 5% 4.3
Alternative duty hours in program 4% 4.0
Other Benefits 2% 3.5
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 33

 Dermatology
Figure DM-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 72% 4.9
Interview day experience 70% 4.6
Geographic location 63% 4.3
Quality of residents in program 63% 4.5
Reputation of program 44% 4.2
Quality of faculty 58% 4.4
House staff morale 30% 4.8
Quality of program director 42% 4.7
Quality of educational curriculum and training 42% 4.8
Work/life balance 37% 4.1
Academic medical center program 40% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 21% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 23% 4.1
Support network in the area 28% 4.0
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 26% 4.4
Size of program 30% 4.4
Quality of hospital facilities 37% 3.9
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 33% 4.2
Future fellowship training opportunities 21% 4.2
Cost of living 30% 3.7
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 28% 4.7
Diversity of patient problems 28% 4.5
Opportunity to conduct research 40% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 19% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 14% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 21% 4.0
Call schedule 19% 3.6
Quality of ancillary support staff 16% 4.6
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 14% 4.2
ABMS board pass rates 14% 4.7
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 23% 4.6
Salary 16% 4.1
Opportunity for international experience 5% 3.5
Vacation/parental/sick leave 9% 4.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 14% 4.5
Having friends at the program 19% 3.6
Community-based setting 5% 5.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 9% 4.3
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 9% 4.8
Alternative duty hours in program 2% 5.0
Other Benefits 0%
Presence of a previous match violation 7% 4.3
H-1B visa sponsorship 0%
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 34

 Dermatology
Figure DM-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
54%

73%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
54%

85%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
74%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 52%

competitive programs 23%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 30%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 3%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 25%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 8%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 7%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 21%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 7%

but did not interview 8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 35

 Dermatology
Figure DM-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
85 95
60

50

40

30

20

10 9 9
10
5 5 5

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

60 Independent Applicants
60 56

50

40

30

20

10
5 4 5 3
2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 36

 Dermatology
Figure DM-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 3.8
specialty 4.2
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.2
and re-enter the Match next year 2.7
3.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.3
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.0
competitive back-up specialty 2.0
2.4
Re-enter the Match next year
3.0
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1.5
Pursue a graduate degree
1.4
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S. 1.1
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.1
specialty 4.2
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.2
and re-enter the Match next year 2.9
3.2
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.5
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.0
competitive back-up specialty 1.9
1.5
Pursue a graduate degree
1.6
1.5
Pursue non-clinical training
1.7
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.3
the U.S. 1.3
1.7
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.8
1.9
Re-enter the Match next year
2.2
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 37

 Emergency Medicine

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 38

 Emergency Medicine
Figure EM-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 91% 4.5
Reputation of program 83% 4.0
Perceived goodness of fit 82% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 72% 4.5
Academic medical center program 53% 3.9
Quality of educational curriculum and training 67% 4.5
Work/life balance 75% 4.4
Quality of faculty 66% 4.4
Size of program 41% 3.5
Quality of program director 64% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 64% 4.1
House staff morale 56% 4.6
Future fellowship training opportunities 40% 3.6
Career paths of recent program graduates 52% 3.9
Support network in the area 54% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 34% 3.9
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 54% 4.1
Cost of living 58% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 53% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 58% 4.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 53% 3.9
Opportunity to conduct research 24% 3.7
Availability of electronic health records 28% 3.7
Size of patient caseload 30% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 36% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 33% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 36% 3.9
Call schedule 15% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 14% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 26% 3.8
Opportunity for international experience 32% 3.8
Salary 27% 3.3
Vacation/parental/sick leave 22% 3.5
Having friends at the program 18% 3.5
Community-based setting 22% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 26% 3.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 5% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 9% 3.8
Alternative duty hours 9% 3.7
Other Benefits 6% 3.9
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 3.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 39

 Emergency Medicine
Figure EM-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 80% 4.4
Reputation of program 67% 4.0
Perceived goodness of fit 71% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 67% 4.5
Academic medical center program 41% 4.0
Quality of educational curriculum and training 58% 4.5
Work/life balance 58% 4.3
Quality of faculty 62% 4.4
Size of program 44% 3.5
Quality of program director 51% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 45% 3.8
House staff morale 48% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 39% 3.7
Career paths of recent program graduates 36% 3.8
Support network in the area 40% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 29% 3.9
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 49% 4.2
Cost of living 43% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 57% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 52% 4.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 41% 3.8
Opportunity to conduct research 20% 3.7
Availability of electronic health records 31% 3.8
Size of patient caseload 36% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 24% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 30% 3.9
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 41% 4.3
Call schedule 19% 3.7
ABMS board pass rates 20% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 19% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 27% 3.6
Salary 33% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 24% 3.7
Having friends at the program 23% 3.4
Community-based setting 21% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 31% 3.3
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 9% 3.6
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 19% 3.7
Alternative duty hours 10% 3.8
Other Benefits 8% 4.1
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 4.1
H-1B visa sponsorship 2% 3.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 40

 Emergency Medicine
Figure EM-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 90% 4.8
Interview day experience 83% 4.5
Geographic location 83% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 77% 4.5
Reputation of program 70% 4.1
Quality of faculty 69% 4.4
House staff morale 61% 4.5
Quality of program director 68% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 62% 4.6
Work/life balance 70% 4.4
Academic medical center program 42% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 28% 4.0
Career paths of recent program graduates 42% 4.0
Support network in the area 46% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 50% 4.2
Size of program 34% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 46% 3.8
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 52% 4.2
Future fellowship training opportunities 27% 3.7
Cost of living 47% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 44% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 49% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 20% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 23% 3.9
Availability of electronic health records 20% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 27% 4.1
Call schedule 12% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 28% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 23% 3.9
ABMS board pass rates 11% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 29% 4.1
Salary 25% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 25% 3.9
Vacation/parental/sick leave 15% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 5% 3.9
Having friends at the program 12% 3.6
Community-based setting 15% 3.8
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 20% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 5% 3.8
Alternative duty hours in program 4% 3.7
Other Benefits 4% 3.9
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 41

 Emergency Medicine
Figure EM-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 80% 4.8
Interview day experience 76% 4.5
Geographic location 72% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 64% 4.5
Reputation of program 53% 4.1
Quality of faculty 59% 4.4
House staff morale 48% 4.5
Quality of program director 52% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 50% 4.6
Work/life balance 54% 4.3
Academic medical center program 30% 3.9
Preparation for fellowship training 22% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 26% 3.9
Support network in the area 34% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 41% 4.2
Size of program 35% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 47% 3.9
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 33% 3.9
Future fellowship training opportunities 25% 4.0
Cost of living 40% 3.7
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 29% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 39% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 14% 4.0
Size of patient caseload 22% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 19% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 20% 4.1
Call schedule 13% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 27% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 14% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 17% 4.3
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 34% 4.3
Salary 24% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 22% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 15% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 7% 3.6
Having friends at the program 13% 3.5
Community-based setting 13% 4.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 20% 3.5
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 9% 4.1
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 3.8
Other Benefits 4% 4.4
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 3.6
H-1B visa sponsorship 2% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 42

 Emergency Medicine
Figure EM-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
84%

75%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
76%

80%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
77%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 65%

competitive programs 44%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 43%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 26%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 6%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 25%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 4%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 15%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 0%

but did not interview 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 43

 Emergency Medicine
Figure EM-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60
60

50

40 39

30

20 19
13 13
10 7 7 6

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

60 Independent Applicants
53
50
50

40

30

20

10 9 8 8
3 2 3
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 44

 Emergency Medicine
Figure EM-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.4
specialty 4.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.3
and re-enter the Match next year 3.9
2.6
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.6
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.8
competitive back-up specialty 3.1
2.0
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
2.0
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1.8
Pursue a graduate degree
1.8
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
1.7
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.2
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.6
specialty 4.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.5
and re-enter the Match next year 3.6
2.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.7
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 3.1
competitive back-up specialty 3.8
1.5
Pursue a graduate degree
1.6
1.4
Pursue non-clinical training
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.3
the U.S. 1.4
1.3
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1.6
Re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 45

 Family Medicine

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 46

 Family Medicine
Figure FP-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 91% 4.6
Reputation of program 73% 4.0
Perceived goodness of fit 83% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 74% 4.6
Academic medical center program 32% 3.7
Quality of educational curriculum and training 72% 4.5
Work/life balance 72% 4.4
Quality of faculty 66% 4.5
Size of program 49% 3.6
Quality of program director 60% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 57% 4.0
House staff morale 56% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 29% 3.6
Career paths of recent program graduates 49% 3.9
Support network in the area 57% 4.3
Preparation for fellowship training 21% 4.0
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 52% 4.1
Cost of living 48% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 48% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 50% 4.2
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 63% 4.1
Opportunity to conduct research 12% 3.9
Availability of electronic health records 47% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 29% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 42% 4.2
Quality of ancillary support staff 28% 3.9
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 49% 4.1
Call schedule 32% 3.6
ABMS board pass rates 23% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 36% 4.0
Opportunity for international experience 31% 3.9
Salary 29% 3.5
Vacation/parental/sick leave 29% 3.6
Having friends at the program 21% 3.5
Community-based setting 62% 4.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 24% 3.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 41% 3.9
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 22% 3.7
Alternative duty hours 7% 3.5
Other Benefits 7% 3.9
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 47

 Family Medicine
Figure FP-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 66% 4.4
Reputation of program 52% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 60% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 56% 4.5
Academic medical center program 32% 4.1
Quality of educational curriculum and training 53% 4.6
Work/life balance 52% 4.4
Quality of faculty 54% 4.5
Size of program 43% 3.8
Quality of program director 46% 4.5
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 35% 3.9
House staff morale 38% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 29% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 34% 3.9
Support network in the area 33% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 22% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 43% 4.2
Cost of living 41% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 47% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 48% 4.2
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 42% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 22% 3.9
Availability of electronic health records 28% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 26% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 31% 4.2
Quality of ancillary support staff 23% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 37% 4.2
Call schedule 23% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 22% 4.4
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 36% 4.1
Opportunity for international experience 25% 3.8
Salary 26% 3.8
Vacation/parental/sick leave 22% 3.8
Having friends at the program 20% 3.9
Community-based setting 52% 4.1
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 17% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 23% 4.0
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 26% 4.1
Alternative duty hours 9% 3.7
Other Benefits 10% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 4.0
H-1B visa sponsorship 10% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 48

 Family Medicine
Figure FP-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 89% 4.9
Interview day experience 80% 4.6
Geographic location 81% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 76% 4.6
Reputation of program 59% 4.2
Quality of faculty 71% 4.5
House staff morale 57% 4.6
Quality of program director 61% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 61% 4.6
Work/life balance 66% 4.4
Academic medical center program 25% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 15% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 40% 4.1
Support network in the area 51% 4.5
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 39% 4.2
Size of program 36% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 43% 3.9
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 44% 4.1
Future fellowship training opportunities 20% 3.8
Cost of living 35% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 53% 4.2
Diversity of patient problems 42% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 11% 3.7
Size of patient caseload 24% 3.8
Availability of electronic health records 38% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 33% 4.2
Call schedule 27% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 24% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 30% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 20% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 39% 4.2
Salary 24% 3.6
Opportunity for international experience 24% 3.9
Vacation/parental/sick leave 21% 3.7
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 34% 4.0
Having friends at the program 14% 3.8
Community-based setting 48% 4.2
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 15% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 13% 4.0
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 4.0
Other Benefits 7% 3.9
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 49

 Family Medicine
Figure FP-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 70% 4.8
Interview day experience 66% 4.6
Geographic location 59% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 54% 4.5
Reputation of program 41% 4.3
Quality of faculty 54% 4.5
House staff morale 37% 4.5
Quality of program director 46% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 47% 4.6
Work/life balance 45% 4.4
Academic medical center program 24% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 19% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 25% 4.1
Support network in the area 26% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 36% 4.4
Size of program 32% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 40% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 24% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 20% 4.2
Cost of living 31% 4.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 35% 4.3
Diversity of patient problems 36% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 16% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 21% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 20% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 24% 4.2
Call schedule 19% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 20% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 23% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 20% 4.3
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 31% 4.3
Salary 22% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 18% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 15% 3.9
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 20% 4.2
Having friends at the program 13% 4.0
Community-based setting 37% 4.3
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 12% 3.9
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 17% 4.2
Alternative duty hours in program 7% 4.1
Other Benefits 6% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 4.2
H-1B visa sponsorship 6% 4.6
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 50

 Family Medicine
Figure FP-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

93%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
71%

79%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
56%

54%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
68%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 52%

competitive programs 26%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 34%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 17%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 2%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 9%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 6%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 25%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 1%

but did not interview 9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 51

 Family Medicine
Figure FP-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50

40

30
30

20
20
15
11 11
10 8 7 8

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

70 Independent Applicants
65
60
54
50

40

30

20

10 8 7 6
1 1 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 52

 Family Medicine
Figure FP-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.4
specialty 4.4
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.8
and re-enter the Match next year 3.2
2.2
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.1
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.2
competitive back-up specialty 3.4
1.8
Re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1.8
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.4
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
1.6
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
2.3
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.1
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.7
specialty 4.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.3
and re-enter the Match next year 3.6
2.7
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.3
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 3.1
competitive back-up specialty 3.7
1.8
Pursue a graduate degree
2.5
1.9
Pursue non-clinical training
2.3
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.5
the U.S. 1.7
1.5
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.9
1.5
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 53

 Internal Medicine

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 54

 Internal Medicine
Figure IM-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 86% 4.5
Reputation of program 88% 4.3
Perceived goodness of fit 80% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 68% 4.5
Academic medical center program 83% 4.7
Quality of educational curriculum and training 70% 4.6
Work/life balance 59% 4.2
Quality of faculty 59% 4.4
Size of program 46% 3.6
Quality of program director 56% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 51% 3.9
House staff morale 61% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 73% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 59% 4.3
Support network in the area 53% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 65% 4.5
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 52% 4.1
Cost of living 49% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 51% 3.9
Diversity of patient problems 59% 4.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 46% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 56% 4.3
Availability of electronic health records 45% 4.0
Size of patient caseload 28% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 35% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 33% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 18% 3.6
Call schedule 24% 3.6
ABMS board pass rates 35% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 28% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 20% 3.7
Salary 21% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 18% 3.5
Having friends at the program 19% 3.5
Community-based setting 11% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 11% 3.3
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 16% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 16% 3.7
Alternative duty hours 7% 3.5
Other Benefits 3% 3.7
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 55

 Internal Medicine
Figure IM-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 63% 4.2
Reputation of program 60% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 49% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 55% 4.3
Academic medical center program 54% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 56% 4.5
Work/life balance 46% 4.2
Quality of faculty 52% 4.4
Size of program 47% 3.8
Quality of program director 45% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 31% 3.8
House staff morale 36% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 61% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 46% 4.2
Support network in the area 31% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 52% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 44% 4.2
Cost of living 38% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 51% 4.2
Diversity of patient problems 50% 4.2
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 38% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 49% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 35% 4.0
Size of patient caseload 28% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 33% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 27% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 28% 4.1
Call schedule 22% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 37% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 40% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 17% 3.7
Salary 22% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 18% 3.7
Having friends at the program 31% 3.8
Community-based setting 36% 3.8
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 10% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 18% 4.0
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 27% 4.1
Alternative duty hours 10% 3.7
Other Benefits 5% 4.1
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 4.0
H-1B visa sponsorship 22% 4.2
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 56

 Internal Medicine
Figure IM-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 85% 4.8
Interview day experience 79% 4.5
Geographic location 78% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 69% 4.6
Reputation of program 76% 4.4
Quality of faculty 57% 4.5
House staff morale 65% 4.6
Quality of program director 60% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 60% 4.6
Work/life balance 54% 4.3
Academic medical center program 71% 4.7
Preparation for fellowship training 61% 4.6
Career paths of recent program graduates 55% 4.4
Support network in the area 45% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 46% 4.2
Size of program 36% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 44% 3.9
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 39% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 61% 4.4
Cost of living 39% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 38% 4.2
Diversity of patient problems 46% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 49% 4.3
Size of patient caseload 24% 3.8
Availability of electronic health records 37% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 27% 4.1
Call schedule 21% 3.6
Quality of ancillary support staff 27% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 25% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 28% 4.1
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 13% 3.8
Salary 17% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 17% 3.8
Vacation/parental/sick leave 12% 3.7
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 14% 4.0
Having friends at the program 12% 3.7
Community-based setting 7% 3.9
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 7% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 10% 4.0
Alternative duty hours in program 5% 3.8
Other Benefits 2% 4.0
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 57

 Internal Medicine
Figure IM-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 66% 4.7
Interview day experience 68% 4.5
Geographic location 56% 4.3
Quality of residents in program 51% 4.4
Reputation of program 56% 4.3
Quality of faculty 49% 4.4
House staff morale 35% 4.4
Quality of program director 46% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 50% 4.5
Work/life balance 41% 4.2
Academic medical center program 46% 4.5
Preparation for fellowship training 49% 4.5
Career paths of recent program graduates 39% 4.3
Support network in the area 27% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 39% 4.3
Size of program 38% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 44% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 24% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 55% 4.5
Cost of living 33% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 31% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 40% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 44% 4.3
Size of patient caseload 24% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 27% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 25% 4.1
Call schedule 18% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 22% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 28% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 34% 4.3
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 23% 4.2
Salary 18% 3.8
Opportunity for international experience 11% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 14% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 15% 4.1
Having friends at the program 22% 4.0
Community-based setting 24% 4.1
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 7% 3.6
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 21% 4.2
Alternative duty hours in program 7% 3.9
Other Benefits 3% 4.1
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 4.2
H-1B visa sponsorship 18% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 58

 Internal Medicine
Figure IM-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

91%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
75%

74%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
48%

66%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
71%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 63%

competitive programs 30%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 52%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 22%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 3%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 10%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 5%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 17%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 1%

but did not interview 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 59

 Internal Medicine
Figure IM-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50

40 39

30 29

20
15
12 11
10
3 3 4
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

120 Independent Applicants

107
100
88
80

60

40

20
9 8 8
2 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 60

 Internal Medicine
Figure IM-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.1
specialty 4.7
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.7
and re-enter the Match next year 3.4
2.9
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.6
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.1
competitive back-up specialty 3.3
1.9
Re-enter the Match next year
1.4
2.0
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.8
1.8
Pursue a graduate degree
2.0
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
1.5
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.1
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.4
specialty 4.3
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.1
and re-enter the Match next year 3.4
3.4
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.6
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.8
competitive back-up specialty 3.2
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
2.2
1.8
Pursue non-clinical training
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.8
the U.S. 1.9
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.8
1.7
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 61

 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 62

 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Figure MP-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 90% 4.4
Reputation of program 78% 4.0
Perceived goodness of fit 81% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 73% 4.6
Academic medical center program 72% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 71% 4.5
Work/life balance 71% 4.2
Quality of faculty 60% 4.3
Size of program 62% 3.6
Quality of program director 63% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 69% 3.9
House staff morale 57% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 46% 4.0
Career paths of recent program graduates 51% 4.0
Support network in the area 61% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 45% 4.1
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 54% 4.0
Cost of living 60% 3.4
Quality of hospital facilities 56% 3.9
Diversity of patient problems 59% 4.4
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 60% 4.1
Opportunity to conduct research 29% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 37% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 20% 3.6
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 45% 4.2
Quality of ancillary support staff 30% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 18% 4.0
Call schedule 13% 3.2
ABMS board pass rates 30% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 38% 4.0
Opportunity for international experience 46% 4.1
Salary 20% 3.3
Vacation/parental/sick leave 22% 3.6
Having friends at the program 28% 3.6
Community-based setting 20% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 16% 3.3
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 32% 4.0
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 19% 3.5
Alternative duty hours 4% 3.6
Other Benefits 5% 3.5
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 3.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 63

 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Figure MP-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 71% 4.4
Reputation of program 54% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 55% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 68% 4.4
Academic medical center program 52% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 55% 4.6
Work/life balance 55% 4.2
Quality of faculty 52% 4.4
Size of program 54% 3.6
Quality of program director 59% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 39% 3.6
House staff morale 55% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 36% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 43% 4.3
Support network in the area 36% 3.9
Preparation for fellowship training 36% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 52% 4.1
Cost of living 41% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 48% 4.2
Diversity of patient problems 54% 4.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 41% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 36% 3.8
Availability of electronic health records 34% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 30% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 38% 4.2
Quality of ancillary support staff 27% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 32% 4.1
Call schedule 21% 3.7
ABMS board pass rates 27% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 39% 4.0
Opportunity for international experience 32% 3.9
Salary 21% 3.5
Vacation/parental/sick leave 25% 3.9
Having friends at the program 16% 2.9
Community-based setting 25% 4.4
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 18% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 23% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 25% 4.1
Alternative duty hours 11% 3.6
Other Benefits 4% 4.5
Presence of a previous match violation 9% 3.8
H-1B visa sponsorship 7% 5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 64

 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Figure MP-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 91% 4.9
Interview day experience 87% 4.5
Geographic location 85% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 77% 4.6
Reputation of program 69% 4.1
Quality of faculty 57% 4.4
House staff morale 67% 4.5
Quality of program director 75% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 66% 4.6
Work/life balance 63% 4.2
Academic medical center program 67% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 44% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 48% 4.1
Support network in the area 51% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 52% 4.1
Size of program 47% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 47% 3.9
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 54% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 41% 3.9
Cost of living 45% 3.5
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 57% 4.3
Diversity of patient problems 59% 4.4
Opportunity to conduct research 27% 4.0
Size of patient caseload 19% 3.7
Availability of electronic health records 32% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 43% 4.2
Call schedule 7% 3.4
Quality of ancillary support staff 27% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 34% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 29% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 18% 3.7
Salary 17% 3.2
Opportunity for international experience 44% 4.1
Vacation/parental/sick leave 18% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 33% 3.9
Having friends at the program 19% 3.8
Community-based setting 12% 3.4
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 9% 3.6
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 11% 3.6
Alternative duty hours in program 2% 4.0
Other Benefits 2% 4.3
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 3.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 65

 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Figure MP-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 76% 5.0
Interview day experience 67% 4.7
Geographic location 59% 4.3
Quality of residents in program 61% 4.6
Reputation of program 43% 3.9
Quality of faculty 54% 4.5
House staff morale 56% 4.6
Quality of program director 57% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 48% 4.5
Work/life balance 43% 4.0
Academic medical center program 52% 4.3
Preparation for fellowship training 39% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 39% 4.0
Support network in the area 26% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 28% 4.1
Size of program 41% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 46% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 30% 3.6
Future fellowship training opportunities 41% 4.1
Cost of living 37% 4.1
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 46% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 33% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 30% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 33% 3.5
Availability of electronic health records 30% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 24% 4.1
Call schedule 19% 3.6
Quality of ancillary support staff 17% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 33% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 26% 4.1
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 20% 3.9
Salary 20% 3.6
Opportunity for international experience 24% 4.3
Vacation/parental/sick leave 15% 4.4
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 26% 4.1
Having friends at the program 17% 3.7
Community-based setting 22% 3.9
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 11% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 15% 3.4
Alternative duty hours in program 9% 3.6
Other Benefits 6% 4.0
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 4.5
H-1B visa sponsorship 6% 4.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 66

 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Figure MP-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

93%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
82%

87%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
59%

70%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
63%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 73%

competitive programs 39%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 50%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 31%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 19%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 31%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 3%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 4%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 2%

but did not interview 2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 67

 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Figure MP-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50

40

30
24
20 19
15
11 11
10 9
7 7

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

32 31 30 Independent Applicants
28

24

20

16

12
10 9 9
8

4 4 3 3

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 68

 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Figure MP-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.5
specialty 4.4
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.9
and re-enter the Match next year 2.7
2.7
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.7
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 3.1
competitive back-up specialty 3.1
1.8
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1.9
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.4
2.1
Pursue a graduate degree
1.9
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
2.1
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.2
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.4
specialty 4.6
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.4
and re-enter the Match next year 3.5
2.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.6
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 3.9
competitive back-up specialty 3.8
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
2.5
1.3
Pursue non-clinical training
2.2
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.3
the U.S. 1.7
1.8
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.1
1.5
Re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 69

 Neurology

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 70

 Neurology
Figure NE-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 88% 4.4
Reputation of program 87% 4.3
Perceived goodness of fit 77% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 72% 4.4
Academic medical center program 80% 4.7
Quality of educational curriculum and training 73% 4.6
Work/life balance 56% 4.2
Quality of faculty 71% 4.5
Size of program 62% 3.7
Quality of program director 57% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 61% 3.8
House staff morale 54% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 62% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 55% 4.0
Support network in the area 50% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 58% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 55% 3.9
Cost of living 51% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 58% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 52% 4.2
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 57% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 59% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 35% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 31% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 34% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 30% 3.9
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 14% 3.4
Call schedule 32% 3.7
ABMS board pass rates 15% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 27% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 17% 3.6
Salary 22% 3.6
Vacation/parental/sick leave 22% 3.5
Having friends at the program 17% 3.6
Community-based setting 7% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 8% 3.2
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 15% 3.3
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 13% 3.8
Alternative duty hours 4% 3.2
Other Benefits 3% 4.1
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 71

 Neurology
Figure NE-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 66% 4.2
Reputation of program 67% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 51% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 56% 4.3
Academic medical center program 62% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 58% 4.5
Work/life balance 45% 4.1
Quality of faculty 61% 4.4
Size of program 49% 3.8
Quality of program director 44% 4.5
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 34% 3.8
House staff morale 39% 4.3
Future fellowship training opportunities 58% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 45% 4.1
Support network in the area 29% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 52% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 44% 4.3
Cost of living 45% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 53% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 48% 4.1
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 41% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 57% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 30% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 29% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 28% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 21% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 24% 4.1
Call schedule 31% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 23% 4.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 32% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 14% 3.9
Salary 21% 3.6
Vacation/parental/sick leave 18% 4.0
Having friends at the program 26% 3.5
Community-based setting 16% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 9% 3.4
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 14% 3.9
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 25% 4.0
Alternative duty hours 10% 3.7
Other Benefits 4% 3.7
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 4.2
H-1B visa sponsorship 20% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 72

 Neurology
Figure NE-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 88% 4.8
Interview day experience 83% 4.5
Geographic location 80% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 80% 4.5
Reputation of program 78% 4.3
Quality of faculty 77% 4.5
House staff morale 68% 4.5
Quality of program director 72% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 63% 4.6
Work/life balance 57% 4.3
Academic medical center program 68% 4.5
Preparation for fellowship training 57% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 49% 4.2
Support network in the area 39% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 51% 4.1
Size of program 53% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 51% 4.0
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 49% 4.2
Future fellowship training opportunities 55% 4.1
Cost of living 46% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 52% 4.3
Diversity of patient problems 49% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 57% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 31% 3.8
Availability of electronic health records 33% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 26% 3.9
Call schedule 35% 3.6
Quality of ancillary support staff 27% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 21% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 16% 4.1
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 11% 3.5
Salary 24% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 16% 3.8
Vacation/parental/sick leave 21% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 11% 3.7
Having friends at the program 10% 4.1
Community-based setting 7% 3.9
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 7% 3.2
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 7% 4.2
Alternative duty hours in program 2% 3.7
Other Benefits 3% 3.2
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 73

 Neurology
Figure NE-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 70% 4.7
Interview day experience 70% 4.6
Geographic location 59% 4.3
Quality of residents in program 53% 4.5
Reputation of program 61% 4.4
Quality of faculty 58% 4.5
House staff morale 35% 4.4
Quality of program director 49% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 53% 4.6
Work/life balance 42% 4.3
Academic medical center program 52% 4.6
Preparation for fellowship training 44% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 36% 4.3
Support network in the area 29% 4.1
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 37% 4.4
Size of program 42% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 45% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 29% 3.9
Future fellowship training opportunities 52% 4.4
Cost of living 34% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 33% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 37% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 48% 4.3
Size of patient caseload 26% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 21% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 25% 4.1
Call schedule 25% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 15% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 26% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 23% 4.4
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 16% 4.1
Salary 19% 3.8
Opportunity for international experience 8% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 14% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 12% 4.1
Having friends at the program 16% 3.8
Community-based setting 7% 4.1
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 6% 3.1
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 19% 4.1
Alternative duty hours in program 6% 3.9
Other Benefits 3% 4.3
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 4.3
H-1B visa sponsorship 15% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 74

 Neurology
Figure NE-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

91%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
73%

76%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
49%

63%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
72%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 69%

competitive programs 33%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 59%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 22%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 7%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 19%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 6%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 13%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 3%

but did not interview 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 75

 Neurology
Figure NE-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50

40

30
24
21
20 17
12 11
10 9
7 7

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

60 Independent Applicants
60

50
50

40

30

20

10 9 8 7
2 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 76

 Neurology
Figure NE-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.1
specialty 2.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.5
and re-enter the Match next year 2.0
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.5
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.2
competitive back-up specialty 1.5
1.8
Re-enter the Match next year
4.5
1.9
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.0
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
3.5
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
3.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 2.5
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.4
specialty 4.3
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.8
and re-enter the Match next year 3.8
3.4
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.6
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.9
competitive back-up specialty 3.5
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
2.2
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.6
the U.S. 1.9
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1.6
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 77

 Neurological Surgery

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 78

 Neurological Surgery
Figure NS-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 77% 4.1
Reputation of program 84% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 83% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 77% 4.5
Academic medical center program 79% 4.6
Quality of educational curriculum and training 69% 4.5
Work/life balance 52% 4.0
Quality of faculty 79% 4.6
Size of program 70% 3.6
Quality of program director 68% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 56% 3.7
House staff morale 57% 4.6
Future fellowship training opportunities 45% 3.8
Career paths of recent program graduates 60% 4.1
Support network in the area 44% 3.8
Preparation for fellowship training 51% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 66% 4.3
Cost of living 56% 3.4
Quality of hospital facilities 56% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 39% 4.1
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 57% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 69% 4.3
Availability of electronic health records 22% 3.8
Size of patient caseload 53% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 27% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 34% 3.9
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 53% 4.1
Call schedule 32% 3.6
ABMS board pass rates 6% 3.6
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 17% 4.1
Opportunity for international experience 24% 3.4
Salary 7% 3.3
Vacation/parental/sick leave 8% 3.6
Having friends at the program 25% 3.5
Community-based setting 2% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 5% 2.9
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 4% 2.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 8% 3.7
Alternative duty hours 7% 3.9
Other Benefits 2% 2.5
Presence of a previous match violation 7% 3.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 79

 Neurological Surgery
Figure NS-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 42% 3.9
Reputation of program 73% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 54% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 65% 4.1
Academic medical center program 81% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 62% 4.6
Work/life balance 35% 3.9
Quality of faculty 69% 4.1
Size of program 69% 3.9
Quality of program director 58% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 35% 3.4
House staff morale 42% 3.8
Future fellowship training opportunities 46% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 50% 3.8
Support network in the area 15% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 50% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 65% 4.2
Cost of living 35% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 50% 4.3
Diversity of patient problems 46% 3.6
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 31% 3.8
Opportunity to conduct research 77% 4.8
Availability of electronic health records 27% 3.7
Size of patient caseload 46% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 19% 3.4
Quality of ancillary support staff 15% 2.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 50% 4.8
Call schedule 19% 3.4
ABMS board pass rates 8% 4.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 27% 3.8
Opportunity for international experience 19% 3.8
Salary 4% 3.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 4% 5.0
Having friends at the program 8% 5.0
Community-based setting 4% 5.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 4% 4.0
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 12% 4.3
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 31% 4.0
Alternative duty hours 8% 3.5
Other Benefits 0%
Presence of a previous match violation 12% 4.7
H-1B visa sponsorship 19% 4.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 80

 Neurological Surgery
Figure NS-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 87% 4.8
Interview day experience 77% 4.5
Geographic location 69% 4.3
Quality of residents in program 87% 4.7
Reputation of program 70% 4.4
Quality of faculty 79% 4.6
House staff morale 61% 4.7
Quality of program director 61% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 59% 4.5
Work/life balance 47% 4.1
Academic medical center program 64% 4.6
Preparation for fellowship training 42% 4.5
Career paths of recent program graduates 52% 4.3
Support network in the area 34% 4.1
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 56% 4.4
Size of program 62% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 38% 4.0
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 36% 3.9
Future fellowship training opportunities 31% 4.2
Cost of living 42% 3.5
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 45% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 29% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 66% 4.4
Size of patient caseload 49% 4.2
Availability of electronic health records 17% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 20% 4.1
Call schedule 38% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 34% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 14% 4.3
ABMS board pass rates 5% 4.7
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 40% 4.3
Salary 8% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 15% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 7% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 3% 4.5
Having friends at the program 19% 3.8
Community-based setting 2% 4.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 9% 3.3
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 3% 3.8
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 4.3
Other Benefits 0%
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 4.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 81

 Neurological Surgery
Figure NS-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 62% 4.7
Interview day experience 65% 4.5
Geographic location 46% 3.9
Quality of residents in program 69% 4.6
Reputation of program 65% 4.3
Quality of faculty 62% 4.6
House staff morale 38% 4.2
Quality of program director 50% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 50% 4.6
Work/life balance 31% 3.7
Academic medical center program 58% 4.7
Preparation for fellowship training 46% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 42% 4.1
Support network in the area 12% 3.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 38% 4.7
Size of program 46% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 46% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 27% 3.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 31% 4.3
Cost of living 23% 3.4
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 31% 3.9
Diversity of patient problems 19% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 54% 4.7
Size of patient caseload 35% 4.5
Availability of electronic health records 8% 4.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 15% 4.3
Call schedule 15% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 4% 5.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 23% 4.5
ABMS board pass rates 4% 5.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 35% 4.6
Salary 0%
Opportunity for international experience 8% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 4% 5.0
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 0%
Having friends at the program 4% 5.0
Community-based setting 4% 5.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 8% 3.5
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 15% 4.5
Alternative duty hours in program 4% 4.0
Other Benefits 0%
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 4.0
H-1B visa sponsorship 19% 4.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 82

 Neurological Surgery
Figure NS-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
76%

80%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
40%

76%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
84%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 77%

competitive programs 24%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 46%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 16%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 9%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 20%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 3%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 20%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 2%

but did not interview 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 83

 Neurological Surgery
Figure NS-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
63
60
53
50

40

30
23
20 16 16
10 9 9
10

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

80 Independent Applicants
80 75
70

60

50

40

30

20

10 9 7 7
3 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 84

 Neurological Surgery
Figure NS-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.0
specialty 3.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.4
and re-enter the Match next year 3.6
3.4
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.3
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.5
competitive back-up specialty 2.8
2.3
Re-enter the Match next year
2.4
2.2
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.0
1.8
Pursue a graduate degree
1.8
2.0
Pursue non-clinical training
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S. 1.5
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.3
specialty 4.7
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.4
and re-enter the Match next year 4.6
3.9
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.8
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.1
competitive back-up specialty 2.5
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
1.5
1.8
Pursue non-clinical training
1.7
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.6
the U.S. 1.2
1.4
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.7
2.4
Re-enter the Match next year
1.4
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 85

 Obstetrics and Gynecology

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 86

 Obstetrics and Gynecology
Figure OB-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 90% 4.5
Reputation of program 84% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 76% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 73% 4.5
Academic medical center program 73% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 66% 4.5
Work/life balance 58% 4.2
Quality of faculty 62% 4.4
Size of program 73% 3.8
Quality of program director 52% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 57% 3.9
House staff morale 49% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 64% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 62% 4.0
Support network in the area 60% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 60% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 50% 4.0
Cost of living 49% 3.5
Quality of hospital facilities 42% 3.7
Diversity of patient problems 52% 4.1
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 49% 3.9
Opportunity to conduct research 50% 4.2
Availability of electronic health records 30% 3.7
Size of patient caseload 27% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 38% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 24% 3.6
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 37% 4.0
Call schedule 30% 3.5
ABMS board pass rates 23% 4.4
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 33% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 35% 3.7
Salary 22% 3.2
Vacation/parental/sick leave 23% 3.3
Having friends at the program 20% 3.6
Community-based setting 21% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 3% 3.2
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 9% 3.3
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 9% 3.5
Alternative duty hours 4% 3.5
Other Benefits 6% 3.7
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 87

 Obstetrics and Gynecology
Figure OB-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 70% 4.2
Reputation of program 54% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 58% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 57% 4.5
Academic medical center program 41% 4.0
Quality of educational curriculum and training 53% 4.6
Work/life balance 41% 4.2
Quality of faculty 47% 4.4
Size of program 53% 3.8
Quality of program director 45% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 31% 3.6
House staff morale 37% 4.3
Future fellowship training opportunities 40% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 39% 4.0
Support network in the area 32% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 31% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 44% 4.2
Cost of living 33% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 46% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 46% 4.2
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 31% 3.8
Opportunity to conduct research 32% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 23% 3.5
Size of patient caseload 29% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 23% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 20% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 31% 4.3
Call schedule 22% 3.6
ABMS board pass rates 21% 4.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 31% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 23% 3.9
Salary 20% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 18% 3.5
Having friends at the program 15% 3.8
Community-based setting 43% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 6% 3.2
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 11% 3.5
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 16% 3.8
Alternative duty hours 3% 3.2
Other Benefits 9% 4.4
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 4.3
H-1B visa sponsorship 11% 4.6
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 88

 Obstetrics and Gynecology
Figure OB-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 89% 4.9
Interview day experience 85% 4.6
Geographic location 81% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 77% 4.6
Reputation of program 71% 4.3
Quality of faculty 67% 4.4
House staff morale 62% 4.6
Quality of program director 61% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 65% 4.6
Work/life balance 56% 4.2
Academic medical center program 61% 4.5
Preparation for fellowship training 59% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 52% 4.1
Support network in the area 56% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 51% 4.1
Size of program 61% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 44% 3.7
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 43% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 53% 4.2
Cost of living 40% 3.6
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 42% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 47% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 45% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 25% 3.9
Availability of electronic health records 24% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 32% 4.0
Call schedule 26% 3.6
Quality of ancillary support staff 23% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 32% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 19% 4.3
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 34% 4.2
Salary 19% 3.2
Opportunity for international experience 26% 3.8
Vacation/parental/sick leave 20% 3.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 9% 3.4
Having friends at the program 12% 3.8
Community-based setting 16% 3.9
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 1% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 6% 3.7
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 3.6
Other Benefits 5% 3.7
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 89

 Obstetrics and Gynecology
Figure OB-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 73% 4.7
Interview day experience 71% 4.5
Geographic location 60% 4.3
Quality of residents in program 58% 4.6
Reputation of program 46% 4.2
Quality of faculty 53% 4.5
House staff morale 38% 4.5
Quality of program director 43% 4.6
Quality of educational curriculum and training 50% 4.5
Work/life balance 38% 4.2
Academic medical center program 31% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 38% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 34% 4.1
Support network in the area 32% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 37% 4.3
Size of program 43% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 43% 4.1
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 24% 3.9
Future fellowship training opportunities 34% 4.3
Cost of living 29% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 20% 4.2
Diversity of patient problems 37% 4.4
Opportunity to conduct research 31% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 27% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 12% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 19% 4.1
Call schedule 19% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 17% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 16% 4.2
ABMS board pass rates 21% 4.4
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 30% 4.3
Salary 17% 3.6
Opportunity for international experience 14% 4.1
Vacation/parental/sick leave 13% 3.7
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 9% 4.2
Having friends at the program 12% 4.0
Community-based setting 29% 3.8
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 1% 4.3
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 10% 4.0
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 3.3
Other Benefits 3% 4.0
Presence of a previous match violation 9% 3.9
H-1B visa sponsorship 7% 4.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 90

 Obstetrics and Gynecology
Figure OB-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

90%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
75%

77%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
59%

68%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
62%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 70%

competitive programs 38%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 54%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 27%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 5%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 16%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 7%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 15%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 2%

but did not interview 6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 91

 Obstetrics and Gynecology
Figure OB-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50
42
40
35

30

20 16
13 12
10 8 9
10

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

60 Independent Applicants
60

50
50

40

30

20

10 9 9
10
3 3 3
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 92

 Obstetrics and Gynecology
Figure OB-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.4
specialty 4.6
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.3
and re-enter the Match next year 3.7
3.1
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.8
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.6
competitive back-up specialty 3.0
1.8
Re-enter the Match next year
1.9
1.9
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1.8
Pursue a graduate degree
1.8
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
1.5
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.1
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.5
specialty 4.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.6
and re-enter the Match next year 3.8
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.0
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 3.1
competitive back-up specialty 3.5
1.5
Pursue a graduate degree
2.1
1.5
Pursue non-clinical training
1.8
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.3
the U.S. 1.6
1.4
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1.6
Re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 93

 Orthopaedic Surgery

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 94

 Orthopaedic Surgery
Figure OS-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 84% 4.3
Reputation of program 86% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 80% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 75% 4.7
Academic medical center program 67% 4.2
Quality of educational curriculum and training 68% 4.5
Work/life balance 62% 4.2
Quality of faculty 72% 4.5
Size of program 67% 3.6
Quality of program director 57% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 56% 3.8
House staff morale 55% 4.6
Future fellowship training opportunities 48% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 58% 4.2
Support network in the area 51% 3.9
Preparation for fellowship training 68% 4.6
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 62% 4.2
Cost of living 56% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 53% 3.7
Diversity of patient problems 33% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 30% 3.6
Opportunity to conduct research 49% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 24% 3.6
Size of patient caseload 36% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 17% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 30% 3.7
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 44% 4.0
Call schedule 37% 3.7
ABMS board pass rates 12% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 16% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 19% 3.4
Salary 16% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 14% 3.5
Having friends at the program 29% 3.6
Community-based setting 19% 3.5
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 10% 3.1
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 16% 3.3
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 12% 3.5
Alternative duty hours 8% 3.5
Other Benefits 5% 3.9
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 95

 Orthopaedic Surgery
Figure OS-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 57% 4.0
Reputation of program 62% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 52% 4.2
Quality of residents in program 57% 4.3
Academic medical center program 43% 4.2
Quality of educational curriculum and training 57% 4.4
Work/life balance 33% 4.1
Quality of faculty 55% 4.3
Size of program 26% 3.7
Quality of program director 45% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 14% 3.5
House staff morale 40% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 38% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 43% 4.4
Support network in the area 21% 4.3
Preparation for fellowship training 45% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 45% 3.9
Cost of living 33% 3.2
Quality of hospital facilities 36% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 26% 4.1
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 26% 3.2
Opportunity to conduct research 40% 3.7
Availability of electronic health records 14% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 19% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 17% 3.6
Quality of ancillary support staff 24% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 29% 4.3
Call schedule 17% 3.4
ABMS board pass rates 10% 5.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 21% 4.6
Opportunity for international experience 10% 3.0
Salary 7% 3.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 14% 3.2
Having friends at the program 19% 4.1
Community-based setting 10% 3.8
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 5% 3.0
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 2% 3.0
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 7% 4.0
Alternative duty hours 2% 3.0
Other Benefits 7% 4.7
Presence of a previous match violation 2% 5.0
H-1B visa sponsorship 14% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 96

 Orthopaedic Surgery
Figure OS-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 85% 4.9
Interview day experience 75% 4.4
Geographic location 77% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 79% 4.7
Reputation of program 73% 4.3
Quality of faculty 75% 4.5
House staff morale 58% 4.6
Quality of program director 56% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 64% 4.5
Work/life balance 60% 4.2
Academic medical center program 52% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 60% 4.6
Career paths of recent program graduates 50% 4.3
Support network in the area 43% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 52% 4.3
Size of program 53% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 46% 3.7
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 44% 3.9
Future fellowship training opportunities 32% 4.2
Cost of living 45% 3.6
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 23% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 23% 3.9
Opportunity to conduct research 44% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 32% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 14% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 12% 3.8
Call schedule 37% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 25% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 12% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 10% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 24% 4.1
Salary 13% 3.4
Opportunity for international experience 11% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 9% 3.4
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 12% 3.7
Having friends at the program 21% 3.6
Community-based setting 14% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 5% 3.2
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 5% 4.0
Alternative duty hours in program 4% 3.7
Other Benefits 4% 3.8
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 97

 Orthopaedic Surgery
Figure OS-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 70% 4.6
Interview day experience 60% 4.5
Geographic location 63% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 70% 4.5
Reputation of program 57% 4.5
Quality of faculty 65% 4.2
House staff morale 40% 4.4
Quality of program director 60% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 45% 4.3
Work/life balance 35% 4.4
Academic medical center program 40% 4.3
Preparation for fellowship training 40% 4.5
Career paths of recent program graduates 45% 4.4
Support network in the area 20% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 38% 4.3
Size of program 18% 4.2
Quality of hospital facilities 30% 4.7
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 23% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 33% 4.3
Cost of living 25% 4.6
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 10% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 13% 4.5
Opportunity to conduct research 43% 4.3
Size of patient caseload 15% 4.3
Availability of electronic health records 13% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 20% 3.9
Call schedule 13% 3.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 23% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 15% 4.3
ABMS board pass rates 13% 4.6
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 25% 4.5
Salary 8% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 10% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 13% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 3% 4.0
Having friends at the program 13% 3.8
Community-based setting 10% 4.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 5% 3.0
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 10% 3.3
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 3.0
Other Benefits 3% 5.0
Presence of a previous match violation 0%
H-1B visa sponsorship 18% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 98

 Orthopaedic Surgery
Figure OS-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

89%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
71%

71%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
61%

88%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
82%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 60%

competitive programs 24%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 35%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 13%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 9%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 26%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 10%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 16%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 5%

but did not interview 11%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 99

 Orthopaedic Surgery
Figure OS-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
70 75
60

50

40

30

20
15
12 12
10 7 6 7

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

60 Independent Applicants
54
50 47

40

30

20

10
3 3 3 3 3 3
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 100

 Orthopaedic Surgery
Figure OS-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 3.7
specialty 3.3
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.2
and re-enter the Match next year 3.8
3.6
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.0
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.7
competitive back-up specialty 2.5
2.4
Re-enter the Match next year
2.1
2.2
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
1.3
1.8
Pursue non-clinical training
1.5
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.1
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 2.9
specialty 4.3
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.8
and re-enter the Match next year 3.6
3.6
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.7
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.1
competitive back-up specialty 2.6
1.1
Pursue a graduate degree
1.7
1.9
Pursue non-clinical training
1.9
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.6
the U.S. 1.4
1.3
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.3
2.4
Re-enter the Match next year
1.9
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 101

 Otolaryngology

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 102

 Otolaryngology
Figure OT-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 82% 4.2
Reputation of program 76% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 74% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 60% 4.5
Academic medical center program 70% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 60% 4.4
Work/life balance 56% 4.0
Quality of faculty 66% 4.5
Size of program 74% 3.6
Quality of program director 46% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 51% 3.8
House staff morale 51% 4.6
Future fellowship training opportunities 47% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 52% 3.9
Support network in the area 54% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 55% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 47% 4.2
Cost of living 49% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 41% 3.5
Diversity of patient problems 36% 4.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 20% 3.8
Opportunity to conduct research 54% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 18% 3.6
Size of patient caseload 41% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 28% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 23% 3.7
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 37% 3.9
Call schedule 30% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 7% 4.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 17% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 26% 3.4
Salary 16% 3.3
Vacation/parental/sick leave 12% 3.5
Having friends at the program 20% 3.3
Community-based setting 4% 3.3
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 7% 2.9
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 10% 3.2
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 8% 3.7
Alternative duty hours 4% 4.0
Other Benefits 4% 4.0
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 4.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 103

 Otolaryngology
Figure OT-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 67% 4.3
Reputation of program 83% 3.8
Perceived goodness of fit 75% 4.9
Quality of residents in program 75% 3.8
Academic medical center program 83% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 67% 4.3
Work/life balance 42% 3.8
Quality of faculty 83% 4.2
Size of program 67% 3.6
Quality of program director 42% 4.0
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 67% 3.4
House staff morale 50% 4.2
Future fellowship training opportunities 67% 4.5
Career paths of recent program graduates 67% 4.0
Support network in the area 42% 3.2
Preparation for fellowship training 100% 4.5
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 33% 4.3
Cost of living 25% 3.0
Quality of hospital facilities 42% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 42% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 33% 3.5
Opportunity to conduct research 92% 4.3
Availability of electronic health records 25% 4.3
Size of patient caseload 33% 3.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 25% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 17% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 50% 4.6
Call schedule 33% 3.7
ABMS board pass rates 25% 2.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 25% 4.0
Opportunity for international experience 58% 3.1
Salary 8% 2.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 8% 2.0
Having friends at the program 17% 2.5
Community-based setting 8%
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 0%
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 25% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 17% 4.0
Alternative duty hours 8% 5.0
Other Benefits 0%
Presence of a previous match violation 17% 3.0
H-1B visa sponsorship 8% 4.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 104

 Otolaryngology
Figure OT-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 88% 4.8
Interview day experience 80% 4.4
Geographic location 80% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 71% 4.6
Reputation of program 68% 4.1
Quality of faculty 77% 4.4
House staff morale 61% 4.6
Quality of program director 53% 4.2
Quality of educational curriculum and training 52% 4.3
Work/life balance 55% 4.0
Academic medical center program 53% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 53% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 46% 4.1
Support network in the area 49% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 48% 4.4
Size of program 58% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 38% 3.6
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 44% 3.8
Future fellowship training opportunities 34% 4.1
Cost of living 45% 3.5
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 15% 3.7
Diversity of patient problems 32% 3.9
Opportunity to conduct research 50% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 39% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 12% 3.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 20% 3.6
Call schedule 36% 3.6
Quality of ancillary support staff 21% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 18% 3.5
ABMS board pass rates 5% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 25% 3.9
Salary 12% 3.0
Opportunity for international experience 20% 3.3
Vacation/parental/sick leave 7% 3.3
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 8% 3.7
Having friends at the program 13% 3.4
Community-based setting 3% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 4% 2.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 3% 4.0
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 3.4
Other Benefits 3% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 3.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 105

 Otolaryngology
Figure OT-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 100% 4.9
Interview day experience 73% 4.4
Geographic location 64% 4.0
Quality of residents in program 73% 4.3
Reputation of program 45% 4.0
Quality of faculty 64% 4.4
House staff morale 55% 4.5
Quality of program director 45% 4.0
Quality of educational curriculum and training 55% 4.8
Work/life balance 36% 4.3
Academic medical center program 82% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 73% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 36% 4.0
Support network in the area 45% 3.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 36% 4.5
Size of program 64% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 45% 3.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 36% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 36% 4.3
Cost of living 18% 3.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 45% 3.6
Diversity of patient problems 18% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 73% 4.5
Size of patient caseload 27% 3.7
Availability of electronic health records 27% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 27% 3.7
Call schedule 18% 3.5
Quality of ancillary support staff 9% 3.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 9% 5.0
ABMS board pass rates 9% 5.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 18% 4.0
Salary 9% 3.0
Opportunity for international experience 45% 3.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 18% 2.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 0%
Having friends at the program 18% 3.0
Community-based setting 0%
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 0%
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 0%
Alternative duty hours in program 0%
Other Benefits 0%
Presence of a previous match violation 0%
H-1B visa sponsorship 0%
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 106

 Otolaryngology
Figure OT-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

85%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
91%

68%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
64%

86%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
82%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 61%

competitive programs 55%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 34%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 9%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 16%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 64%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 9%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 0%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 5%

but did not interview 0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 107

 Otolaryngology
Figure OT-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
67 73
60

50

40

30

20
15
12 12
10 6 6 5

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

100 98 Independent Applicants

84
80

60

40

20
10 8 8
3 3 3
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 108

 Otolaryngology
Figure OT-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 3.9
specialty 3.4
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.1
and re-enter the Match next year 3.3
3.2
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.8
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.9
competitive back-up specialty 3.3
2.3
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
2.2
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.8
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
1.4
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
1.6
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S. 1.3
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.8
specialty 3.8
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.4
and re-enter the Match next year 3.5
1.6
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.6
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 3.4
competitive back-up specialty 4.0
1.3
Pursue a graduate degree
2.0
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S. 1.2
1.0
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.0
1.4
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 109

 Pathology

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 110

 Pathology
Figure PA-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 89% 4.5
Reputation of program 87% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 79% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 77% 4.3
Academic medical center program 76% 4.6
Quality of educational curriculum and training 71% 4.6
Work/life balance 72% 4.3
Quality of faculty 75% 4.3
Size of program 62% 3.7
Quality of program director 54% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 58% 3.8
House staff morale 58% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 77% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 59% 4.1
Support network in the area 52% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 68% 4.5
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 48% 4.0
Cost of living 56% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 50% 3.9
Diversity of patient problems 34% 4.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 53% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 62% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 16% 3.7
Size of patient caseload 35% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 23% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 33% 3.9
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 16% 3.3
Call schedule 25% 3.4
ABMS board pass rates 24% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 15% 3.8
Opportunity for international experience 8% 3.5
Salary 36% 3.6
Vacation/parental/sick leave 26% 3.6
Having friends at the program 17% 3.2
Community-based setting 3% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 8% 3.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 5% 3.1
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 9% 3.7
Alternative duty hours 6% 3.0
Other Benefits 7% 4.4
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 3.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 111

 Pathology
Figure PA-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 65% 4.2
Reputation of program 60% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 46% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 51% 4.2
Academic medical center program 59% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 54% 4.6
Work/life balance 49% 4.1
Quality of faculty 61% 4.4
Size of program 49% 3.6
Quality of program director 38% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 27% 3.7
House staff morale 30% 4.3
Future fellowship training opportunities 55% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 47% 4.1
Support network in the area 27% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 52% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 39% 4.2
Cost of living 38% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 46% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 33% 4.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 43% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 56% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 15% 3.7
Size of patient caseload 33% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 27% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 24% 4.1
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 19% 3.8
Call schedule 18% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 21% 4.4
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 33% 3.8
Opportunity for international experience 16% 3.8
Salary 20% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 21% 3.9
Having friends at the program 16% 3.5
Community-based setting 11% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 8% 3.7
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 6% 4.0
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 22% 4.0
Alternative duty hours 5% 3.7
Other Benefits 5% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 3.9
H-1B visa sponsorship 20% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 112

 Pathology
Figure PA-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 83% 4.8
Interview day experience 78% 4.6
Geographic location 80% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 73% 4.4
Reputation of program 74% 4.3
Quality of faculty 76% 4.4
House staff morale 65% 4.5
Quality of program director 58% 4.2
Quality of educational curriculum and training 57% 4.6
Work/life balance 68% 4.4
Academic medical center program 62% 4.6
Preparation for fellowship training 62% 4.5
Career paths of recent program graduates 48% 4.1
Support network in the area 43% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 36% 4.2
Size of program 43% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 50% 4.1
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 45% 4.1
Future fellowship training opportunities 67% 4.4
Cost of living 50% 4.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 41% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 29% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 51% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 34% 4.2
Availability of electronic health records 13% 3.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 18% 4.2
Call schedule 25% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 34% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 17% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 26% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 13% 3.8
Salary 31% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 6% 4.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 20% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 6% 4.8
Having friends at the program 9% 3.8
Community-based setting 3% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 3% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 8% 4.3
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 4.6
Other Benefits 9% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 4.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 113

 Pathology
Figure PA-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 67% 4.7
Interview day experience 67% 4.5
Geographic location 58% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 51% 4.4
Reputation of program 54% 4.3
Quality of faculty 59% 4.4
House staff morale 29% 4.5
Quality of program director 40% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 54% 4.5
Work/life balance 43% 4.2
Academic medical center program 51% 4.5
Preparation for fellowship training 50% 4.5
Career paths of recent program graduates 38% 4.3
Support network in the area 21% 4.1
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 32% 4.4
Size of program 39% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 38% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 18% 3.9
Future fellowship training opportunities 48% 4.4
Cost of living 31% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 28% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 31% 4.4
Opportunity to conduct research 46% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 26% 4.3
Availability of electronic health records 10% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 19% 3.9
Call schedule 15% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 21% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 17% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 21% 4.5
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 13% 4.1
Salary 23% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 8% 3.8
Vacation/parental/sick leave 17% 3.9
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 3% 4.0
Having friends at the program 9% 4.0
Community-based setting 6% 4.2
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 6% 4.1
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 18% 4.2
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 3.7
Other Benefits 4% 3.9
Presence of a previous match violation 2% 4.2
H-1B visa sponsorship 20% 4.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 114

 Pathology
Figure PA-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

91%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
75%

80%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
53%

53%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
61%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 57%

competitive programs 29%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 42%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 18%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 3%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 7%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 7%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 17%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 3%

but did not interview 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 115

 Pathology
Figure PA-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50

40

30
22
20
16
11 10
10 9

2 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

70 Independent Applicants
70

60
50
50

40

30

20
10 8 8
10
1 1 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 116

 Pathology
Figure PA-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.2
specialty 5.0
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.5
and re-enter the Match next year 3.0
2.9
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.0
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.0
competitive back-up specialty 4.0
1.8
Re-enter the Match next year
1.0
1.8
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.0
2.0
Pursue a graduate degree
1.0
2.0
Pursue non-clinical training
1.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.0
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.4
specialty 4.6
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.8
and re-enter the Match next year 3.4
3.4
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.5
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.4
competitive back-up specialty 3.1
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
2.2
1.9
Pursue non-clinical training
2.3
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.4
the U.S. 1.7
1.7
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1.7
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 117

 Pediatrics

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 118

 Pediatrics
Figure PD-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 91% 4.6
Reputation of program 83% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 83% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 69% 4.5
Academic medical center program 71% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 67% 4.5
Work/life balance 66% 4.3
Quality of faculty 58% 4.4
Size of program 79% 3.9
Quality of program director 53% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 59% 4.0
House staff morale 57% 4.6
Future fellowship training opportunities 58% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 52% 3.9
Support network in the area 58% 4.3
Preparation for fellowship training 56% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 51% 4.0
Cost of living 52% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 60% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 55% 4.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 55% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 34% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 39% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 40% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 33% 4.1
Quality of ancillary support staff 27% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 16% 3.6
Call schedule 29% 3.5
ABMS board pass rates 36% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 26% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 29% 3.8
Salary 29% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 31% 3.6
Having friends at the program 23% 3.5
Community-based setting 14% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 8% 3.3
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 18% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 12% 3.7
Alternative duty hours 6% 3.5
Other Benefits 6% 3.7
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 3.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 119

 Pediatrics
Figure PD-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 72% 4.3
Reputation of program 63% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 59% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 63% 4.4
Academic medical center program 56% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 60% 4.5
Work/life balance 55% 4.2
Quality of faculty 56% 4.4
Size of program 61% 3.9
Quality of program director 48% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 40% 3.8
House staff morale 41% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 46% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 44% 4.1
Support network in the area 37% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 50% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 45% 4.1
Cost of living 42% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 56% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 53% 4.1
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 48% 4.1
Opportunity to conduct research 40% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 31% 3.7
Size of patient caseload 30% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 32% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 24% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 29% 4.0
Call schedule 20% 3.6
ABMS board pass rates 37% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 39% 4.0
Opportunity for international experience 29% 3.8
Salary 27% 3.5
Vacation/parental/sick leave 24% 3.7
Having friends at the program 22% 3.8
Community-based setting 28% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 9% 3.4
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 18% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 21% 4.1
Alternative duty hours 7% 3.6
Other Benefits 4% 3.8
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 4.1
H-1B visa sponsorship 14% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 120

 Pediatrics
Figure PD-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 88% 4.9
Interview day experience 85% 4.6
Geographic location 83% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 75% 4.6
Reputation of program 70% 4.2
Quality of faculty 60% 4.4
House staff morale 68% 4.7
Quality of program director 61% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 64% 4.6
Work/life balance 65% 4.4
Academic medical center program 56% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 47% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 43% 4.1
Support network in the area 53% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 47% 4.2
Size of program 66% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 54% 4.0
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 45% 4.1
Future fellowship training opportunities 46% 4.2
Cost of living 47% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 49% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 47% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 31% 4.0
Size of patient caseload 36% 3.9
Availability of electronic health records 27% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 26% 4.2
Call schedule 25% 3.6
Quality of ancillary support staff 23% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 23% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 31% 4.1
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 12% 3.8
Salary 25% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 26% 3.9
Vacation/parental/sick leave 24% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 17% 3.8
Having friends at the program 14% 3.7
Community-based setting 10% 3.9
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 4% 3.6
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 6% 3.6
Alternative duty hours in program 3% 3.7
Other Benefits 5% 3.8
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 121

 Pediatrics
Figure PD-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 71% 4.8
Interview day experience 73% 4.6
Geographic location 62% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 59% 4.5
Reputation of program 54% 4.3
Quality of faculty 54% 4.5
House staff morale 41% 4.5
Quality of program director 50% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 53% 4.6
Work/life balance 47% 4.2
Academic medical center program 42% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 45% 4.5
Career paths of recent program graduates 36% 4.2
Support network in the area 26% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 43% 4.2
Size of program 51% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 48% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 27% 3.9
Future fellowship training opportunities 38% 4.3
Cost of living 35% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 37% 4.2
Diversity of patient problems 38% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 34% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 23% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 22% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 23% 4.1
Call schedule 14% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 20% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 26% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 33% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 20% 4.2
Salary 22% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 23% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 16% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 16% 4.2
Having friends at the program 16% 3.9
Community-based setting 16% 4.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 3% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 15% 4.1
Alternative duty hours in program 5% 4.0
Other Benefits 2% 3.7
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 4.3
H-1B visa sponsorship 10% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 122

 Pediatrics
Figure PD-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
79%

75%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
58%

68%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
64%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 68%

competitive programs 35%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 51%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 25%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 3%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 7%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 4%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 13%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 1%

but did not interview 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 123

 Pediatrics
Figure PD-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50

40
35

30
25

20
15
12 11
10 6 7
5

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

59 60 Independent Applicants
60

50

40

30

20
11
10 9 8
2 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 124

 Pediatrics
Figure PD-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.3
specialty 4.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.7
and re-enter the Match next year 3.3
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.8
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.2
competitive back-up specialty 2.6
1.9
Re-enter the Match next year
1.6
2.0
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.8
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
1.8
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
1.9
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.1
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.6
specialty 4.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.0
and re-enter the Match next year 3.7
2.9
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.5
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.6
competitive back-up specialty 3.2
1.7
Pursue a graduate degree
2.5
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
2.1
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.6
the U.S. 1.8
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1.7
Re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 125

 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 126

 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Figure PM-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 88% 4.6
Reputation of program 84% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 85% 4.8
Quality of residents in program 71% 4.5
Academic medical center program 56% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 73% 4.5
Work/life balance 80% 4.6
Quality of faculty 70% 4.5
Size of program 61% 3.8
Quality of program director 73% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 71% 4.3
House staff morale 59% 4.7
Future fellowship training opportunities 63% 3.9
Career paths of recent program graduates 56% 4.0
Support network in the area 56% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 57% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 49% 4.1
Cost of living 54% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 58% 3.9
Diversity of patient problems 48% 4.1
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 55% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 44% 3.8
Availability of electronic health records 39% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 39% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 42% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 32% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 42% 4.1
Call schedule 57% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 28% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 26% 4.2
Opportunity for international experience 17% 3.9
Salary 36% 3.9
Vacation/parental/sick leave 31% 3.9
Having friends at the program 21% 3.9
Community-based setting 13% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 23% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 25% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 11% 3.7
Alternative duty hours 10% 4.0
Other Benefits 9% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 13% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 127

 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Figure PM-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 69% 4.3
Reputation of program 68% 4.0
Perceived goodness of fit 70% 4.8
Quality of residents in program 57% 4.4
Academic medical center program 42% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 52% 4.6
Work/life balance 63% 4.3
Quality of faculty 53% 4.5
Size of program 47% 3.5
Quality of program director 49% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 38% 3.9
House staff morale 47% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 50% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 48% 4.0
Support network in the area 39% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 51% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 44% 4.0
Cost of living 42% 3.5
Quality of hospital facilities 49% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 25% 4.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 42% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 42% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 22% 3.7
Size of patient caseload 21% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 24% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 25% 3.9
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 41% 4.2
Call schedule 40% 3.7
ABMS board pass rates 23% 4.4
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 19% 4.0
Opportunity for international experience 14% 3.4
Salary 25% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 19% 3.4
Having friends at the program 16% 3.5
Community-based setting 11% 3.5
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 17% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 13% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 18% 3.9
Alternative duty hours 10% 3.7
Other Benefits 5% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 8% 3.9
H-1B visa sponsorship 3% 3.8
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 128

 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Figure PM-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 90% 4.8
Interview day experience 87% 4.6
Geographic location 85% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 76% 4.6
Reputation of program 78% 4.2
Quality of faculty 69% 4.5
House staff morale 65% 4.6
Quality of program director 69% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 70% 4.6
Work/life balance 86% 4.5
Academic medical center program 48% 4.3
Preparation for fellowship training 60% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 45% 4.3
Support network in the area 58% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 54% 4.2
Size of program 59% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 60% 3.9
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 61% 4.3
Future fellowship training opportunities 55% 3.9
Cost of living 52% 4.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 59% 4.3
Diversity of patient problems 44% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 45% 4.0
Size of patient caseload 48% 3.7
Availability of electronic health records 33% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 34% 4.1
Call schedule 61% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 23% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 27% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 35% 4.1
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 52% 4.0
Salary 43% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 12% 3.6
Vacation/parental/sick leave 31% 3.7
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 20% 3.7
Having friends at the program 17% 3.8
Community-based setting 8% 3.3
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 12% 3.6
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 6% 4.3
Alternative duty hours in program 8% 4.4
Other Benefits 3% 4.0
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 3.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 129

 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Figure PM-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 77% 4.9
Interview day experience 71% 4.6
Geographic location 62% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 61% 4.5
Reputation of program 68% 4.1
Quality of faculty 59% 4.6
House staff morale 52% 4.5
Quality of program director 61% 4.6
Quality of educational curriculum and training 54% 4.7
Work/life balance 58% 4.4
Academic medical center program 38% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 52% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 46% 4.2
Support network in the area 28% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 46% 4.1
Size of program 43% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 47% 4.0
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 37% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 50% 4.2
Cost of living 44% 3.6
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 43% 4.3
Diversity of patient problems 33% 4.1
Opportunity to conduct research 34% 4.0
Size of patient caseload 30% 3.8
Availability of electronic health records 17% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 19% 3.7
Call schedule 38% 3.5
Quality of ancillary support staff 26% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 18% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 23% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 38% 4.2
Salary 22% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 9% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 15% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 15% 4.1
Having friends at the program 13% 3.6
Community-based setting 9% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 17% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 8% 4.2
Alternative duty hours in program 5% 3.7
Other Benefits 4% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 7% 4.0
H-1B visa sponsorship 2% 5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 130

 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Figure PM-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

91%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
75%

82%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
66%

65%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
73%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 70%

competitive programs 45%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 51%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 35%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 11%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 9%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 9%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 12%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 7%

but did not interview 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 131

 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Figure PM-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50

40

30 30
30

20 17
12 12
10 7 6 5

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

40 Independent Applicants
35 36
35

30

25

20

15 14
11 10
10

5 3 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 132

 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Figure PM-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.1
specialty 4.6
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 4.1
and re-enter the Match next year 4.1
2.8
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.0
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.5
competitive back-up specialty 2.8
1.6
Re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1.9
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1.5
Pursue a graduate degree
2.0
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
2.6
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S. 1.0
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.3
specialty 4.4
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.6
and re-enter the Match next year 4.0
2.2
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.1
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.7
competitive back-up specialty 3.5
1.2
Pursue a graduate degree
1.7
1.5
Pursue non-clinical training
2.1
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.2
the U.S. 1.5
1.3
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1.7
Re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 133

 Plastic Surgery

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 134

 Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Figure PS-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 77% 4.1
Reputation of program 77% 4.5
Perceived goodness of fit 72% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 68% 4.5
Academic medical center program 70% 4.6
Quality of educational curriculum and training 56% 4.5
Work/life balance 54% 4.2
Quality of faculty 73% 4.5
Size of program 63% 3.7
Quality of program director 56% 4.5
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 54% 3.9
House staff morale 52% 4.6
Future fellowship training opportunities 37% 4.0
Career paths of recent program graduates 56% 4.3
Support network in the area 37% 3.8
Preparation for fellowship training 58% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 56% 4.3
Cost of living 46% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 35% 3.5
Diversity of patient problems 42% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 30% 3.9
Opportunity to conduct research 56% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 15% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 48% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 21% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 21% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 41% 3.7
Call schedule 27% 3.2
ABMS board pass rates 15% 4.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 15% 3.6
Opportunity for international experience 32% 3.4
Salary 17% 3.5
Vacation/parental/sick leave 17% 3.6
Having friends at the program 14% 3.5
Community-based setting 10% 3.1
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 14% 3.3
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 11% 3.3
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 8% 3.4
Alternative duty hours 3% 4.0
Other Benefits 3% 3.5
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 4.5
80%
70%
60% 40%30%
50% 20%
10%0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 135

 Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Figure PS-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 40% 4.5
Reputation of program 67% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 47% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 33% 4.6
Academic medical center program 47% 4.7
Quality of educational curriculum and training 47% 4.4
Work/life balance 20% 3.7
Quality of faculty 47% 4.9
Size of program 33% 4.0
Quality of program director 40% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 13% 4.5
House staff morale 27% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 20% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 27% 4.3
Support network in the area 13% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 40% 4.0
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 33% 4.6
Cost of living 20% 3.0
Quality of hospital facilities 47% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 33% 4.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 13% 4.5
Opportunity to conduct research 40% 4.8
Availability of electronic health records 20% 4.7
Size of patient caseload 40% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 27% 3.5
Quality of ancillary support staff 20% 4.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 33% 3.6
Call schedule 0%
ABMS board pass rates 13% 4.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 20% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 27% 3.0
Salary 13% 3.5
Vacation/parental/sick leave 20% 3.7
Having friends at the program 13% 3.0
Community-based setting 0%
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 13% 4.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 0%
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 0%
Alternative duty hours 0%
Other Benefits 7% 5.0
Presence of a previous match violation 0%
H-1B visa sponsorship 13% 3.5
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 136

 Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Figure PS-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 93% 4.7
Interview day experience 77% 4.5
Geographic location 84% 4.3
Quality of residents in program 91% 4.7
Reputation of program 83% 4.5
Quality of faculty 87% 4.7
House staff morale 64% 4.5
Quality of program director 72% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 71% 4.5
Work/life balance 58% 4.3
Academic medical center program 70% 4.5
Preparation for fellowship training 54% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 57% 4.2
Support network in the area 35% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 59% 4.4
Size of program 64% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 43% 3.8
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 49% 4.3
Future fellowship training opportunities 46% 3.9
Cost of living 46% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 45% 3.6
Diversity of patient problems 38% 4.1
Opportunity to conduct research 65% 3.8
Size of patient caseload 46% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 17% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 19% 3.8
Call schedule 22% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 22% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 17% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 10% 4.4
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 38% 4.0
Salary 12% 3.6
Opportunity for international experience 42% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 9% 3.3
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 9% 3.3
Having friends at the program 23% 3.7
Community-based setting 12% 3.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 4% 4.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 4% 3.3
Alternative duty hours in program 4% 4.0
Other Benefits 3% 3.5
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 137

 Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Figure PS-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 67% 4.8
Interview day experience 53% 4.8
Geographic location 33% 4.2
Quality of residents in program 60% 4.1
Reputation of program 40% 4.5
Quality of faculty 80% 4.2
House staff morale 47% 4.6
Quality of program director 40% 3.8
Quality of educational curriculum and training 33% 4.6
Work/life balance 20% 4.7
Academic medical center program 33% 4.8
Preparation for fellowship training 33% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 20% 4.7
Support network in the area 7% 4.0
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 27% 4.8
Size of program 20% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 33% 5.0
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 20% 4.7
Future fellowship training opportunities 27% 4.0
Cost of living 20% 3.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 20% 4.3
Diversity of patient problems 27% 4.5
Opportunity to conduct research 47% 4.3
Size of patient caseload 27% 4.5
Availability of electronic health records 13% 5.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 7% 5.0
Call schedule 0%
Quality of ancillary support staff 20% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 20% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 7% 5.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 13% 4.0
Salary 13% 3.5
Opportunity for international experience 27% 3.8
Vacation/parental/sick leave 7% 3.0
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 0%
Having friends at the program 0%
Community-based setting 0%
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 0%
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 0%
Alternative duty hours in program 0%
Other Benefits 0%
Presence of a previous match violation 0%
H-1B visa sponsorship 7% 3.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 138

 Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Figure PS-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

99%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
67%

83%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
47%

84%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
87%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 65%

competitive programs 0%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 43%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 0%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 41%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 0%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 4%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 20%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 10%

but did not interview 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 139

 Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Figure PS-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
61 65
60

50

40

30

20 18
13 13
10
3 3 3
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

50 48 Independent Applicants
46

40

30

20

10
5 5 5
2 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 140

 Plastic Surgery (Integrated)
Figure PS-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.1
specialty 2.6
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.0
and re-enter the Match next year 3.4
3.3
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.8
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 3.0
competitive back-up specialty 3.0
2.3
Re-enter the Match next year
2.4
1.9
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
2.2
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.0
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 2.3
specialty 3.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.3
and re-enter the Match next year 2.1
4.7
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.9
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 1.0
competitive back-up specialty 3.0
1.0
Pursue a graduate degree
2.8
2.3
Pursue non-clinical training
2.4
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 2.3
the U.S. 2.6
1.0
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.3
2.0
Re-enter the Match next year
2.3
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 141

 Psychiatry

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 142

 Psychiatry
Figure PY-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 88% 4.6
Reputation of program 80% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 81% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 71% 4.5
Academic medical center program 70% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 66% 4.5
Work/life balance 73% 4.4
Quality of faculty 70% 4.4
Size of program 50% 3.7
Quality of program director 62% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 60% 4.0
House staff morale 57% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 63% 4.0
Career paths of recent program graduates 48% 4.0
Support network in the area 53% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 46% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 49% 4.0
Cost of living 58% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 55% 3.9
Diversity of patient problems 54% 4.4
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 61% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 38% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 25% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 32% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 40% 4.2
Quality of ancillary support staff 27% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 9% 3.6
Call schedule 48% 3.8
ABMS board pass rates 9% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 32% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 14% 3.6
Salary 33% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 30% 3.7
Having friends at the program 20% 3.4
Community-based setting 19% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 39% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 18% 3.5
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 14% 4.0
Alternative duty hours 11% 4.0
Other Benefits 6% 3.8
Presence of a previous match violation 3% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 143

 Psychiatry
Figure PY-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 62% 4.3
Reputation of program 58% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 58% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 55% 4.4
Academic medical center program 47% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 55% 4.5
Work/life balance 50% 4.3
Quality of faculty 56% 4.4
Size of program 41% 3.6
Quality of program director 48% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 34% 3.9
House staff morale 37% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 48% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 38% 4.0
Support network in the area 32% 4.0
Preparation for fellowship training 35% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 45% 4.3
Cost of living 39% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 45% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 46% 4.3
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 42% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 40% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 22% 3.8
Size of patient caseload 27% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 35% 4.1
Quality of ancillary support staff 21% 4.1
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 14% 4.0
Call schedule 31% 3.9
ABMS board pass rates 16% 4.4
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 41% 4.1
Opportunity for international experience 16% 3.8
Salary 24% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 21% 3.6
Having friends at the program 19% 3.8
Community-based setting 32% 3.8
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 21% 3.9
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 13% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 25% 4.1
Alternative duty hours 10% 3.7
Other Benefits 6% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 4.3
H-1B visa sponsorship 14% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 144

 Psychiatry
Figure PY-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 89% 4.8
Interview day experience 82% 4.6
Geographic location 81% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 74% 4.5
Reputation of program 67% 4.3
Quality of faculty 68% 4.5
House staff morale 62% 4.6
Quality of program director 67% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 64% 4.6
Work/life balance 73% 4.5
Academic medical center program 52% 4.5
Preparation for fellowship training 39% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 39% 4.0
Support network in the area 51% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 43% 4.2
Size of program 38% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 46% 3.9
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 48% 4.1
Future fellowship training opportunities 44% 4.1
Cost of living 45% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 55% 4.2
Diversity of patient problems 47% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 36% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 27% 3.8
Availability of electronic health records 17% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 32% 4.2
Call schedule 44% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 22% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 30% 4.2
ABMS board pass rates 8% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 7% 3.8
Salary 29% 3.6
Opportunity for international experience 10% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 23% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 14% 3.8
Having friends at the program 12% 3.6
Community-based setting 13% 3.8
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 32% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 10% 4.1
Alternative duty hours in program 6% 4.1
Other Benefits 5% 4.0
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 4.1
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 145

 Psychiatry
Figure PY-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 71% 4.7
Interview day experience 70% 4.6
Geographic location 57% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 54% 4.4
Reputation of program 52% 4.3
Quality of faculty 57% 4.4
House staff morale 36% 4.4
Quality of program director 48% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 49% 4.6
Work/life balance 49% 4.3
Academic medical center program 39% 4.3
Preparation for fellowship training 33% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 30% 4.1
Support network in the area 28% 4.1
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 37% 4.3
Size of program 28% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 44% 4.1
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 28% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 41% 4.0
Cost of living 33% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 35% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 41% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 33% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 22% 3.9
Availability of electronic health records 18% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 28% 4.1
Call schedule 27% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 18% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 30% 4.2
ABMS board pass rates 14% 4.4
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 11% 4.1
Salary 19% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 11% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 16% 3.8
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 9% 4.1
Having friends at the program 13% 3.7
Community-based setting 18% 4.1
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 17% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 17% 4.2
Alternative duty hours in program 7% 3.9
Other Benefits 4% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 4.1
H-1B visa sponsorship 12% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 146

 Psychiatry
Figure PY-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

93%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
68%

78%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
46%

66%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
67%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 63%

competitive programs 33%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 43%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 19%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 2%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 8%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 4%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 19%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 2%

but did not interview 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 147

 Psychiatry
Figure PY-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50

40

30
25
20
20
13
10 9
10 8
5 4
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

60 Independent Applicants
60
55

50

40

30

20

10 8 8 7
2 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 148

 Psychiatry
Figure PY-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.2
specialty 3.6
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 2.5
and re-enter the Match next year 2.8
2.7
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.8
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 1.8
competitive back-up specialty 2.3
2.0
Re-enter the Match next year
2.4
1.9
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.0
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
2.4
1.9
Pursue non-clinical training
2.5
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.8
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.5
specialty 4.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.0
and re-enter the Match next year 3.6
2.9
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.5
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.6
competitive back-up specialty 3.3
1.9
Pursue a graduate degree
2.4
1.8
Pursue non-clinical training
2.3
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.4
the U.S. 1.5
1.8
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1.6
Re-enter the Match next year
1.7
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 149

 Radiation Oncology

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 150

 Radiation Oncology
Figure RD-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 82% 4.2
Reputation of program 77% 4.4
Perceived goodness of fit 76% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 71% 4.4
Academic medical center program 74% 4.6
Quality of educational curriculum and training 65% 4.7
Work/life balance 64% 4.3
Quality of faculty 71% 4.5
Size of program 60% 3.6
Quality of program director 62% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 44% 3.8
House staff morale 59% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 16% 3.8
Career paths of recent program graduates 59% 4.3
Support network in the area 43% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 15% 4.1
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 53% 3.8
Cost of living 51% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 56% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 29% 4.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 44% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 74% 4.6
Availability of electronic health records 34% 3.7
Size of patient caseload 32% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 22% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 36% 3.9
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 30% 3.6
Call schedule 22% 3.4
ABMS board pass rates 14% 4.6
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 14% 3.8
Opportunity for international experience 13% 4.1
Salary 19% 3.3
Vacation/parental/sick leave 16% 3.5
Having friends at the program 19% 3.5
Community-based setting 7% 3.3
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 7% 4.0
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 8% 4.1
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 13% 4.3
Alternative duty hours 8% 3.7
Other Benefits 7% 4.2
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 3.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 151

 Radiation Oncology
Figure RD-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 60% 4.3
Reputation of program 40% 4.5
Perceived goodness of fit 40% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 60% 4.3
Academic medical center program 100% 4.8
Quality of educational curriculum and training 100% 4.6
Work/life balance 60% 4.0
Quality of faculty 60% 4.7
Size of program 40% 4.5
Quality of program director 80% 4.0
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 40% 4.5
House staff morale 60% 4.3
Future fellowship training opportunities 80% 4.8
Career paths of recent program graduates 40% 4.0
Support network in the area 40% 4.5
Preparation for fellowship training 60% 4.7
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 60% 4.3
Cost of living 40% 2.5
Quality of hospital facilities 40% 4.5
Diversity of patient problems 20% 3.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 20% 3.0
Opportunity to conduct research 40% 4.5
Availability of electronic health records 60% 3.3
Size of patient caseload 0%
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 40% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 40% 3.5
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 0%
Call schedule 40% 3.5
ABMS board pass rates 0%
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 20% 3.0
Opportunity for international experience 20% 5.0
Salary 40% 3.5
Vacation/parental/sick leave 20% 5.0
Having friends at the program 0%
Community-based setting 0%
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 20% 5.0
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 0%
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 40% 4.5
Alternative duty hours 20% 4.0
Other Benefits 0%
Presence of a previous match violation 0%
H-1B visa sponsorship 20% 5.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 152

 Radiation Oncology
Figure RD-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 86% 4.7
Interview day experience 77% 4.5
Geographic location 79% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 78% 4.5
Reputation of program 80% 4.5
Quality of faculty 79% 4.6
House staff morale 65% 4.5
Quality of program director 64% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 57% 4.5
Work/life balance 69% 4.3
Academic medical center program 60% 4.6
Preparation for fellowship training 12% 4.8
Career paths of recent program graduates 62% 4.4
Support network in the area 45% 4.2
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 45% 4.0
Size of program 55% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 55% 4.1
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 38% 4.2
Future fellowship training opportunities 12% 4.3
Cost of living 45% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 36% 4.3
Diversity of patient problems 33% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 79% 4.6
Size of patient caseload 35% 3.7
Availability of electronic health records 22% 3.8
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 20% 4.1
Call schedule 22% 3.6
Quality of ancillary support staff 31% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 17% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 21% 4.2
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 27% 3.9
Salary 17% 3.6
Opportunity for international experience 10% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 13% 3.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 13% 3.9
Having friends at the program 10% 4.3
Community-based setting 1% 3.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 6% 3.8
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 8% 3.7
Alternative duty hours in program 6% 3.6
Other Benefits 5% 3.8
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 153

 Radiation Oncology
Figure RD-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 40% 5.0
Interview day experience 60% 5.0
Geographic location 20% 5.0
Quality of residents in program 40% 4.5
Reputation of program 40% 5.0
Quality of faculty 60% 4.7
House staff morale 20% 3.0
Quality of program director 80% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 20% 5.0
Work/life balance 20% 5.0
Academic medical center program 100% 4.6
Preparation for fellowship training 20% 5.0
Career paths of recent program graduates 60% 4.7
Support network in the area 40% 4.5
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 20% 5.0
Size of program 20% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 20% 4.0
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 20% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 40% 5.0
Cost of living 40% 3.5
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 0%
Diversity of patient problems 20% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 40% 4.5
Size of patient caseload 20% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 20% 5.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 20% 4.0
Call schedule 20% 4.0
Quality of ancillary support staff 20% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 20% 3.0
ABMS board pass rates 20% 5.0
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 20% 4.0
Salary 40% 4.5
Opportunity for international experience 20% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 0%
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 0%
Having friends at the program 0%
Community-based setting 0%
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 40% 5.0
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 0%
Alternative duty hours in program 0%
Other Benefits 0%
Presence of a previous match violation 0%
H-1B visa sponsorship 0%
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 154

 Radiation Oncology
Figure RD-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

92%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
40%

73%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
60%

80%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
60%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 63%

competitive programs 40%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 45%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 40%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 21%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 20%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 5%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 20%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 6%

but did not interview 60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 155

 Radiation Oncology
Figure RD-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60 64
60

50

40

30

20
15
13 13
10 6 6
5

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

45 Independent Applicants
41
40
35 32
30
25
20
15
10
6
5 4 4 4
1 1
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 156

 Radiation Oncology
Figure RD-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 3.9
specialty 4.8
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.4
and re-enter the Match next year 4.3
3.2
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.8
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.5
competitive back-up specialty 3.8
2.2
Re-enter the Match next year
2.0
1.6
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.0
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
2.5
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
1.8
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S. 1.0
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 5.0
specialty 4.8
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 5.0
and re-enter the Match next year 5.0
1.0
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
4.3
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 1.0
competitive back-up specialty 3.5
1.0
Pursue a graduate degree
3.3
1.0
Pursue non-clinical training
1.7
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.0
the U.S. 2.7
1.0
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.0
1.0
Re-enter the Match next year
1.0
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 157

 Radiology-Diagnostic

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 158

 Radiology-Diagnostic
Figure RO-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 89% 4.5
Reputation of program 85% 4.3
Perceived goodness of fit 75% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 63% 4.5
Academic medical center program 71% 4.5
Quality of educational curriculum and training 67% 4.6
Work/life balance 70% 4.4
Quality of faculty 62% 4.5
Size of program 63% 3.7
Quality of program director 53% 4.4
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 58% 4.0
House staff morale 47% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 68% 4.2
Career paths of recent program graduates 50% 4.2
Support network in the area 53% 4.2
Preparation for fellowship training 65% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 48% 3.9
Cost of living 56% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 56% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 38% 4.0
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 43% 3.9
Opportunity to conduct research 48% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 26% 4.0
Size of patient caseload 34% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 25% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 21% 3.7
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 30% 4.0
Call schedule 41% 3.7
ABMS board pass rates 25% 4.3
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 16% 3.7
Opportunity for international experience 11% 3.1
Salary 30% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 32% 3.6
Having friends at the program 20% 3.6
Community-based setting 9% 3.2
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 31% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 6% 3.5
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 9% 3.4
Alternative duty hours 7% 3.6
Other Benefits 6% 3.4
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 159

 Radiology-Diagnostic
Figure RO-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 74% 4.3
Reputation of program 69% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 56% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 57% 4.2
Academic medical center program 58% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 56% 4.5
Work/life balance 55% 4.2
Quality of faculty 59% 4.3
Size of program 52% 3.7
Quality of program director 50% 4.3
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 34% 4.0
House staff morale 38% 4.4
Future fellowship training opportunities 57% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 41% 4.3
Support network in the area 36% 3.9
Preparation for fellowship training 51% 4.5
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 44% 4.0
Cost of living 45% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 60% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 36% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 29% 3.9
Opportunity to conduct research 39% 3.8
Availability of electronic health records 25% 3.9
Size of patient caseload 32% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 25% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 19% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 31% 4.2
Call schedule 32% 3.6
ABMS board pass rates 28% 4.5
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 25% 4.0
Opportunity for international experience 16% 3.6
Salary 24% 3.7
Vacation/parental/sick leave 24% 3.7
Having friends at the program 23% 3.5
Community-based setting 14% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 23% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 6% 4.1
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 18% 4.2
Alternative duty hours 9% 3.3
Other Benefits 6% 3.7
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 4.1
H-1B visa sponsorship 16% 4.3
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 160

 Radiology-Diagnostic
Figure RO-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 85% 4.7
Interview day experience 80% 4.5
Geographic location 83% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 71% 4.5
Reputation of program 77% 4.4
Quality of faculty 66% 4.4
House staff morale 54% 4.6
Quality of program director 59% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 59% 4.6
Work/life balance 67% 4.3
Academic medical center program 62% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 61% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 46% 4.2
Support network in the area 43% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 46% 4.3
Size of program 59% 4.0
Quality of hospital facilities 52% 3.9
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 51% 4.1
Future fellowship training opportunities 53% 4.3
Cost of living 51% 3.9
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 37% 3.9
Diversity of patient problems 36% 4.0
Opportunity to conduct research 42% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 33% 4.0
Availability of electronic health records 19% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 19% 4.1
Call schedule 35% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 22% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 17% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 25% 4.4
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 31% 4.1
Salary 24% 3.6
Opportunity for international experience 8% 3.5
Vacation/parental/sick leave 23% 3.6
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 5% 3.9
Having friends at the program 11% 3.8
Community-based setting 6% 3.3
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 29% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 7% 3.6
Alternative duty hours in program 5% 4.0
Other Benefits 5% 3.8
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 3.7
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 161

 Radiology-Diagnostic
Figure RO-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 75% 4.7
Interview day experience 73% 4.5
Geographic location 68% 4.5
Quality of residents in program 58% 4.3
Reputation of program 59% 4.3
Quality of faculty 59% 4.4
House staff morale 39% 4.5
Quality of program director 48% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 49% 4.5
Work/life balance 54% 4.4
Academic medical center program 46% 4.5
Preparation for fellowship training 50% 4.3
Career paths of recent program graduates 42% 4.3
Support network in the area 30% 4.1
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 41% 4.3
Size of program 45% 3.8
Quality of hospital facilities 50% 4.1
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 36% 4.1
Future fellowship training opportunities 45% 4.3
Cost of living 42% 4.1
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 24% 3.8
Diversity of patient problems 34% 4.2
Opportunity to conduct research 38% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 26% 4.2
Availability of electronic health records 18% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 16% 4.3
Call schedule 29% 3.8
Quality of ancillary support staff 17% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 17% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 28% 4.4
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 25% 4.2
Salary 28% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 10% 3.5
Vacation/parental/sick leave 17% 4.0
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 6% 4.0
Having friends at the program 16% 3.8
Community-based setting 10% 3.6
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 22% 3.9
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 11% 4.1
Alternative duty hours in program 5% 3.7
Other Benefits 4% 3.4
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 3.9
H-1B visa sponsorship 14% 4.6
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 162

 Radiology-Diagnostic
Figure RO-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

90%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
81%

78%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
61%

58%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
69%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 73%

competitive programs 46%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 56%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 35%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 7%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 17%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 6%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 12%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 4%

but did not interview 9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 163

 Radiology-Diagnostic
Figure RO-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60

50

40 40
40

30
25
20
15 15

10 6 5 5
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

60 Independent Applicants
56

50

40

30 27

20
12
10 10
10
2 2 2
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 164

 Radiology-Diagnostic
Figure RO-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.1
specialty 4.3
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.7
and re-enter the Match next year 3.2
2.6
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.6
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.3
competitive back-up specialty 1.8
1.8
Re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1.7
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
2.0
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
2.3
1.7
Pursue non-clinical training
2.0
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.0
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.6
specialty 4.2
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.7
and re-enter the Match next year 3.5
3.0
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.0
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.7
competitive back-up specialty 2.6
1.7
Pursue a graduate degree
1.6
1.6
Pursue non-clinical training
1.7
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.4
the U.S. 1.9
1.4
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1.5
Re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 165

 Surgery-General

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 166

 Surgery-General
Figure SG-1 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 84% 4.3
Reputation of program 83% 4.1
Perceived goodness of fit 79% 4.6
Quality of residents in program 69% 4.5
Academic medical center program 69% 4.3
Quality of educational curriculum and training 66% 4.4
Work/life balance 45% 4.0
Quality of faculty 66% 4.4
Size of program 55% 3.6
Quality of program director 59% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 52% 3.8
House staff morale 59% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 58% 4.1
Career paths of recent program graduates 67% 4.3
Support network in the area 47% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 65% 4.5
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 57% 4.2
Cost of living 46% 3.4
Quality of hospital facilities 49% 3.7
Diversity of patient problems 46% 4.1
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 41% 3.8
Opportunity to conduct research 60% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 27% 3.6
Size of patient caseload 38% 4.0
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 27% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 27% 3.6
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 34% 3.9
Call schedule 17% 3.4
ABMS board pass rates 44% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 22% 3.9
Opportunity for international experience 25% 3.6
Salary 17% 3.3
Vacation/parental/sick leave 16% 3.4
Having friends at the program 17% 3.5
Community-based setting 23% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 10% 3.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 5% 3.6
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 11% 3.9
Alternative duty hours 8% 3.4
Other Benefits 5% 3.6
Presence of a previous match violation 7% 3.9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 167

 Surgery-General
Figure SG-1 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Geographic location 64% 4.1
Reputation of program 58% 4.2
Perceived goodness of fit 55% 4.7
Quality of residents in program 58% 4.4
Academic medical center program 47% 4.1
Quality of educational curriculum and training 51% 4.6
Work/life balance 38% 3.9
Quality of faculty 56% 4.4
Size of program 49% 3.8
Quality of program director 50% 4.5
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 31% 3.7
House staff morale 40% 4.5
Future fellowship training opportunities 44% 4.4
Career paths of recent program graduates 46% 4.3
Support network in the area 28% 4.1
Preparation for fellowship training 44% 4.4
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 42% 4.2
Cost of living 34% 3.6
Quality of hospital facilities 51% 4.1
Diversity of patient problems 36% 4.2
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 34% 3.9
Opportunity to conduct research 44% 3.9
Availability of electronic health records 23% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 37% 4.2
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 20% 3.9
Quality of ancillary support staff 26% 3.8
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 28% 4.2
Call schedule 11% 3.7
ABMS board pass rates 29% 4.4
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 29% 4.0
Opportunity for international experience 19% 3.9
Salary 15% 3.4
Vacation/parental/sick leave 12% 3.5
Having friends at the program 16% 3.7
Community-based setting 34% 3.7
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 5% 3.7
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 10% 3.9
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 19% 3.8
Alternative duty hours 5% 3.5
Other Benefits 5% 4.6
Presence of a previous match violation 4% 4.0
H-1B visa sponsorship 14% 4.4
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 168

 Surgery-General
Figure SG-2 Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each
Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 88% 4.8
Interview day experience 82% 4.5
Geographic location 76% 4.4
Quality of residents in program 76% 4.6
Reputation of program 71% 4.3
Quality of faculty 67% 4.4
House staff morale 67% 4.6
Quality of program director 63% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 61% 4.4
Work/life balance 42% 4.1
Academic medical center program 61% 4.3
Preparation for fellowship training 61% 4.5
Career paths of recent program graduates 61% 4.4
Support network in the area 44% 4.3
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 52% 4.3
Size of program 44% 3.7
Quality of hospital facilities 44% 3.7
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 39% 4.0
Future fellowship training opportunities 45% 4.2
Cost of living 39% 3.6
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 36% 4.0
Diversity of patient problems 35% 4.1
Opportunity to conduct research 54% 4.2
Size of patient caseload 30% 4.1
Availability of electronic health records 19% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 20% 4.0
Call schedule 13% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 20% 3.7
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 20% 4.0
ABMS board pass rates 37% 4.1
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 22% 4.0
Salary 16% 3.3
Opportunity for international experience 19% 3.8
Vacation/parental/sick leave 10% 3.3
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 3% 3.6
Having friends at the program 11% 3.8
Community-based setting 17% 4.0
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 6% 3.3
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 4% 3.8
Alternative duty hours in program 6% 3.5
Other Benefits 4% 3.6
Presence of a previous match violation 6% 4.0
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 169

 Surgery-General
Figure SG-2 Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating*
for Each Factor in Ranking Programs
Percent Citing Factor Average Rating
Overall goodness of fit 63% 4.8
Interview day experience 59% 4.5
Geographic location 58% 4.2
Quality of residents in program 59% 4.5
Reputation of program 50% 4.4
Quality of faculty 48% 4.5
House staff morale 41% 4.5
Quality of program director 48% 4.4
Quality of educational curriculum and training 50% 4.5
Work/life balance 30% 4.1
Academic medical center program 38% 4.4
Preparation for fellowship training 44% 4.5
Career paths of recent program graduates 38% 4.3
Support network in the area 25% 4.1
Balance between supervision and responsibility** 39% 4.3
Size of program 41% 3.9
Quality of hospital facilities 45% 4.2
Social and recreational opportunities of the area 25% 3.7
Future fellowship training opportunities 34% 4.4
Cost of living 27% 3.8
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests 26% 4.2
Diversity of patient problems 30% 4.3
Opportunity to conduct research 35% 4.1
Size of patient caseload 30% 4.4
Availability of electronic health records 16% 4.1
Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location 17% 4.0
Call schedule 8% 3.7
Quality of ancillary support staff 24% 3.9
Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution 21% 4.1
ABMS board pass rates 27% 4.4
Opportunities to perform specific procedures 24% 4.2
Salary 14% 3.8
Opportunity for international experience 13% 4.0
Vacation/parental/sick leave 7% 3.5
Quality of ambulatory care facilities 8% 4.3
Having friends at the program 12% 3.7
Community-based setting 18% 3.9
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities 3% 3.7
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice 10% 4.3
Alternative duty hours in program 2% 3.4
Other Benefits 2% 4.3
Presence of a previous match violation 5% 4.2
H-1B visa sponsorship 9% 4.2
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 170

 Surgery-General
Figure SG-3 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

93%
I ranked the programs in order of my preferences
79%

77%
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
60%

66%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
71%

I ranked a mix of both competitive and less 67%

competitive programs 37%

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s) 55%

in my preferred specialty as a "safety net" 26%

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative 6%

specialty as a "fall-back" plan 17%

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood of 6%

matching (most likely first, etc.) 16%

I ranked one or more program(s) where I applied 2%

but did not interview 12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 171

 Surgery-General
Figure SG-4 Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type

U.S. Seniors
60
51
50
42
40

30

20 18
13 13
10 7 7 7

0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

100 Independent Applicants

90
80
80

60

40

20
9 8 8
3 3 4
0
Median number of Median number of Median number of Median number of
application submitted interviews offered interviews attended programs ranked

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 172

 Surgery-General
Figure SG-5 Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

U.S. Seniors
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.4
specialty 4.3
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 3.8
and re-enter the Match next year 3.8
2.9
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
2.7
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.3
competitive back-up specialty 2.5
1.9
Re-enter the Match next year
1.4
1.8
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.6
1.8
Pursue a graduate degree
1.6
1.5
Pursue non-clinical training
1.7
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.1
the U.S. 1.0
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

Independent Applicants
Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferred 4.6
specialty 4.5
Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year position 4.0
and re-enter the Match next year 4.1
3.0
Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year
3.2
Participate in SOAP for a position in a less 2.5
competitive back-up specialty 2.9
1.6
Pursue a graduate degree
1.8
1.3
Pursue non-clinical training
1.7
Pursue graduate medical education training outside 1.3
the U.S. 1.7
1.2
Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year
1.4
1.4
Re-enter the Match next year
1.5
1 2 3 4 5

Matched Not Matched

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).
Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 173