Results of the 2013 NRMP Applicant Survey€¦ · This report presents survey results by preferred specialty and applicant type. Preferred specialty is defined as the specialty listed

Results of the 2013NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type

www.nrmp.org

September 2013

mliang

Text Box

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.

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 [email protected]

Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, Executive Director, NRMP,

at [email protected].

Suggested Citation National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2013 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident

Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2013.

Copyright ©2013 National Resident Matching Program.

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Response Rates ................................................................................................................................................. 2 All Specialties ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Charts for Individual Specialties Anesthesiology .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Child Neurology ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Dermatology .............................................................................................................................................. 36 Emergency Medicine ................................................................................................................................ 46 Family Medicine ........................................................................................................................................ 56 Internal Medicine ...................................................................................................................................... 66 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics ...................................................................................................................... 76 Neurology .................................................................................................................................................. 86 Neurological Surgery................................................................................................................................. 96 Obstetrics and Gynecology ...................................................................................................................... 106 Orthopaedic Surgery ................................................................................................................................ 116 Otolaryngology ........................................................................................................................................ 126 Pathology ................................................................................................................................................. 136 Pediatrics ................................................................................................................................................. 146 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ..................................................................................................... 156 Plastic Surgery ......................................................................................................................................... 166 Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................ 176

Radiation Oncology ................................................................................................................................. 186 Radiology-Diagnostic .............................................................................................................................. 196 Surgery-General ...................................................................................................................................... 206 Transitional Year ..................................................................................................................................... 216

Introduction

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted a survey of all applicants who participated in the 2013 Main Residency Match®. Similar surveys were conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2011.

The primary purpose of the survey was to shed light on the factors that applicants weigh in selecting programs (1) to which to apply and (2) to rank for the Match. 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.

This report presents survey results by preferred specialty and applicant type. Preferred specialty is defined as the specialty listed first on an applicant's rank order list of programs. 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 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 ReportsThis year, several changes were made to the survey questionnaire. In previous surveys, applicants were asked to indicate factors used in selecting programs for interview. In the 2013 survey, the question was changed to factors in selecting programs to apply. In addition, a new question was added to this survey asking respondents to indicate factors used in ranking programs.

Structural changes also were made to the questionnaire to facilitate logic and branching. In previous surveys, for example, applicants were asked to rate the importance of each factor in ranking programs, regardless whether each factor was used. In the 2013 survey, applicants could only rank a factor if they had used it in their decision making process. Those changes might result in different overall ratings from the previous years.

ResultsOverall, geographic location, quality, and reputation of program topped the list of factors that applicants considered most when applying to programs. When ranking programs, 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, while 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 not noticeably larger compared 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

Yes No Yes NoAnesthesiology 543 629 43.2% 278 396 35.1%Child Neurology 47 38 61.8% 41 32 64.1%Dermatology 229 208 55.0% 43 93 23.1%Emergency Medicine 786 778 50.5% 291 364 40.0%Family Medicine 689 671 51.3% 1091 1645 33.2%Internal Medicine 1673 1873 44.7% 3054 2919 52.3%Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 196 146 67.1% 49 33 74.2%Neurological Surgery 126 112 56.3% 23 43 26.7%Neurology 185 180 51.4% 223 256 43.6%Obstetrics and Gynecology 583 450 64.8% 291 300 48.5%Orthopaedic Surgery 413 412 50.1% 52 129 20.2%Otolaryngology 217 160 67.8% 14 34 20.6%Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical 132 140 47.1% 260 265 49.1%Pediatrics 1057 826 64.0% 729 650 56.1%Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 108 118 45.8% 133 189 35.2%Plastic Surgery 83 88 47.2% 4 18 11.1%Psychiatry 337 362 46.5% 560 662 42.3%Radiation Oncology 84 82 51.2% 14 24 29.2%Radiology-Diagnostic 392 453 43.3% 175 234 37.4%Surgery-General 612 786 38.9% 386 678 28.5%Transitional Year 79 169 23.4% 20 55 18.2%Subtotal (21 specialties) 8571 8681 49.4% 7731 9019 42.9%Total (All specialties) 8696 8808 49.4% 7879 9335 42.2%

Response Rate

Independent ApplicantsCompleted Survey Completed Survey

U.S. Seniors

Response Rate

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 2

Response RatesThe overall response rate was 47.9 percent for the 21 largest preferred specialties detailed in this report, and 47.7 percent for all specialties. Response rates varied by specialty and applicant type (see table below). Specialties with 50 or fewer responses were excluded from this report.

All Specialties Combined


All SpecialtiesPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Geographic location

Quality of educational curriculum and training

Reputation of program

Quality of residents in program

Quality of faculty

Diversity of patient problems

Academic medical center program

Quality of program director

Work/life balance

Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident responsibility for patient care

Cost of living

Future fellowship training opportunities withinstitution

Size of program

Quality of hospital facility

Size of patient caseload

Preparation for fellowship training

Career paths of recent program graduates

Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests

Housestaff morale

Social and recreational opportunities of the area

95%

86%

90%

79%

73%

68%

74%

67%

68%

62%

60%

57%

58%

54%

55%

56%

56%

56%

60%

61%

76%

79%

73%

70%

70%

70%

56%

63%

55%

58%

54%

54%

52%

52%

51%

49%

48%

47%

42%

38%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

Figure 1

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents

All SpecialtiesPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont.)

Figure 1

5NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Opportunity to conduct research

Opportunities to perform specific procedures

Availability of electronic health records

Call schedule

Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographiclocation

Salary

Quality of ancillary support staff

Vacation/parental/sick leave

Community-based program

Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity at theinstitution

ABMS board pass rates

Opportunities for training in systems-based practice

Opportunity for international experience

Other Benefits

Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities

H-1B visa sponsorshi

Presence of a previous match violation

46%

39%

41%

38%

34%

31%

33%

33%

21%

21%

25%

19%

29%

21%

21%

1%

6%

47%

42%

36%

35%

38%

38%

30%

31%

39%

39%

29%

35%

22%

23%

21%

21%

7%


Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


86%

67%

84%

80%

76%

51%

63%

70%

67%

51%

43%

48%

55%

49%

41%

48%

46%

45%

61%

52%

61%

50%

69%

56%

58%

40%

46%

53%

45%

36%

32%

44%

44%

43%

30%

37%

30%

29%

33%

26%


Figure 2All SpecialtiesPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type


Data are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1

Figure 2All SpecialtiesPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




41%

30%

33%

33%

25%

23%

29%

21%

17%

22%

23%

12%

23%

14%

14%

1%

5%

35%

25%

25%

23%

23%

22%

21%

16%

25%

26%

24%

20%

14%

13%

10%

17%

5%




All SpecialtiesAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type

Figure 3


* On a scale of 5 where 5="extremely important" and 1="not important"

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living

Future fellowship training opportunities with institution

Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.5

3.9

4.2

3.8

4.6

3.9

4.3

4.4

4.3

4.0

3.6

4.1

3.6

3.8

3.7

4.2

4.1

3.7

4.6

4.0

4.2

4.1

4.2

4.0

4.3

3.9

4.2

4.4

4.2

4.0

3.7

4.2

3.6

4.1

3.7

4.2

4.1

3.6

4.4

3.8



All SpecialtiesAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)

Figure 3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule

Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location

Salary








Other Benefits




4.0

4.2

4.2

3.6

4.0

3.4

3.8

3.6

3.5

4.6

4.1

3.9

4.3

3.5

3.4

3.6

3.6

3.9

4.2

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.8

3.7

3.8

4.5

4.1

3.8

4.3

3.6

3.4

4.3

3.7





All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

Figure 4


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

I ranked the programs in order of my preferences

I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend

I ranked all programs at which I interviewed

I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan

I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview

98%

71%

60%

53%

34%

6%

7%

2%

87%

47%

60%

25%

12%

22%

10%

6%


All SpecialtiesMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

Figure 5

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2013 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Median number ofapplications submitted

Median number ofinterviews offered

Median number ofinterviews attended

Median number ofprograms ranked

29

1511 11

50

7 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Median number ofapplications submitted




65

9 8 7

64

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors

Independent Applicants

Figure 6All SpecialtiesLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not MatchBy Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


1 2 3 4 5

Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty

Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty

Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year

Re-enter the Match next year

Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.

4.4

2.1

2.8

3.2

1.1

4.2

2.8

3.3

3.5

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.5

2.7

3.0

3.5

1.7

4.5

3.5

3.4

3.8

1.9

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors


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

Figure 7All SpecialtiesApplications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks†


†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 below and above the whiskers are outliers. 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.

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

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

Figure 8All SpecialtiesApplicants' First Choice Specialty†By Specialty

Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants

Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants


OT: OtolaryngologyPA: PathologyPD: Pediatrics (Categorical)PM: Physical Medicine & RehabilitationPS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)RD: Radiation OncologyRO: Radiology-DiagnosticSG: Surgery (Categorical)TR: Transitional (PGY-1 Only)

AN: AnesthesiologyCN: Child Neurology DM: Dermatology MP: Medicine/Pediatrics EM: Emergency MedicineFP: Family MedicineIM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)NE: NeurologyNS: Neurological SurgeryOB: Obstetrics-Gynecology


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.

Figure 8All SpecialtiesApplicants' First Choice Specialty†By Specialty (Cont'd)


Number of Interviews Attended by Applicants

Number of Programs Ranked by Applicants


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.

OT: OtolaryngologyPA: PathologyPD: Pediatrics (Categorical)PM: Physical Medicine & RehabilitationPS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)RD: Radiation OncologyRO: Radiology-DiagnosticSG: Surgery (Categorical)TR: Transitional (PGY-1 Only)

AN: AnesthesiologyCN: Child Neurology DM: Dermatology MP: Medicine/Pediatrics EM: Emergency MedicineFP: Family MedicineIM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)NE: NeurologyNS: Neurological SurgeryOB: Obstetrics-Gynecology

Anesthesiology


Figure AN-1

* Respondents were asked to rank five to eight factors in each category where "1 " is "most important." The categories are: "Institutional Characteristics," "Educational Factors," "Clinical Duties/Patient Care Factors," "Faculty and Staff Characteristics," "Compensation and Benefits," and "Quality of Life Factors."

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balanceAppropriate balance between faculty

supervision and resident responsibility forpatient care

Cost of living


Size of program





Program's flexibility to pursue electives andinterests

Housestaff morale

Social and recreational opportunities of thearea

96%

87%

94%

78%

73%

67%

71%

70%

79%

59%

69%

67%

58%

59%

60%

65%

59%

50%

63%

63%

83%

79%

81%

71%

73%

64%

63%

69%

61%

48%

56%

59%

52%

56%

51%

56%

48%

36%

49%

42%


Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for all respondents and all specilaties

AnesthesiologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure AN-1


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




Call schedule


Salary






Opportunities for training in systems-basedpractice


Other Benefits

Supplemental income (moonlighting)opportunities



38%

47%

41%

53%

30%

37%

31%

35%

7%

17%

40%

18%

28%

26%

41%

1%

8%

36%

45%

35%

43%

28%

30%

30%

32%

15%

22%

34%

30%

20%

20%

30%

13%

7%



AnesthesiologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure AN-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance

Appropriate balance between faculty supervisionand resident responsibility for patient care

Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


85%

66%

91%

76%

75%

51%

60%

71%

79%

48%

53%

57%

62%

51%

46%

56%

51%

40%

64%

55%

67%

49%

76%

56%

54%

33%

49%

54%

54%

33%

31%

44%

42%

43%

36%

39%

30%

21%

39%

27%



AnesthesiologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure AN-2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




32%

35%

34%

47%

22%

28%

22%

24%

6%

17%

38%

13%

21%

20%

32%

2%

8%

27%

31%

22%

33%

16%

19%

19%

16%

11%

16%

26%

13%

12%

12%

18%

11%

6%

U.S. Senior Independent ApplicantData are presented in a the same order as in Figure 1

AnesthesiologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure AN-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.6

3.9

4.3

3.8

4.5

3.9

4.3

4.3

4.5

3.7

3.8

4.1

3.5

3.8

3.8

4.1

4.2

3.4

4.6

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.3

4.1

4.2

3.9

4.3

4.2

4.2

4.0

3.7

4.1

3.6

3.9

3.8

4.2

4.1

3.8

4.6

3.9




AnesthesiologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure AN-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.8

4.0

4.2

3.4

4.0

3.4

3.8

3.6

2.7

4.6

4.3

3.8

4.4

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.9

4.1

4.1

4.0

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.5

4.6

4.3

3.8

4.3

3.7

3.5

4.2

3.8




AnesthesiologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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

I ranked the programs in order of mypreferences

I ranked all programs that I was willing toattend


I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs.

I ranked one or more less competitiveprogram(s) in my first-choice specialty as a

"safety net"

I ranked the programs based on thelikelihood of matching (most likely first, etc.)

I ranked one or more program(s) in analternative specialty as a "fall-back" plan

I ranked one or more program(s) where Iapplied but did not interview

99%

71%

59%

55%

39%

6%

8%

2%

91%

50%

62%

32%

20%

14%

14%

6%



Figure AN-5AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Median number ofapplication submitted




30

1512 11

40

3 2 3

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





50

8 8 7

52

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

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

U.S. Seniors



Figure AN-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.5

2.1

3.4

3.1

1.1

4.5

2.5

4.2

3.9

1.5

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.3

2.5

3.2

3.3

1.4

4.3

3.1

3.3

3.7

1.6

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



AnesthesiologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Child Neurology


Figure CN-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


91%

94%

98%

74%

87%

83%

96%

74%

66%

57%

64%

70%

87%

68%

64%

68%

45%

66%

66%

66%

58%

74%

79%

76%

87%

61%

68%

79%

61%

63%

50%

71%

53%

53%

55%

47%

42%

63%

42%

42%



Child NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure CN-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




68%

17%

40%

40%

30%

32%

36%

23%

11%

32%

21%

17%

34%

15%

6%

0%

6%

58%

21%

45%

39%

55%

29%

39%

32%

16%

45%

21%

34%

13%

18%

11%

16%

5%



Child NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure CN-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


87%

85%

89%

72%

81%

72%

79%

77%

74%

51%

49%

57%

72%

64%

64%

51%

55%

62%

66%

62%

55%

53%

76%

58%

68%

50%

55%

63%

58%

29%

29%

55%

50%

34%

39%

42%

29%

47%

39%

32%



Child NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure CN-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




70%

13%

38%

45%

34%

23%

36%

30%

11%

34%

17%

6%

30%

9%

4%

2%

6%

61%

13%

34%

21%

34%

13%

34%

11%

18%

37%

29%

21%

24%

11%

5%

5%

0%



Child NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure CN-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.5

3.3

4.0

3.8

4.5

4.0

4.5

4.4

4.1

4.2

3.9

3.7

4.0

3.9

4.0

4.4

4.0

3.8

4.6

4.0

4.2

3.8

4.3

3.6

3.9

4.0

4.5

4.1

4.3

4.0

4.1

4.3

3.6

4.0

4.5

4.2

4.1

3.2

4.0

4.2




Child NeurologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure CN-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.7

4.0

4.1

3.7

4.2

3.1

4.0

3.4

3.0

4.5

3.8

3.6

4.0

2.8

2.0

1.0

3.0

3.8

4.5

4.2

4.2

4.0

4.3

4.3

4.3

3.4

4.7

3.7

3.8

4.1

3.7

4.0

4.0




Child NeurologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

79%

47%

60%

34%

9%

11%

0%

97%

43%

54%

27%

8%

16%

19%

0%



Figure CN-5Child NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





1815

11 10

22

16

7 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





45

10 8 8

70

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure CN-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.0

2.3

2.6

2.9

1.1

5.0

5.0

2.5

2.0

2.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.2

3.3

2.7

3.7

1.7

4.5

3.1

3.5

3.0

2.4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Child NeurologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Dermatology


Figure DM-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


92%

85%

89%

77%

80%

73%

78%

67%

67%

62%

53%

55%

63%

52%

55%

48%

54%

54%

59%

59%

87%

82%

71%

68%

76%

58%

68%

58%

45%

50%

50%

26%

45%

42%

42%

26%

32%

37%

61%

26%



DermatologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure DM-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




51%

44%

35%

34%

30%

18%

35%

21%

13%

24%

16%

17%

21%

13%

10%

1%

6%

47%

37%

24%

29%

21%

32%

26%

21%

5%

24%

5%

16%

5%

8%

16%

3%

3%



DermatologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure DM-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


81%

68%

83%

74%

84%

53%

61%

60%

65%

46%

36%

41%

56%

40%

34%

36%

38%

38%

56%

49%

77%

42%

67%

49%

60%

28%

44%

44%

42%

21%

23%

23%

42%

37%

14%

16%

16%

19%

49%

26%



DermatologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure DM-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




40%

31%

22%

24%

23%

11%

23%

12%

11%

21%

12%

10%

14%

8%

6%

1%

3%

33%

12%

21%

16%

14%

9%

14%

9%

2%

12%

5%

0%

2%

7%

5%

5%

0%



DermatologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure DM-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.5

3.9

4.0

3.7

4.5

3.7

4.3

4.5

4.2

3.9

3.4

3.8

3.5

3.7

3.4

4.2

3.9

3.4

4.5

3.7

4.6

3.4

4.1

4.3

4.6

3.5

4.4

4.3

4.7

4.0

3.1

3.8

3.3

4.4

3.1

3.8

4.3

5.0

4.7

4.5




DermatologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure DM-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.7

4.1

4.2

3.1

3.6

3.1

3.7

3.3

2.8

4.6

4.2

3.5

4.1

3.5

2.6

3.0

2.5

4.3

4.3

4.2

3.7

3.8

4.2

3.5

3.0

4.7

4.0

3.6

4.9

3.7

2.5

5.0




DermatologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




96%

61%

77%

44%

22%

8%

23%

2%

83%

38%

71%

21%

12%

19%

10%

12%



Figure DM-5DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





72

10 9 9

81

5 4 5

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





85

6 6 6

83

1 1 1

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure DM-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.1

2.0

3.4

4.0

1.1

4.2

2.3

3.3

3.6

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.4

1.5

2.2

3.7

1.0

4.2

1.9

1.9

3.6

1.2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



DermatologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Emergency Medicine


Figure EM-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


96%

85%

87%

78%

73%

74%

59%

71%

72%

63%

63%

39%

41%

56%

58%

31%

48%

59%

56%

68%

86%

82%

74%

76%

72%

75%

42%

68%

62%

56%

56%

39%

46%

55%

60%

29%

44%

43%

51%

48%



Emergency MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure EM-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




25%

47%

31%

23%

34%

28%

36%

29%

25%

19%

16%

15%

39%

20%

33%

1%

5%

19%

51%

33%

29%

29%

34%

38%

29%

29%

19%

21%

19%

29%

24%

34%

4%

3%



Emergency MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure EM-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


90%

64%

81%

81%

77%

56%

48%

75%

74%

51%

45%

26%

38%

47%

39%

26%

37%

46%

56%

59%

69%

47%

65%

63%

62%

42%

31%

57%

49%

35%

32%

23%

36%

38%

31%

17%

18%

24%

38%

30%



Emergency MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure EM-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




21%

35%

23%

17%

27%

21%

33%

16%

21%

20%

13%

7%

27%

13%

20%

1%

4%

14%

28%

17%

17%

17%

17%

27%

12%

20%

14%

14%

8%

19%

11%

16%

4%

2%



Emergency MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure EM-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.6

4.0

4.1

3.8

4.5

3.9

3.9

4.4

4.4

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.3

3.7

3.5

4.2

4.0

3.8

4.6

4.1

4.4

4.1

3.9

3.9

4.4

4.1

3.7

4.4

4.3

3.7

3.8

3.8

3.5

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.9

3.5

4.4

4.0




Emergency MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure EM-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.9

4.1

4.2

3.4

4.0

3.3

3.8

3.5

3.4

4.6

4.1

3.7

3.9

3.6

3.3

3.5

3.8

3.9

4.2

4.2

4.1

4.0

3.6

3.9

3.8

3.7

4.6

4.2

4.0

3.7

3.3

3.9

4.1

4.1




Emergency MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




99%

67%

74%

53%

32%

5%

6%

1%

93%

58%

67%

28%

17%

14%

18%

6%



Figure EM-5Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





33

1712 12

43

6 7 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50





40

8 7 7

50

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure EM-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.6

2.7

3.0

3.4

1.1

4.5

3.2

3.6

3.8

1.3

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.3

3.0

3.1

3.1

1.2

4.4

3.4

2.9

3.3

1.5

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Emergency MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Family Medicine


Figure FP-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


95%

87%

81%

84%

76%

69%

40%

67%

74%

59%

54%

28%

48%

51%

47%

19%

50%

72%

55%

61%

75%

78%

64%

71%

71%

69%

39%

65%

58%

57%

54%

28%

49%

51%

47%

26%

38%

51%

43%

39%



Family MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure FP-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




14%

59%

55%

42%

43%

36%

30%

39%

70%

28%

22%

30%

39%

31%

28%

0%

5%

25%

51%

40%

37%

40%

42%

33%

36%

64%

41%

24%

38%

33%

31%

28%

10%

6%



Family MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure FP-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


85%

72%

70%

85%

81%

51%

30%

72%

74%

49%

39%

20%

44%

46%

35%

17%

41%

59%

56%

54%

62%

49%

56%

57%

61%

37%

29%

56%

49%

35%

31%

20%

38%

41%

29%

15%

21%

31%

31%

26%



Family MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure FP-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




13%

48%

48%

36%

34%

27%

28%

27%

57%

28%

18%

21%

31%

22%

19%

1%

4%

15%

38%

28%

26%

23%

26%

23%

19%

43%

28%

17%

22%

20%

17%

15%

7%

4%



Family MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure FP-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.6

4.2

4.0

4.0

4.7

3.8

3.7

4.5

4.4

3.6

3.7

3.5

3.4

3.8

3.7

4.1

3.9

3.9

4.5

4.0

4.3

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.4

3.9

4.0

4.4

4.2

3.6

3.9

3.9

3.7

4.1

3.7

4.2

3.9

3.8

4.5

3.8




Family MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure FP-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




4.2

4.1

4.3

3.8

4.1

3.4

4.0

3.8

4.1

4.7

4.2

4.0

3.9

3.6

3.5

3.0

3.9

4.0

4.2

4.3

4.0

4.1

3.6

4.0

3.7

4.0

4.6

4.2

4.0

4.2

3.7

3.5

4.2

3.8




Family MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

79%

46%

41%

25%

4%

3%

2%

83%

51%

60%

21%

9%

31%

7%

8%



Figure FP-5Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





1714

10 9

15

7 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





50

8 7 6

57

1 1 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure FP-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.5

1.7

2.2

2.9

1.1

4.5

2.4

2.9

2.8

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.6

2.8

2.9

3.5

1.5

4.5

3.8

3.4

3.9

1.9

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Family MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Internal Medicine


Figure IM-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


93%

87%

92%

79%

68%

74%

86%

68%

66%

64%

58%

74%

48%

55%

51%

67%

61%

58%

66%

56%

74%

80%

75%

68%

68%

72%

60%

62%

53%

60%

53%

67%

51%

53%

51%

59%

51%

47%

41%

35%



Internal MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure IM-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




62%

26%

54%

33%

34%

29%

39%

30%

15%

23%

29%

25%

26%

17%

15%

1%

5%

56%

40%

40%

33%

40%

36%

32%

28%

42%

43%

33%

41%

19%

21%

19%

30%

8%



Internal MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure IM-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


84%

66%

87%

77%

67%

54%

77%

70%

61%

51%

40%

63%

44%

48%

35%

57%

49%

44%

68%

46%

58%

51%

73%

53%

55%

43%

51%

51%

42%

36%

31%

59%

43%

45%

29%

46%

35%

30%

32%

24%



Internal MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure IM-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




54%

17%

44%

28%

25%

21%

32%

17%

12%

23%

26%

16%

20%

11%

10%

2%

4%

43%

23%

29%

21%

24%

21%

23%

14%

26%

28%

29%

26%

11%

12%

8%

25%

5%



Internal MedicinePercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure IM-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.5

3.7

4.3

3.8

4.5

3.8

4.6

4.3

4.3

4.2

3.6

4.4

3.5

3.8

3.7

4.3

4.3

3.7

4.6

4.0

4.1

4.0

4.3

4.0

4.3

3.9

4.3

4.3

4.1

4.0

3.7

4.4

3.6

4.1

3.7

4.2

4.2

3.4

4.4

3.7




Internal MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure IM-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




4.0

4.2

4.1

3.8

3.9

3.4

3.8

3.5

3.0

4.6

4.0

4.0

4.5

3.5

3.1

3.9

3.7

3.9

4.2

4.2

3.9

3.8

3.6

3.8

3.7

3.7

4.5

4.1

3.8

4.4

3.6

3.3

4.3

3.7




Internal MedicineAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

70%

55%

50%

37%

5%

3%

1%

86%

40%

61%

23%

12%

21%

8%

5%



Figure IM-5Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





25

1511 10

34

6 5 5

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





94

9 8 8

85

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure IM-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.4

1.8

2.4

2.9

1.1

4.8

3.1

3.4

3.2

1.3

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.5

2.8

3.0

3.7

1.9

4.5

3.5

3.4

4.0

2.0

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Internal MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Internal Medicine/Pediatrics


Figure MP-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


97%

85%

88%

77%

65%

74%

80%

75%

64%

61%

59%

40%

59%

57%

44%

42%

57%

59%

61%

65%

70%

80%

70%

76%

72%

83%

65%

80%

65%

59%

72%

43%

54%

54%

46%

41%

50%

63%

61%

52%



Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure MP-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




37%

19%

47%

22%

44%

21%

26%

35%

16%

31%

31%

24%

55%

19%

15%

0%

6%

37%

43%

39%

22%

59%

54%

37%

46%

39%

59%

37%

50%

48%

24%

30%

26%

4%



Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure MP-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


88%

73%

81%

86%

71%

61%

76%

86%

73%

44%

47%

38%

60%

55%

30%

34%

45%

47%

66%

56%

56%

58%

58%

60%

63%

56%

54%

71%

56%

40%

54%

42%

48%

48%

31%

40%

38%

42%

42%

38%



Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure MP-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




35%

18%

38%

19%

34%

19%

22%

23%

13%

29%

32%

17%

45%

14%

10%

1%

3%

23%

31%

27%

23%

44%

42%

29%

25%

17%

48%

31%

25%

35%

17%

21%

23%

6%



Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure MP-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.5

3.3

4.0

4.1

4.7

3.8

4.4

4.4

4.3

3.9

3.6

3.7

3.5

3.9

3.5

4.3

3.9

4.1

4.7

4.1

4.0

3.8

4.4

3.8

4.5

3.8

4.1

4.2

4.6

4.0

3.9

4.1

3.5

4.0

3.8

4.3

3.9

3.8

4.7

4.0




Internal Medicine/PediatricsAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure MP-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




4.2

4.1

4.4

3.7

4.3

3.3

4.1

3.5

3.2

4.6

3.9

3.9

4.1

3.6

2.9

1.0

3.7

3.9

4.0

4.3

3.5

4.3

3.4

4.0

3.6

4.0

4.5

3.8

4.2

4.4

4.0

3.3

4.4

2.5




Internal Medicine/PediatricsAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

78%

62%

57%

33%

4%

16%

1%

93%

48%

65%

30%

11%

13%

20%

4%



Figure MP-5Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





22

1511 10

18

7 7 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





40

11 8 7

68

5 4 4

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure MP-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.7

3.1

2.5

2.7

1.1

4.3

3.5

2.7

3.2

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.7

3.7

2.7

2.9

1.9

4.8

3.2

3.1

3.5

2.0

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Internal Medicine/PediatricsLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Neurology


Figure NE-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


95%

92%

97%

84%

83%

69%

85%

70%

67%

61%

57%

74%

62%

59%

57%

65%

55%

71%

61%

57%

76%

83%

80%

73%

82%

74%

80%

68%

59%

59%

60%

68%

52%

61%

55%

56%

54%

52%

38%

44%



NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure NE-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




58%

16%

43%

50%

33%

30%

35%

27%

6%

21%

13%

14%

21%

17%

7%

1%

5%

66%

39%

38%

35%

42%

37%

30%

29%

17%

40%

23%

35%

20%

24%

19%

24%

7%



NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure NE-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


86%

68%

90%

80%

84%

45%

73%

72%

64%

51%

38%

60%

63%

55%

42%

57%

43%

55%

59%

46%

62%

53%

76%

57%

63%

41%

62%

56%

46%

38%

36%

49%

46%

47%

31%

40%

34%

31%

29%

32%



NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure NE-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




52%

9%

29%

36%

21%

17%

26%

13%

2%

22%

13%

5%

18%

12%

1%

1%

5%

49%

25%

31%

26%

28%

21%

25%

17%

12%

27%

14%

24%

13%

16%

10%

19%

5%



NeurologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure NE-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.5

3.6

4.3

3.8

4.5

3.7

4.6

4.4

4.1

4.1

3.7

3.9

3.6

3.7

3.5

4.3

4.0

3.6

4.5

4.0

4.1

3.8

4.2

3.8

4.3

3.7

4.4

4.5

4.2

4.1

3.7

4.0

3.6

4.1

3.6

4.0

4.1

3.4

4.2

3.9




NeurologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure NE-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




4.0

3.9

4.3

3.3

3.6

3.3

3.5

3.4

3.3

4.5

4.2

3.7

4.2

3.3

4.0

5.0

3.7

3.8

4.1

4.2

3.9

3.8

3.4

3.8

3.4

3.7

4.4

3.7

3.9

4.1

3.6

3.2

4.2

3.5




NeurologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

76%

62%

58%

41%

4%

6%

3%

90%

42%

62%

24%

14%

20%

13%

6%



Figure NE-5NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





2015

11 11

30

8 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





50

9 8 7

60

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure NE-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.5

2.0

3.2

2.8

1.0

2.0

1.3

1.7

3.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.5

2.9

3.5

3.6

1.7

4.5

4.0

3.9

3.8

2.1

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



NeurologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Neurological Surgery


Figure NS-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


93%

86%

98%

85%

85%

58%

84%

76%

52%

75%

60%

43%

72%

68%

80%

60%

70%

65%

67%

61%

70%

91%

78%

57%

83%

70%

74%

70%

35%

70%

61%

35%

65%

48%

83%

13%

26%

48%

35%

26%



Neurological SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure NS-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




78%

70%

34%

51%

28%

22%

46%

25%

3%

16%

11%

27%

30%

20%

11%

4%

12%

52%

57%

26%

35%

13%

22%

22%

13%

17%

26%

13%

26%

26%

4%

0%

17%

9%



Neurological SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure NS-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


79%

73%

91%

85%

90%

40%

67%

65%

53%

65%

44%

30%

69%

58%

73%

43%

53%

52%

65%

51%

36%

41%

59%

45%

64%

23%

59%

45%

27%

27%

18%

5%

41%

18%

41%

5%

5%

9%

27%

9%



Neurological SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure NS-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




70%

56%

24%

46%

18%

14%

49%

18%

5%

16%

6%

13%

23%

11%

6%

4%

6%

36%

23%

5%

14%

9%

0%

9%

0%

5%

9%

0%

5%

14%

0%

0%

18%

0%



Neurological SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure NS-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.2

4.0

4.3

3.7

4.7

4.1

4.4

4.5

4.1

4.1

3.5

3.7

3.8

3.8

3.8

4.2

4.0

3.4

4.5

3.8

3.1

4.0

3.4

4.0

4.2

4.1

4.2

4.1

3.3

4.4

3.0

2.0

3.2

3.5

3.0

4.0

5.0

2.0

4.0

4.5




Neurological SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure NS-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




4.0

4.4

4.2

3.3

3.9

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.2

4.6

4.3

3.4

4.2

3.4

3.7

4.0

3.9

4.0

4.5

3.9

4.0

3.0

4.0

3.0

4.1

4.0

2.0

5.0




Neurological SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

65%

69%

59%

36%

12%

7%

3%

86%

23%

73%

14%

0%

9%

9%

14%



Figure NS-5Neurological SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





46

22

15 15

60

1411 11

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





91

12 12 8

72

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure NS-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.2

2.5

2.9

3.9

1.2

4.5

3.5

3.4

3.4

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






3.3

1.3

2.0

2.8

2.0

4.1

2.4

3.6

4.1

1.8

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Neurological SurgeryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Obstetrics and Gynecology


Figure OB-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


95%

84%

91%

79%

71%

68%

80%

62%

63%

56%

60%

64%

70%

40%

49%

63%

58%

54%

52%

62%

80%

77%

70%

69%

63%

68%

50%

59%

52%

55%

49%

48%

58%

49%

53%

49%

48%

35%

42%

38%



Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure OB-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




47%

49%

37%

38%

39%

30%

26%

38%

27%

28%

29%

16%

41%

19%

6%

1%

7%

45%

55%

27%

33%

33%

34%

25%

30%

46%

29%

23%

25%

26%

22%

8%

15%

9%



Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure OB-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


88%

74%

79%

85%

76%

53%

67%

69%

66%

53%

43%

57%

67%

43%

36%

58%

50%

44%

61%

52%

68%

57%

63%

67%

64%

42%

41%

59%

41%

40%

30%

39%

52%

41%

37%

37%

30%

23%

38%

29%



Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure OB-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




42%

47%

27%

34%

33%

22%

24%

27%

18%

28%

25%

9%

33%

11%

4%

2%

6%

33%

37%

18%

23%

22%

24%

18%

19%

32%

26%

25%

15%

16%

11%

5%

11%

5%



Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure OB-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.5

4.0

4.2

4.0

4.7

4.0

4.3

4.4

4.3

4.1

3.7

4.1

3.8

3.7

3.6

4.2

4.1

3.8

4.7

4.0

4.4

4.3

4.2

3.9

4.5

4.1

4.1

4.4

4.0

4.1

3.6

4.2

3.6

4.1

3.9

4.3

4.1

3.8

4.5

3.6




Obstetrics and GynecologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure OB-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.8

4.2

4.2

3.5

4.0

3.4

3.8

3.6

3.5

4.7

4.2

3.7

4.3

3.5

2.8

3.1

3.6

3.9

4.2

4.2

3.9

3.8

3.5

3.9

3.8

3.5

4.6

4.3

3.7

4.3

3.7

3.1

4.2

3.5




Obstetrics and GynecologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




99%

74%

54%

59%

35%

5%

2%

0%

88%

60%

56%

32%

14%

18%

12%

5%



Figure OB-5Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





30

1612 11

33

9 9 7

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





47

129 9

51

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure OB-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.6

2.3

3.0

3.3

1.1

4.4

2.4

3.1

3.8

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.7

2.8

3.4

3.6

1.3

4.4

3.5

3.2

3.5

1.7

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Obstetrics and GynecologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Orthopaedic Surgery


Figure OS-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


93%

85%

89%

85%

81%

47%

69%

65%

61%

72%

65%

50%

62%

53%

62%

67%

57%

31%

59%

64%

88%

76%

80%

69%

84%

61%

67%

59%

49%

59%

55%

31%

59%

51%

67%

51%

37%

37%

43%

37%



Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure OS-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




53%

47%

27%

50%

21%

23%

36%

22%

30%

14%

15%

14%

15%

19%

17%

0%

4%

55%

55%

20%

45%

24%

31%

29%

20%

27%

16%

14%

24%

18%

12%

10%

6%

8%



Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure OS-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


84%

65%

83%

89%

85%

33%

57%

66%

63%

57%

41%

40%

59%

48%

51%

58%

46%

23%

59%

55%

58%

40%

77%

60%

65%

21%

42%

50%

42%

35%

38%

23%

48%

35%

29%

25%

27%

15%

35%

33%



Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure OS-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




49%

36%

18%

45%

14%

15%

31%

14%

24%

13%

13%

10%

13%

13%

9%

1%

4%

35%

27%

10%

23%

6%

15%

25%

10%

17%

8%

13%

10%

6%

8%

6%

4%

10%



Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure OS-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.4

4.2

4.2

3.7

4.6

3.8

4.0

4.4

4.1

3.7

3.5

3.9

3.4

3.7

3.6

3.9

4.0

3.3

4.5

3.8

4.1

4.0

4.0

3.5

4.5

4.0

4.1

4.4

4.0

4.1

3.5

4.1

3.3

3.9

3.6

4.2

4.2

2.7

4.6

3.7




Orthopaedic SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure OS-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.4

4.2

4.1

3.1

3.6

3.0

3.9

3.3

3.4

4.6

4.2

3.4

4.3

3.3

2.8

2.7

3.4

3.4

3.9

3.8

4.0

3.0

3.1

3.5

3.6

2.9

4.7

4.0

2.8

4.4

3.3

2.7

4.5

3.6




Orthopaedic SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




97%

57%

85%

47%

23%

9%

7%

3%

92%

47%

61%

27%

8%

24%

14%

14%



Figure OS-5Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





62

1612 12

72

7 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





60

7 6 6

70

2 2 3

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure OS-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.1

2.6

3.2

3.9

1.1

3.8

3.0

3.9

4.0

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.6

2.6

2.7

3.3

1.5

4.1

2.7

3.1

3.6

1.5

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Orthopaedic SurgeryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Otolaryngology


Figure OT-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


92%

86%

90%

79%

85%

63%

72%

62%

61%

73%

61%

54%

71%

49%

65%

67%

56%

31%

59%

59%

69%

77%

92%

69%

85%

85%

54%

77%

46%

62%

69%

46%

62%

31%

54%

23%

15%

23%

31%

23%



OtolaryngologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure OT-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




60%

59%

26%

46%

28%

20%

25%

16%

4%

14%

12%

18%

32%

12%

5%

1%

6%

54%

46%

23%

38%

31%

54%

15%

23%

23%

31%

8%

15%

15%

8%

15%

23%

8%



OtolaryngologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure OT-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


85%

72%

86%

81%

86%

45%

63%

61%

62%

59%

46%

48%

66%

54%

50%

60%

47%

23%

63%

50%

29%

29%

57%

43%

64%

0%

50%

36%

14%

14%

36%

21%

43%

29%

7%

0%

0%

0%

14%

0%



OtolaryngologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure OT-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




54%

47%

16%

43%

21%

14%

24%

12%

5%

18%

10%

7%

27%

8%

3%

1%

4%

36%

21%

7%

0%

7%

29%

7%

0%

0%

7%

0%

0%

0%

7%

7%

7%

0%



OtolaryngologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure OT-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.2

3.9

4.2

3.4

4.6

4.1

4.4

4.6

4.0

3.9

3.4

3.9

3.6

3.7

3.5

4.0

4.1

3.5

4.6

3.8

3.8

3.5

4.3

4.0

4.5

4.0

4.0

4.6

4.0

4.0

2.8

4.0

3.8

3.0

4.5




OtolaryngologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure OT-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.5

4.2

4.2

3.5

3.7

3.0

3.5

3.4

2.8

4.6

4.0

3.7

4.4

3.3

3.0

5.0

3.3

5.0

3.8

4.0

3.3

4.0

4.8

4.0

4.0

5.0

5.0




OtolaryngologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

66%

78%

53%

20%

10%

12%

2%

86%

21%

86%

14%

7%

21%

7%

14%



Figure OT-5OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





56

1512 11

62

6 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





89

4 4 4

82

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure OT-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.1

2.8

2.9

3.7

1.1

4.2

2.9

3.2

3.6

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






5.0

3.4

3.2

4.2

1.5

4.6

3.0

3.9

3.0

1.4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



OtolaryngologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Pathology


Figure PA-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


95%

89%

90%

76%

80%

53%

82%

66%

70%

50%

57%

81%

57%

61%

60%

73%

63%

61%

59%

55%

79%

79%

73%

67%

73%

60%

63%

58%

48%

49%

52%

62%

48%

50%

48%

57%

55%

48%

38%

31%



PathologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure PA-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




66%

20%

16%

36%

26%

38%

40%

34%

6%

11%

27%

10%

7%

28%

8%

0%

5%

60%

29%

17%

28%

35%

35%

24%

29%

19%

38%

27%

32%

12%

22%

12%

18%

9%



PathologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PA-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


88%

74%

89%

77%

86%

43%

66%

66%

71%

49%

53%

75%

65%

53%

54%

66%

55%

51%

62%

52%

60%

52%

73%

53%

63%

33%

56%

49%

42%

30%

31%

51%

40%

44%

31%

43%

36%

30%

33%

24%



PathologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure PA-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




62%

19%

20%

34%

19%

36%

40%

26%

5%

11%

29%

12%

8%

26%

9%

0%

5%

45%

16%

12%

16%

21%

17%

18%

14%

9%

27%

24%

15%

6%

9%

3%

14%

6%



PathologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PA-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.5

3.6

4.3

3.7

4.5

3.9

4.5

4.4

4.5

4.3

3.7

4.4

3.5

3.8

3.3

4.2

4.1

2.9

4.6

3.8

4.3

3.6

4.1

4.0

4.0

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.1

3.9

3.6

4.1

3.6

3.9

3.6

4.1

4.1

3.3

4.2

3.8




PathologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure PA-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.9

4.1

4.1

3.4

3.6

3.3

3.9

3.5

3.3

4.6

4.0

3.5

4.4

3.1

3.2

3.7

4.0

4.1

4.0

3.8

3.7

3.5

3.9

3.3

3.3

4.5

4.1

3.3

4.2

3.4

3.0

4.5

3.6




PathologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

77%

51%

50%

40%

9%

3%

0%

84%

45%

55%

25%

9%

24%

8%

8%



Figure PA-5PathologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





20

1410 9

13

4 4 4

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50





50

8 7 6

50

1 1 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure PA-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.4

1.7

1.9

3.1

1.1

4.0

3.7

4.0

3.0

1.7

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.5

2.4

2.3

3.7

1.6

4.7

3.4

3.3

4.1

2.2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



PathologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Pediatrics


Figure PD-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


96%

86%

89%

79%

66%

73%

79%

62%

69%

63%

63%

58%

80%

58%

60%

60%

54%

65%

62%

60%

77%

78%

74%

72%

66%

73%

55%

61%

58%

62%

55%

50%

63%

55%

54%

53%

50%

55%

45%

41%



PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure PD-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




39%

24%

49%

35%

35%

38%

32%

43%

12%

24%

35%

19%

38%

25%

13%

1%

5%

43%

37%

33%

32%

42%

42%

26%

36%

36%

42%

35%

35%

33%

27%

14%

21%

7%



PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PD-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


89%

71%

82%

82%

70%

58%

68%

68%

70%

53%

47%

50%

77%

56%

48%

52%

43%

55%

68%

53%

67%

54%

69%

62%

58%

46%

46%

53%

50%

40%

35%

39%

59%

47%

33%

43%

31%

36%

36%

29%



PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure PD-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




34%

16%

42%

30%

29%

29%

28%

29%

10%

27%

35%

10%

31%

16%

9%

1%

4%

33%

22%

25%

19%

24%

23%

20%

22%

23%

29%

33%

19%

23%

15%

7%

16%

4%



PediatricsPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PD-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.5

3.6

4.2

3.9

4.6

3.9

4.4

4.4

4.4

3.9

3.6

4.0

3.9

4.0

3.5

4.3

4.0

3.9

4.7

4.1

4.3

4.0

4.2

4.0

4.4

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.2

3.8

3.7

4.1

3.7

4.1

3.7

4.3

4.0

3.7

4.6

3.7




PediatricsAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure PD-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




4.1

4.2

4.2

3.7

4.1

3.3

3.9

3.6

3.4

4.6

4.1

3.9

4.3

3.4

3.3

3.7

4.0

3.9

4.2

4.2

4.0

3.9

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.7

4.6

4.0

3.9

4.3

3.7

3.6

4.3

4.2




PediatricsAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

75%

57%

56%

35%

3%

2%

1%

90%

54%

56%

29%

14%

18%

8%

6%



Figure PD-5PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





22

1511 10

20

5 4 5

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





50

10 8 7

51

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure PD-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.5

1.8

2.3

3.1

1.1

4.4

2.5

2.8

2.9

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.6

2.4

2.6

3.3

1.7

4.4

3.3

3.2

3.8

2.1

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



PediatricsLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation


Figure PM-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


91%

87%

88%

70%

69%

48%

53%

64%

73%

50%

57%

54%

49%

51%

48%

62%

42%

61%

53%

61%

85%

86%

86%

79%

79%

61%

56%

77%

77%

69%

61%

61%

55%

61%

44%

63%

54%

58%

50%

53%



Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure PM-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




47%

51%

40%

52%

36%

35%

26%

37%

12%

19%

29%

26%

13%

25%

22%

2%

9%

42%

66%

28%

58%

33%

39%

35%

38%

18%

17%

30%

20%

13%

23%

22%

2%

6%



Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PM-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


84%

66%

82%

73%

77%

36%

39%

70%

75%

39%

44%

50%

51%

50%

38%

51%

32%

55%

44%

55%

72%

56%

77%

68%

70%

26%

38%

68%

66%

42%

36%

55%

50%

48%

33%

44%

38%

43%

39%

45%



Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure PM-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




44%

44%

26%

52%

25%

26%

24%

26%

5%

20%

26%

11%

7%

13%

18%

2%

10%

34%

34%

14%

42%

15%

26%

28%

20%

10%

15%

28%

9%

6%

13%

11%

4%

4%



Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PM-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.5

4.0

4.2

3.6

4.4

3.8

4.0

4.3

4.4

3.9

3.7

4.0

3.5

3.8

3.8

4.4

4.0

3.6

4.4

4.0

4.3

4.3

4.0

3.8

4.4

3.6

4.0

4.4

4.2

3.8

3.6

4.0

3.5

3.7

3.7

4.1

4.0

3.3

4.3

3.8




Physical Medicine and RehabilitationAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure PM-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.8

4.2

4.1

3.5

3.7

3.3

4.0

3.6

3.4

4.7

4.1

4.1

4.2

3.7

3.4

4.5

3.7

3.9

4.0

4.3

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.9

3.5

3.2

4.6

4.0

3.6

4.1

3.4

3.1

3.8

3.6




Physical Medicine and RehabilitationAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




96%

72%

60%

49%

35%

5%

8%

4%

93%

60%

62%

44%

18%

17%

17%

4%



Figure PM-5Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





25

1611 10

40

7 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35





30

129 9

32

4 4 4

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure PM-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.4

2.2

3.6

3.3

1.1

4.2

2.2

3.2

3.4

1.3

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.6

2.7

3.3

3.0

1.2

4.5

3.2

3.4

3.3

1.2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Physical Medicine and RehabilitationLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Plastic Surgery


Figure PS-1


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


92%

85%

100%

84%

86%

69%

81%

69%

65%

70%

69%

65%

53%

51%

62%

69%

74%

43%

62%

61%

67%

100%

100%

67%

100%

67%

100%

100%

67%

100%

67%

67%

33%

67%

100%

33%

67%

33%

33%

67%



Plastic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure PS-1


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




68%

55%

20%

24%

31%

34%

36%

27%

14%

12%

26%

18%

51%

19%

11%

4%

7%

100%

33%

33%

0%

67%

33%

33%

0%

0%

33%

33%

0%

67%

0%

0%

0%

0%



Plastic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PS-2

0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


83%

65%

85%

88%

91%

51%

74%

71%

59%

67%

41%

49%

49%

39%

45%

65%

60%

33%

57%

48%

50%

75%

100%

75%

100%

25%

75%

100%

50%

50%

50%

25%

50%

25%

50%

25%

25%

25%

50%

50%



Plastic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure PS-2

0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




57%

41%

16%

18%

18%

17%

22%

11%

9%

16%

22%

9%

41%

11%

5%

1%

6%

100%

25%

25%

25%

50%

25%

50%

25%

0%

25%

0%

0%

50%

0%

0%

0%

0%



Plastic SurgeryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PS-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.4

4.2

4.4

3.3

4.5

4.1

4.5

4.5

4.1

4.1

3.4

4.0

3.3

3.6

3.4

4.1

4.1

3.8

4.4

3.9

3.5

3.0

4.5

4.0

5.0

4.5

5.0

5.0

4.5

3.8

4.5

4.0

3.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

3.5

5.0

4.5




Plastic SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure PS-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.5

4.3

4.3

3.2

3.6

2.5

3.4

3.0

2.7

4.7

4.1

3.3

4.4

3.3

2.5

3.0

5.0

4.5

4.8

4.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

4.7

5.0

5.0




Plastic SurgeryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PS-4Plastic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

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






"safety net"




100%

67%

56%

52%

24%

10%

35%

4%

75%

50%

100%

25%

0%

0%

0%

25%



Figure PS-5Plastic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





53

1813 12

55

4 4 4

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





55

3 36

42

1 1 1

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure PS-6

1 2 3 4 5






3.9

2.6

2.4

3.8

1.0

4.3

3.2

3.4

3.3

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






5.0

5.0

4.3

2.5

3.3

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Plastic SurgeryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Psychiatry


Figure PY-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


95%

84%

89%

74%

70%

68%

72%

68%

75%

54%

60%

62%

50%

58%

44%

48%

42%

68%

58%

63%

76%

78%

69%

69%

73%

70%

57%

63%

62%

57%

56%

48%

49%

46%

47%

39%

40%

51%

41%

38%



PsychiatryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure PY-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




40%

10%

33%

52%

43%

39%

29%

35%

12%

29%

9%

15%

9%

24%

42%

0%

4%

46%

22%

33%

45%

43%

45%

25%

34%

32%

42%

19%

29%

17%

24%

31%

16%

6%



PsychiatryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PY-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


87%

66%

80%

78%

72%

58%

59%

73%

78%

49%

45%

47%

50%

48%

35%

41%

38%

55%

61%

55%

65%

49%

65%

54%

59%

38%

46%

55%

55%

36%

35%

38%

41%

38%

28%

27%

23%

31%

35%

30%



PsychiatryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure PY-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




36%

9%

27%

49%

31%

33%

28%

28%

11%

29%

10%

11%

9%

18%

33%

0%

3%

36%

12%

22%

33%

29%

27%

18%

20%

21%

30%

12%

16%

10%

14%

18%

13%

5%



PsychiatryPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure PY-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.6

3.2

4.1

3.7

4.5

3.8

4.4

4.3

4.5

4.0

3.8

4.1

3.7

3.9

3.8

4.2

3.9

3.5

4.6

4.2

4.4

3.7

4.1

4.0

4.4

3.9

4.3

4.4

4.4

4.1

3.9

4.2

3.8

4.2

3.9

4.3

4.0

3.4

4.6

3.8




PsychiatryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure PY-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




4.2

4.1

4.2

3.4

4.2

3.6

4.0

3.8

3.2

4.7

4.3

3.6

4.1

3.4

3.5

3.0

3.1

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.0

3.7

3.9

3.7

3.8

4.5

4.2

3.7

4.3

3.7

3.5

4.5

3.9




PsychiatryAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




97%

74%

59%

50%

27%

5%

3%

1%

85%

47%

57%

22%

13%

24%

8%

6%



Figure PY-5PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





20

149 9

20

5 5 5

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50





45

8 7 6

50

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure PY-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.3

1.7

2.3

3.0

1.1

4.3

2.0

2.3

3.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.4

2.4

2.6

3.5

1.6

4.4

3.5

3.5

3.7

1.9

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



PsychiatryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Radiation Oncology


Figure RD-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


96%

95%

96%

81%

82%

55%

86%

70%

73%

54%

64%

12%

66%

69%

58%

11%

61%

47%

62%

64%

83%

75%

92%

67%

92%

50%

83%

67%

67%

67%

58%

33%

67%

67%

67%

25%

58%

58%

42%

58%



Radiation OncologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure RD-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




84%

53%

35%

34%

23%

34%

45%

31%

4%

5%

16%

12%

14%

18%

15%

3%

9%

83%

50%

33%

33%

42%

17%

33%

25%

25%

50%

17%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%



Radiation OncologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure RD-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


82%

75%

95%

80%

86%

36%

71%

73%

70%

46%

48%

14%

73%

48%

49%

12%

54%

35%

59%

57%

62%

46%

85%

62%

69%

38%

77%

46%

54%

46%

38%

31%

69%

46%

62%

31%

54%

46%

31%

38%



Radiation OncologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure RD-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




82%

39%

19%

24%

16%

20%

35%

16%

8%

10%

16%

10%

16%

12%

12%

2%

11%

69%

15%

15%

23%

31%

15%

38%

23%

0%

38%

8%

0%

15%

15%

0%

8%

0%



Radiation OncologyPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure RD-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.2

3.8

4.5

3.8

4.4

3.7

4.4

4.4

4.1

4.2

3.6

4.1

3.4

3.8

3.8

3.8

4.4

2.7

4.6

3.8

4.4

4.5

3.9

3.6

3.9

3.4

4.5

4.1

4.1

4.3

3.4

4.3

3.2

4.5

3.0

3.6

4.7

3.5

4.8

3.2




Radiation OncologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure RD-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.5

3.6

4.2

4.1

3.5

3.6

3.4

3.6

3.0

4.5

4.0

3.9

3.7

3.9

3.6

3.0

3.6

4.3

4.7

4.3

3.8

3.0

4.0

3.0

4.5

2.0

3.5

4.3

3.5

4.0




Radiation OncologyAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

69%

65%

56%

32%

6%

25%

6%

92%

77%

77%

0%

8%

31%

38%

0%



Figure RD-5Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





56

1612 12

80

4 4 4

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





63

6 6 6

41

1 1 1

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure RD-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.0

2.6

3.3

3.7

1.2

4.9

2.1

3.3

4.6

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.1

2.3

3.0

3.2

1.9

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Radiation OncologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Radiology-Diagnostic


Figure RO-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


97%

81%

93%

80%

76%

61%

80%

71%

74%

59%

64%

63%

66%

58%

63%

64%

53%

47%

58%

62%

86%

82%

74%

73%

73%

62%

66%

65%

54%

54%

54%

55%

53%

56%

55%

56%

55%

40%

46%

40%



Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure RO-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




52%

45%

35%

57%

29%

38%

29%

42%

18%

13%

20%

15%

14%

27%

51%

2%

7%

47%

41%

35%

49%

26%

37%

24%

39%

27%

28%

29%

27%

11%

29%

32%

15%

8%



Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure RO-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


87%

58%

88%

76%

74%

44%

73%

68%

68%

47%

48%

55%

65%

53%

51%

54%

43%

33%

51%

52%

71%

54%

73%

58%

62%

39%

51%

55%

52%

41%

34%

43%

52%

45%

38%

45%

32%

24%

36%

33%



Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure RO-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




45%

31%

22%

48%

20%

28%

18%

28%

15%

18%

18%

8%

10%

18%

40%

2%

6%

36%

27%

22%

44%

19%

27%

17%

22%

18%

14%

24%

14%

7%

16%

20%

12%

7%



Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure RO-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.6

3.9

4.4

3.7

4.5

4.1

4.3

4.3

4.4

4.1

3.8

4.1

3.7

3.9

3.8

4.2

4.1

3.7

4.5

4.2

4.2

3.8

4.2

3.9

4.1

3.9

4.2

4.2

4.0

3.9

3.7

4.0

3.5

4.0

3.7

4.0

4.2

3.6

4.4

3.7




Radiology-DiagnosticAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure RO-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




4.0

4.1

4.2

3.6

4.1

3.4

3.8

3.6

3.0

4.6

4.2

3.9

4.4

3.7

3.6

4.1

3.4

3.8

4.0

4.1

3.8

3.2

3.6

3.5

3.6

3.4

4.5

4.1

4.0

4.3

3.6

3.3

4.6

4.4




Radiology-DiagnosticAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




99%

66%

64%

59%

40%

6%

10%

2%

90%

52%

61%

40%

22%

17%

20%

6%



Figure RO-5Radiology-DiagnosticPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





45

20

14 14

48

2 1 1

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50





50

8 7 7

50

2 1 2

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure RO-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.5

2.2

3.2

3.1

1.1

4.4

3.6

3.8

3.8

1.8

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.5

2.4

3.1

3.3

1.5

4.7

3.1

3.2

3.5

1.6

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Radiology-DiagnosticLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Surgery-General


Figure SG-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


93%

80%

87%

78%

73%

60%

76%

64%

54%

64%

53%

61%

55%

48%

59%

67%

64%

41%

57%

59%

69%

79%

76%

68%

70%

60%

62%

60%

38%

54%

48%

49%

57%

53%

60%

53%

50%

33%

37%

33%



Surgery-GeneralPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure SG-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




59%

49%

31%

28%

30%

29%

32%

24%

31%

16%

34%

18%

25%

19%

15%

3%

10%

54%

51%

28%

22%

33%

31%

26%

20%

35%

38%

27%

33%

21%

19%

13%

22%

7%



Surgery-GeneralPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure SG-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


83%

63%

84%

80%

78%

39%

68%

69%

53%

50%

37%

52%

53%

47%

44%

59%

56%

36%

59%

46%

49%

45%

71%

52%

53%

31%

48%

46%

28%

28%

24%

40%

43%

42%

34%

40%

31%

18%

29%

21%



Surgery-GeneralPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure SG-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




54%

38%

25%

21%

21%

19%

28%

16%

24%

18%

30%

10%

21%

12%

11%

2%

9%

42%

26%

16%

12%

19%

15%

16%

9%

21%

20%

23%

18%

13%

9%

5%

18%

4%



Surgery-GeneralPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure SG-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.3

3.9

4.2

3.7

4.5

4.0

4.4

4.4

4.1

4.2

3.6

4.1

3.5

3.8

3.7

4.1

4.3

3.4

4.6

3.9

4.0

4.3

4.4

4.1

4.4

4.1

4.4

4.4

4.0

4.1

3.7

4.3

3.9

4.1

3.4

4.2

4.4

3.3

4.5

3.6




Surgery-GeneralAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure SG-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




3.9

4.3

4.2

3.8

3.9

3.4

3.8

3.5

3.6

4.5

3.9

3.7

4.4

3.6

3.3

3.2

3.5

3.7

4.3

4.4

4.1

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.6

3.9

4.6

4.1

3.7

4.2

3.8

3.5

4.2

3.5




Surgery-GeneralAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


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

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






"safety net"




98%

73%

60%

60%

42%

8%

4%

1%

86%

50%

64%

26%

13%

30%

10%

13%



Figure SG-5Surgery-GeneralPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





38

1613 12

52

10 8 9

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





77

4 4 5

60

1 1 3

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure SG-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.4

2.1

3.6

3.5

1.2

4.0

2.5

3.3

3.0

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.6

2.5

4.0

3.9

1.7

4.6

3.1

3.9

3.7

1.9

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Surgery-GeneralLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Transitional Year


Figure TR-1


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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


96%

81%

82%

78%

69%

39%

42%

69%

71%

65%

53%

21%

50%

47%

54%

29%

38%

64%

60%

61%

74%

53%

68%

42%

63%

47%

26%

53%

58%

58%

47%

21%

42%

53%

37%

37%

21%

47%

21%

16%



Transitional YearPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type


Figure TR-1


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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




33%

40%

44%

68%

19%

49%

38%

38%

29%

4%

8%

11%

31%

28%

7%

1%

11%

53%

26%

32%

37%

32%

21%

21%

26%

21%

42%

16%

42%

16%

47%

5%

11%

0%



Transitional YearPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Selecting Program to Applyby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure TR-2

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

Geographic location




Quality of faculty




Work/life balance


Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


89%

54%

79%

68%

66%

32%

34%

63%

66%

37%

39%

25%

39%

51%

46%

27%

28%

54%

58%

51%

42%

37%

63%

26%

42%

42%

21%

53%

42%

16%

26%

16%

26%

21%

11%

21%

11%

21%

21%

16%



Transitional YearPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programs


Figure TR-2

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




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




31%

27%

30%

62%

17%

42%

30%

34%

27%

13%

7%

7%

27%

20%

11%

0%

10%

42%

5%

26%

16%

16%

21%

11%

16%

16%

21%

16%

16%

16%

26%

5%

11%

0%



Transitional YearPercent of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure TR-3

1 2 3 4 5

Geographic location




Quality of faculty






Cost of living


Size of program






Housestaff morale


4.7

4.2

4.0

3.6

4.2

4.1

3.9

4.3

4.4

3.8

3.9

4.0

3.6

3.6

3.9

3.8

4.1

3.6

4.5

4.1

4.4

2.0

3.8

4.5

4.6

4.5

3.5

4.1

4.1

4.0

3.4

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.0

3.9

4.5

3.7

4.0

4.0




Transitional YearAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type


Figure TR-3

1 2 3 4 5




Call schedule


Salary








Other Benefits




4.5

4.1

4.2

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.4

3.9

3.2

4.4

4.0

4.2

4.3

3.7

3.1

3.7

4.0

5.0

4.4

4.0

3.7

3.8

3.8

3.0

3.7

4.7

4.3

3.6

3.7

3.0

2.0

5.0




Transitional YearAverage Rating of Factors Used in Ranking Programs*by Applicant Type (Cont'd)


Figure TR-4Transitional YearPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

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






"safety net"




100%

67%

67%

49%

27%

3%

7%

7%

63%

26%

47%

16%

5%

42%

5%

16%



Figure TR-5Transitional YearPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





25

1510 9

30

118 8

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





30

2 3 3

75

1 1 1

Matched Not Matched


U.S. Seniors



Figure TR-6

1 2 3 4 5






4.6

3.0

3.1

2.0

1.0

3.6

2.6

1.7

2.6

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






4.8

4.8

4.6

4.5

2.0

4.8

4.1

4.4

3.8

2.4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors



Transitional YearLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


Documents

Results of the 2013 NRMP Applicant Survey€¦ · This report presents survey results by preferred specialty and applicant type. Preferred specialty is defined as the specialty listed