results of the 2019 nrmp applicant survey...this report presents survey results by preferred...

Results of the 2019NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type

www.nrmp.org

July 2019

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, President and CEO, NRMP, at [email protected].

Suggested CitationNational Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2019 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident Matching

Program, Washington, DC. 2019.

Copyright © 2019 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 Interventional Radiology ........................................................................................................................... 70 Neurology .................................................................................................................................................. 78 Neurological Surgery................................................................................................................................. 86 Obstetrics and Gynecology ........................................................................................................................ 94 Orthopaedic Surgery ................................................................................................................................ 102 Otolaryngology ........................................................................................................................................ 110 Pathology ................................................................................................................................................. 118 Pediatrics ................................................................................................................................................. 126 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ..................................................................................................... 134 Plastic Surgery ......................................................................................................................................... 142 Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................ 150

Radiation Oncology ................................................................................................................................. 158 Radiology-Diagnostic .............................................................................................................................. 166 Surgery-General ...................................................................................................................................... 174

Introduction

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2019

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted a survey of all applicants who participated in the 2019 Main Residency Match®. The first Applicant Survey was sent in 2008; subsequent surveys have been conducted in odd years since 2009.

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 Certification 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 Certification Deadline. A very small number of applicants certified a blank ROL. Between the Rank Order List Certification 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 ROL 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. Because preliminary positions provide only one or two years of prerequisite training for entry into advanced specialty training, an applicant ranking a preliminary position first is treated as not having a preferred specialty. Two applicant types are presented in this report: senior students from MD-granting medical schools located in the United States ("U.S. seniors") and independent applicants. Independent applicants include graduates of MD-granting medical schools, U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen students and graduates of international medical schools, students and graduates of DO-granting medical schools, students and graduates of Canadian medical schools, and graduates of Fifth Pathway programs.

Changes from Previous Reports

In surveys prior to 2015, applicants were asked to indicate factors used in selecting programs for application and to rate the importance of factors used in selecting programs for ranking. Beginning with the 2015 survey, 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 2017 survey. "Future job opportunities for myself," "job opportunities formy spouse/significant other," and "schools for my children inthe area" were added to the list of factors used in selecting

programs for application and ranking. Two ranking strategies included in versions of the survey prior to 2017, "I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive programs" and "I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternative specialty as a "fallback" plan", were combined into "I ranked a mix of competitive and less competitive specialties to have a “fallback” plan. "

ResultsOverall, desired geographic location, perceived goodness of fit, and reputation of program topped the list of factors that applicants considered most frequently when applying to programs. When ranking programs, overall goodness of fit, interview day experience, desired geographic location, and quality of residnts in the program were the top four considerations. Applicants also valued such factors as career path, future fellowship training opportunities, housestaff morale, and work/life balance. Although there were commonalities among all applicants, differences were observed among specialties. For example, applicants who preferred Internal Medicine programs were more interested in future fellowship training opportunities, but the opportunity to conduct certain procedures was of greater importance to applicants who preferred 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. When compared with unmatched U.S. seniors, those who matched applied to fewer programs, were offered and attended more interviews, and ranked more programs. Among independent applicants, the number of applications was similar between those who were matched and unmatched, but the matched cohort were offered and attended more interviews and ranked more programs. The greatest number of applications was submitted to Dermatology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Plastic Surgery, Neurological Surgery, Radiation Oncology, and Otolaryngology; however, the numbers of interviews obtained and programs ranked in those specialties (with the exception of Neurological Surgery) 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/match-data/.

1

Yes No Yes No

Anesthesiology 527 693 43.2% 352 606 36.7%Child Neurology 59 49 54.6% 35 36 49.3%

Dermatology 235 236 49.9% 67 156 30.0%Emergency Medicine 796 943 45.8% 418 689 37.8%

Family Medicine 733 822 47.1% 974 1,909 33.8%Internal Medicine 1,633 2,037 44.5% 2,784 4,153 40.1%

Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 184 154 54.4% 57 46 55.3%Interventional Radiology 74 104 41.6% 28 31 47.5%

Neurological Surgery 132 130 50.4% 22 48 31.4%Neurology 210 255 45.2% 234 345 40.4%

Obstetrics and Gynecology 683 563 54.8% 256 378 40.4%Orthopaedic Surgery 402 413 49.3% 51 133 27.7%

Otolaryngology 198 195 50.4% 21 40 34.4%Pathology 94 112 45.6% 246 286 46.2%

Pediatrics 931 793 54.0% 604 737 45.0%Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 91 146 38.4% 106 203 34.3%

Plastic Surgery 82 101 44.8% 16 24 40.0%Psychiatry 522 638 45.0% 402 828 32.7%

Radiation Oncology 69 79 46.6% 8 16 33.3%Radiology-Diagnostic 299 406 42.4% 174 321 35.2%

Surgery-General 606 621 49.4% 271 693 28.1%All Others 154 213 42.0% 65 133 32.8%

No Preferred Specialty 159 350 31.1% 168 301 32.8%Total (All Specialties) 8,873 10,053 46.9% 7,359 12,112 37.7%

Response Rate

Independent ApplicantsCompleted Survey Completed Survey

U.S. Seniors

Response Rate

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2019 2

Response RatesIn the 2019 Applicant Survey, 38,446 electronic surveys were sent to applicants with a certified rank order list, and 16,281 complete or partial responses were received. After excluding respondents who were withdrawn after the Rank Order ListDeadline (49), the overall response rate was 42.6 percent for applicants ranking the 21 largest preferred specialties detailed in this report, and 42.3 percent for all respondents. 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


4

Figure 1

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2019

Data are presented in 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

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.24.44.54.54.34.43.64.14.34.13.64.14.53.94.44.23.84.04.14.14.44.14.13.74.23.93.93.83.63.43.94.23.53.63.33.73.43.73.53.83.84.1

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

88%84%83%68%67%64%64%61%58%57%57%56%56%54%53%53%52%51%46%46%41%38%36%35%35%34%33%33%30%27%27%24%23%23%21%20%16%16%15%13%8%6%5%4%

Desired geographic locationPerceived goodness of fit

Reputation of programAcademic medical center program

Quality of residents in programQuality of educational curriculum and training

Work/life balanceQuality of faculty

Cost of livingFuture fellowship training opportunities

Quality of program directorCareer paths of recent program graduates

Size of programBalance between supervision and responsibility**

House staff moraleSocial and recreational opportunities of the area

Preparation for fellowship trainingDiversity of patient problems

Quality of hospital facilitiesProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests

Opportunity to conduct researchCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location

Job opportunities for my spouse/significant otherFuture job opportunities for myself

Support network in the areaCall schedule

Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity to perform specific procedures

Size of patient caseloadQuality of ancillary support staff

Vacation/parental/sick leaveSalary

Availability of electronic health recordsABMS board pass rates

Community-based settingOpportunity for international experience

Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities

Having friends at the programOpportunity for training in systems-based practice

Alternative duty hoursSchools for my children in the area

Other benefitsPresence of a previous Match violation

Percent Citing Factor Average Rating

All SpecialtiesPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

Figure 1

5NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2019

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor


All SpecialtiesPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.74.14.24.54.64.34.53.84.34.44.13.74.24.53.84.44.24.14.14.14.14.34.24.13.84.14.14.04.13.73.64.14.33.83.73.54.03.74.03.64.24.04.14.1

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

65%64%58%46%56%50%54%53%47%48%48%44%45%51%39%30%41%42%42%35%34%29%24%29%19%28%35%32%23%23%21%23%24%27%34%16%13%14%18%20%10%8%5%3%

14%























H-1B visa sponsorship

Figure 2


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.64.64.34.44.54.34.64.64.54.24.44.23.84.23.84.34.03.84.14.13.74.54.24.24.24.23.93.94.03.43.64.13.73.93.83.53.83.73.93.74.13.94.1

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

89%82%77%75%71%65%64%62%61%61%55%50%48%47%47%45%44%44%43%42%42%38%35%33%32%32%31%30%29%25%24%23%21%18%17%17%14%13%13%11%

7%4%4%4%3%

Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience

Desired geographic locationQuality of residents in program

Reputation of programQuality of program director

Quality of facultyWork/life balance

Quality of educational curriculum and trainingHouse staff morale

Academic medical center programCareer paths of recent program graduates

Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**


Size of programDiversity of patient problems

Social and recreational opportunities of the areaQuality of hospital facilities

Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsOpportunity to conduct research

Call scheduleJob opportunities for my spouse/significant other

Support network in the areaFuture job opportunities for myself

Cultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic locationCultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution


Opportunity to perform specific proceduresSalary

Vacation/parental/sick leaveABMS board pass rates

Opportunity for international experienceAvailability of electronic health records

Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities

Community-based settingHaving friends at the program

Opportunity for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program

Schools for my children in the areaOther benefits

Presence of a previous Match violation



All SpecialtiesPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

Figure 2




All SpecialtiesPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.54.54.34.54.54.44.64.54.44.24.54.34.04.33.94.34.04.24.24.23.94.44.34.34.24.24.14.24.23.73.84.33.84.14.13.74.03.94.23.94.34.14.14.4

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

70%67%54%57%51%49%51%46%47%38%36%35%38%37%34%41%34%35%24%40%30%31%24%21%16%25%22%25%23%20%23%21%15%24%11%18%12%10%19%13%12%

5%6%3%3%

10%























Presence of a previous Match violationH-1B visa sponsorship

All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

Figure 3


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 one or more less competitive programsin my preferred specialty as a "safety net"

I ranked a mix of competitive and less competitive specialties to have a "fallback" plan

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

I ranked one or more programs where I appliedbut did not interview

88%

74%

68%

45%

22%

4%

1%

75%

52%

65%

22%

13%

10%

3%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

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

Figure 4

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


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Median number ofapplications submitted

Median number ofinterviews offered

Median number ofinterviews attended

Median number ofprograms ranked

39

1713 13

59

7 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Median number ofapplications submitted




78

11 9 9

80

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors

Independent Applicants

Figure 5All 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 preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year

Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year

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

Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year

Not participate in SOAP and re-enter the Match nextyear

Pursue non-clinical training

Pursue another graduate degree

Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.

4.5

3.4

3.1

2.6

2.3

2.0

1.8

1.7

1.1

4.4

3.8

3.0

3.1

2.0

2.0

1.7

1.5

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






Not participate in SOAP and re-enter the Match nextyear

Pursue another graduate degree



4.6

3.5

3.1

3.0

1.7

1.8

1.6

1.5

1.7

4.6

3.8

3.6

3.4

2.1

1.8

1.9

1.8

1.8

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors


*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"

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


†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 75th 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 extremevalues. 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 7All SpecialtiesApplications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks in Preferred Specialty†

By Preferred Specialty

Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants

Number of Interviews Offered to 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 75th percentile; the lower bound of thewhisker is the lower fence, which is 1.5 IQR below the 25th percentile. The circles and asterisks below and above the whiskers are outliers andextreme values. Scales in these graphs are adjusted to show a close-up of the boxplots. Some extreme values and outliers are not shown in thegraphs.

OS: Orthopedic SurgeryOT: OtolaryngologyPA: PathologyPD: Pediatrics (Categorical)PM: Physical Medicine & RehabilitationPS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)RD: Radiation OncologyRO: Radiology-DiagnosticSG: Surgery (Categorical)

AN: AnesthesiologyCN: Child NeurologyDM: Dermatology EM: Emergency MedicineFP: Family MedicineIM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)IR: Interventional RadiologyMP: Medicine/Pediatrics NE: NeurologyNS: Neurological SurgeryOB: Obstetrics-Gynecology

Figure 7All 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 thebox is the median. The upper bound of the whisker is the upper fence, which is 1.5 IQR above the 75th percentile; the lower bound of thewhisker 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.

OS: Orthopedic SurgeryOT: OtolaryngologyPA: PathologyPD: Pediatrics (Categorical)PM: Physical Medicine & RehabilitationPS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)RD: Radiation OncologyRO: Radiology-DiagnosticSG: Surgery (Categorical)

AN: AnesthesiologyCN: Child Neurology DM: Dermatology EM: Emergency MedicineFP: Family MedicineIM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)IR: Interventional RadiologyMP: Medicine/Pediatrics NE: NeurologyNS: Neurological SurgeryOB: Obstetrics-GynecologyOS: Orthopedic Surgery

Anesthesiology


Figure AN-1


Data are presented in 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

AnesthesiologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.74.24.54.44.44.44.43.94.14.44.23.64.14.54.04.34.13.93.83.74.14.44.34.13.84.14.03.93.83.63.64.04.23.33.53.53.33.73.93.64.03.74.1

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

88%81%87%67%69%63%72%60%67%64%61%51%57%54%54%54%58%42%49%38%33%33%37%50%34%40%25%37%30%23%32%33%26%32%5%

21%37%5%

16%13%15%8%5%8%
























Figure AN-1



AnesthesiologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.14.24.44.54.44.43.94.04.54.03.64.14.43.94.44.03.93.73.83.94.24.24.23.94.14.13.73.93.83.64.04.33.43.73.53.53.53.73.54.03.73.84.1

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

73%71%68%50%51%49%59%51%55%53%47%45%49%45%41%33%43%35%39%27%21%19%24%37%18%32%18%35%22%19%21%28%21%26%11%14%29%4%

15%13%13%9%4%4%7%

























Figure AN-2



AnesthesiologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.74.64.34.54.54.54.44.64.54.24.34.24.04.13.74.34.23.93.93.83.84.54.34.44.14.24.04.04.13.73.94.33.73.94.13.73.83.84.14.14.23.74.2

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

88%81%78%70%74%67%57%71%60%60%52%49%57%42%57%52%49%39%40%42%35%30%37%33%27%42%25%25%25%21%24%31%22%26%20%20%

5%32%

2%11%

7%7%7%3%7%

























Figure AN-2



AnesthesiologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.64.54.24.54.44.54.54.64.34.14.44.14.14.13.74.04.14.13.94.03.94.44.54.24.23.94.04.14.13.83.84.43.84.03.93.73.43.93.84.34.34.03.84.6

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

72%65%61%57%59%52%51%54%47%41%39%30%39%34%40%43%39%27%24%37%26%20%30%23%15%29%13%13%23%13%23%22%13%22%12%14%

5%24%

5%11%

8%6%8%3%3%6%

























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

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





I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive specialties as a "fallback" plan

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


86%

72%

65%

44%

21%

4%

2%

77%

59%

65%

29%

19%

8%

5%



Figure AN-4AnesthesiologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Median number ofapplication submitted




35

1613 13

48

4 4 5

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





58

9 9 9

41

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure AN-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5






Re-enter the Match next year


Pursue a graduate degree


4.5

4.1

2.7

2.6

2.1

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.1

4.9

4.0

2.9

3.0

2.3

1.7

1.8

1.5

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.8

2.4

3.0

1.5

1.6

1.3

1.3

1.5

4.5

4.1

2.9

3.5

2.1

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Child Neurology (Neurology)


Figure CN-1



Child Neurology (Neurology)Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.84.24.74.34.54.54.33.64.14.34.24.13.94.33.94.64.23.84.34.44.14.64.14.03.54.33.43.94.13.93.33.83.43.53.52.63.63.43.84.04.54.33.0

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

84%83%91%79%66%69%66%62%52%62%48%43%81%45%55%53%47%47%57%52%57%41%45%21%40%33%31%9%

28%26%24%17%22%16%3%

33%9%

21%17%7%2%

10%5%2%
























Figure CN-1



Child Neurology (Neurology)Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.74.14.44.34.94.54.54.03.94.64.13.74.44.64.04.14.14.04.13.94.24.64.64.33.93.93.54.54.94.34.14.14.73.03.53.53.83.74.54.54.5

4.04.4

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

72%72%72%78%63%44%63%66%63%53%66%56%66%50%56%41%41%53%63%38%59%34%38%25%19%31%47%19%25%25%25%22%25%22%9%

25%6%

16%13%25%6%6%3%3%

25%

























Figure CN-2



Child Neurology (Neurology)Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.74.54.54.14.54.54.44.64.64.63.94.54.03.74.34.24.24.04.04.54.43.64.54.44.04.43.84.04.14.03.33.24.53.93.74.32.53.03.43.53.34.5

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

91%91%79%80%71%75%70%64%63%68%59%36%48%38%43%46%68%45%48%43%54%52%48%52%25%25%30%36%38%29%

5%21%23%

4%20%11%13%

7%4%9%4%5%

11%0%0%

























Figure CN-2



Child Neurology (Neurology)Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.54.34.44.54.74.74.44.84.64.44.14.64.64.14.14.14.64.34.44.14.34.04.44.04.73.93.94.34.33.84.44.04.83.84.64.34.04.34.03.94.53.7

5.04.4

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

76%82%53%59%62%59%62%47%59%47%56%35%47%38%38%38%44%41%38%56%35%47%29%24%15%29%24%38%35%32%15%21%15%15%24%29%

9%3%

12%15%21%

6%9%0%3%

15%

























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

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








92%

76%

71%

46%

15%

0%

2%

89%

49%

66%

34%

29%

9%

0%



Figure CN-4Child Neurology (Neurology)Median Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





24

18

12 12

20

5 5 4

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





40

8 7 7

60

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure CN-5

U.S. Seniors


Child Neurology (Neurology)Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.8

3.1

3.2

2.8

2.1

1.6

1.8

1.5

1.1

3.7

3.7

1.7

3.7

1.7

1.0

1.3

1.0

2.7

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

2.9

3.4

2.8

1.9

2.1

1.9

1.6

1.6

4.7

4.2

3.7

4.1

2.4

1.6

1.9

2.2

2.3

Matched Not Matched



Dermatology


Figure DM-1



DermatologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.64.24.44.54.54.24.53.43.94.43.93.84.24.54.14.14.33.73.73.94.24.34.24.33.44.23.73.73.83.63.13.84.23.53.12.83.83.63.33.13.53.34.2

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

83%77%78%63%59%58%57%65%48%48%53%51%60%52%55%50%42%47%39%37%44%42%32%38%36%26%38%36%25%30%19%18%20%9%

14%13%7%

29%17%13%8%7%5%6%
























Figure DM-1



DermatologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.64.04.24.54.64.44.43.73.74.53.53.34.04.43.84.44.23.93.64.04.34.73.84.53.34.44.34.34.13.63.83.74.53.93.23.54.02.83.74.54.43.75.04.2

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

53%66%56%48%58%42%48%63%33%45%42%41%34%53%38%22%23%25%30%30%36%17%17%22%14%17%20%31%14%23%20%27%17%17%23%11%11%11%6%

11%3%

13%9%2%8%

























Figure DM-2



DermatologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.54.74.34.54.64.24.64.64.43.94.24.13.43.93.94.34.13.83.94.03.44.54.24.14.24.23.83.83.93.23.34.13.33.94.03.23.73.93.33.34.23.93.7

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

83%77%81%70%77%62%75%65%68%65%55%54%43%47%43%39%55%51%50%35%41%45%24%36%40%38%37%38%27%31%32%18%14%

8%13%16%25%

6%7%

17%6%3%5%3%3%

























Figure DM-2



DermatologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.74.44.64.14.74.64.44.94.74.63.94.34.13.74.53.54.34.14.24.14.13.54.54.64.74.24.64.03.84.14.04.04.23.84.44.33.34.34.34.54.04.3

3.05.0

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

60%45%40%51%45%36%53%35%40%31%29%25%29%36%27%33%24%24%16%24%20%35%11%27%15%16%13%16%

9%18%16%13%

7%20%

7%11%13%

7%7%5%7%2%

11%0%4%2%

























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

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








84%

70%

78%

32%

15%

8%

5%

67%

39%

60%

9%

12%

16%

9%



Figure DM-4DermatologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





90

10 9 9

100

5 5 5

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





52

5 5 4

73

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure DM-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.0

3.5

3.6

2.1

2.0

2.8

1.7

1.3

1.1

3.8

3.6

3.0

2.5

1.7

2.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.1

2.8

3.3

1.9

1.8

2.5

1.5

1.2

1.1

4.5

3.6

3.6

3.0

1.8

2.5

1.6

1.3

1.5

Matched Not Matched



Emergency Medicine


Figure EM-1



Emergency MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.84.03.94.54.54.44.43.63.64.43.93.44.14.44.13.94.33.84.03.74.24.44.14.03.54.24.03.93.83.73.43.74.23.43.63.53.53.33.53.44.03.64.0

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

89%86%78%51%70%65%72%65%61%43%63%48%42%55%51%60%33%55%47%49%19%37%37%42%32%11%33%45%32%34%28%28%24%11%27%24%32%5%

12%11%9%6%6%4%
























Figure EM-1



Emergency MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.83.93.84.64.64.34.53.73.64.43.73.44.24.33.93.64.33.73.83.34.14.34.13.93.34.24.34.03.83.53.43.84.23.63.63.73.73.33.63.33.93.74.54.4

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

80%79%65%37%70%59%64%66%52%28%62%36%46%61%47%45%23%48%46%35%13%30%32%33%22%11%23%50%32%31%24%24%23%13%33%19%31%5%

18%13%9%

10%6%1%2%

























Figure EM-2



Emergency MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.64.64.14.44.44.54.54.54.04.04.14.13.83.73.54.34.23.74.13.73.64.44.24.24.24.24.03.94.03.43.74.23.73.73.43.53.63.53.93.94.43.74.1

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

90%80%78%75%68%66%64%67%56%51%37%38%28%43%51%30%32%44%47%42%41%15%10%32%29%33%30%29%23%28%29%27%23%

9%20%14%

4%26%16%

9%4%4%5%4%4%

























Figure EM-2



Emergency MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.54.64.64.04.44.54.34.64.44.13.83.84.33.83.73.64.44.03.83.93.73.54.54.14.14.24.33.93.94.33.63.54.23.63.94.03.83.93.94.03.53.83.84.84.0

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

83%73%67%71%52%56%60%55%53%44%23%23%15%42%38%21%33%38%35%38%28%

9%10%26%19%25%20%18%23%27%32%25%15%14%14%14%

5%25%23%12%

6%4%7%4%1%2%

























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

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








88%

70%

77%

41%

21%

4%

1%

81%

63%

70%

33%

22%

7%

4%



Figure EM-4Emergency MedicineMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





46

19

14 14

56

6 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





62

11 10 10

77

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure EM-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.6

2.7

3.2

2.3

2.1

1.7

1.6

1.1

4.7

4.1

2.6

3.9

1.9

2.0

1.9

1.5

1.3

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.7

3.8

2.2

3.5

1.5

1.8

1.5

1.2

1.7

4.6

3.5

2.7

3.9

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Family Medicine


Figure FM-1



Family MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.84.03.54.64.64.34.43.63.64.33.83.44.04.44.04.04.23.74.13.74.34.44.04.23.74.24.23.83.93.73.33.94.24.03.73.33.93.53.63.63.83.94.2

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

91%89%72%35%72%71%71%68%58%31%62%55%46%54%54%55%23%55%46%63%12%46%41%32%35%39%43%55%25%25%33%31%33%25%67%27%21%39%15%20%9%8%7%2%
























Figure FM-1



Family MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.13.84.54.64.44.53.83.84.43.93.74.34.53.84.14.24.04.23.84.24.34.14.23.84.24.24.04.23.73.64.04.44.13.63.64.13.64.03.54.24.24.44.3

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

71%73%47%25%59%50%58%56%48%25%53%37%41%48%43%34%19%40%44%42%13%29%26%31%21%29%34%42%19%25%24%28%26%21%54%23%17%27%15%19%11%10%8%2%6%

























Figure FM-2



Family MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.64.64.14.54.54.44.74.53.94.04.34.13.83.93.64.24.13.84.23.83.84.64.34.14.34.33.94.14.33.43.74.23.83.93.93.64.13.73.94.13.93.94.4

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

91%83%77%77%55%60%66%62%61%52%22%42%19%44%42%19%32%43%41%41%54%

9%30%34%33%28%34%35%22%25%46%25%21%18%19%23%31%15%45%13%10%

3%6%5%1%

























Figure FM-2



Family MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.74.64.64.24.64.64.44.74.64.24.04.34.34.04.13.94.34.04.14.24.03.94.54.34.34.34.24.04.34.33.84.04.43.94.04.13.84.13.94.33.94.34.24.04.5

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

74%68%57%59%39%51%53%52%46%37%19%25%15%36%34%18%29%31%24%36%38%

9%23%20%17%26%21%23%19%19%29%25%17%18%14%18%21%13%35%11%11%

6%7%6%2%3%

























Figure FM-3Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

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








90%

80%

58%

33%

14%

3%

1%

77%

60%

65%

18%

8%

13%

3%



Figure FM-4Family MedicineMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





24

1612 12

62

6 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





50

11 9 9

88

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure FM-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.0

2.5

2.5

2.2

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.2

4.4

3.8

3.1

3.5

2.3

1.8

2.0

1.9

1.4

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.7

3.5

2.7

3.3

1.9

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.7

4.7

3.9

3.4

3.8

2.5

1.6

1.9

1.6

1.9

Matched Not Matched



Internal Medicine


Figure IM-1



Internal MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.64.34.64.54.64.24.43.64.54.34.33.64.14.53.94.64.23.84.04.34.14.44.24.13.64.23.73.73.83.53.34.04.23.33.73.23.73.43.83.43.83.94.2

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

87%83%86%83%67%65%61%60%56%73%58%60%45%54%58%50%67%55%48%46%57%39%33%35%33%37%33%22%28%35%26%23%29%29%12%15%12%19%16%17%9%4%4%3%
























Figure IM-1



Internal MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.64.34.34.54.64.34.53.84.44.54.23.74.24.53.84.54.34.24.14.24.14.34.34.03.94.14.14.04.13.83.64.24.43.73.63.44.03.84.13.74.24.14.14.1

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

59%57%57%51%52%47%51%49%44%59%44%47%43%52%35%25%50%44%41%32%43%30%21%29%17%28%40%29%21%24%18%21%29%35%38%13%10%14%23%24%10%7%5%3%

19%

























Figure IM-2



Internal MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.64.54.44.34.44.34.64.64.74.44.64.23.84.53.74.34.03.94.14.33.74.64.24.34.24.23.83.93.83.53.74.13.74.03.83.43.53.84.03.64.23.94.1

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

86%80%75%71%76%65%59%59%60%65%70%56%62%47%44%63%36%47%41%40%39%51%37%29%30%32%30%30%27%28%16%20%19%22%12%22%15%

8%7%

11%9%5%2%2%2%

























Figure IM-2



Internal MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.64.54.54.44.54.54.44.64.54.54.44.64.44.04.53.94.34.04.34.14.23.94.44.24.34.24.24.14.24.23.83.94.43.84.24.23.64.03.94.34.04.44.24.34.3

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

63%63%48%52%52%46%46%42%45%35%42%39%46%36%31%53%32%37%21%40%27%40%23%18%14%24%22%27%22%20%21%18%14%31%

8%23%13%

6%20%17%17%

6%7%3%3%

15%

























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

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








87%

72%

64%

49%

23%

3%

1%

73%

45%

65%

20%

11%

10%

2%



Figure IM-4Internal MedicineMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





32

1613 13

29

97 7

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100

120





116

10 9 9

95

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure IM-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.0

3.2

2.4

2.3

2.0

1.8

1.7

1.1

4.5

3.4

2.5

2.9

1.6

1.9

1.6

1.5

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.3

3.5

2.9

1.7

1.8

1.6

1.7

1.8

4.6

3.7

3.8

3.4

2.0

1.8

2.0

2.0

2.0

Matched Not Matched



Internal Medicine/Pediatrics


Figure MP-1



Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.14.64.64.64.24.43.73.94.43.93.44.14.43.84.34.44.04.14.14.24.43.94.03.64.13.63.74.04.03.34.04.03.83.92.93.83.63.93.33.13.74.0

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

93%88%86%84%66%67%63%58%63%48%60%60%57%51%58%64%43%62%54%54%32%52%37%30%40%21%45%20%26%20%27%19%21%33%13%31%12%28%19%19%6%5%4%2%
























Figure MP-1



Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.73.94.34.54.54.14.53.74.44.53.83.54.24.34.04.44.53.94.24.14.04.43.94.53.44.54.13.94.33.73.73.84.33.83.94.34.13.54.33.84.04.0

4.3100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

61%70%61%58%58%49%65%53%60%42%58%42%46%58%44%40%32%56%35%42%30%39%18%30%19%28%40%32%23%16%26%25%28%32%23%32%14%19%23%23%16%7%5%0%

16%

























Figure MP-2



Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.64.74.24.54.54.44.74.64.64.14.24.23.83.93.74.44.13.94.24.13.74.54.43.94.54.33.84.14.13.33.54.04.04.04.02.83.83.83.93.74.34.24.5

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

91%88%79%79%72%78%60%65%69%65%66%53%39%45%46%36%38%55%50%51%47%28%21%36%38%31%41%40%32%21%13%18%25%28%28%18%27%

7%9%

10%11%

6%2%6%2%

























Figure MP-2



Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.44.44.14.64.54.24.74.54.13.94.63.83.94.13.54.44.04.04.44.03.74.54.43.84.13.74.13.84.53.83.94.34.34.24.33.54.63.64.35.02.03.3

5.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

71%73%54%62%56%62%56%48%48%52%44%23%40%35%46%40%40%54%23%44%31%25%21%17%19%19%31%21%23%19%21%27%33%31%27%15%13%13%12%15%10%

4%4%8%0%4%

























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

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








87%

76%

67%

44%

30%

2%

1%

82%

58%

72%

32%

25%

4%

2%



Figure MP-4Internal Medicine/PediatricsMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





26

1713 12

25

13 1210

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





40

10 9 9

63

4 3 4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure MP-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.1

2.9

3.6

2.5

1.9

1.8

1.9

1.2

4.1

2.9

3.1

3.1

2.6

2.4

1.9

2.1

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.8

3.5

2.4

3.6

1.9

1.7

1.7

1.6

1.6

4.5

3.8

2.8

3.9

1.9

2.2

2.1

2.8

1.8

Matched Not Matched



Interventional Radiology (Integrated)


Figure IR-1



Interventional Radiology (Integrated)Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.54.34.54.34.54.24.53.64.34.44.13.54.14.54.24.34.23.93.54.34.24.54.24.23.53.34.34.03.93.33.43.84.43.32.33.23.23.13.14.03.33.54.5

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

89%88%93%80%57%64%59%67%64%57%63%50%51%55%43%47%50%46%51%32%51%26%43%46%33%32%20%67%34%21%26%21%16%21%4%5%

33%8%

13%13%3%5%3%3%
























Figure IR-1



Interventional Radiology (Integrated)Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.04.84.44.64.24.63.84.53.34.14.44.13.44.24.03.74.34.34.33.64.33.53.63.73.73.94.54.14.24.03.63.34.03.33.52.83.34.03.53.83.05.03.0

5.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

82%61%86%46%61%61%61%57%61%50%50%43%50%57%50%46%43%50%54%29%25%21%29%50%36%36%18%54%39%25%18%25%25%21%7%

18%21%7%

14%14%11%7%4%0%

11%

























Figure IR-2



Interventional Radiology (Integrated)Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.64.54.54.64.64.34.54.84.64.14.64.03.84.53.94.34.33.93.74.43.74.64.04.54.34.44.14.14.43.52.94.12.74.04.03.54.04.33.3

4.03.04.0

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

90%87%75%63%83%69%68%70%62%62%65%44%45%46%63%48%41%41%38%56%30%48%31%45%30%39%20%14%38%23%54%28%18%23%

8%7%3%

37%1%

13%4%0%4%1%3%

























Figure IR-2



Interventional Radiology (Integrated)Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.14.34.34.24.44.24.14.44.24.34.14.03.83.54.03.54.43.83.53.54.03.73.43.63.83.83.84.13.83.82.63.33.32.73.35.03.63.04.34.03.05.04.0

5.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

85%78%52%74%89%52%67%44%52%44%48%41%41%44%41%37%44%44%33%59%22%26%22%26%33%44%15%15%48%33%52%30%15%30%11%15%15%37%

4%15%

4%7%7%4%0%

11%

























Figure IR-3Interventional Radiology (Integrated)Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

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








91%

73%

51%

55%

53%

6%

8%

86%

68%

54%

50%

36%

7%

7%



Figure IR-4Interventional Radiology (Integrated)Median Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





46

1614 13

49

14 13 13

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





64

12 11 11

72

7 7 7

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure IR-5

U.S. Seniors


Interventional Radiology (Integrated)Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.6

3.4

2.9

2.2

2.2

1.5

1.4

1.1

5.0

4.2

2.4

3.4

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

4.9

2.7

2.4

1.5

2.0

1.8

1.1

1.3

4.4

3.9

2.9

2.4

1.4

1.5

1.1

1.5

1.4

Matched Not Matched



Neurology


Figure NE-1



NeurologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.34.74.54.64.24.43.64.14.54.03.74.04.53.94.34.23.84.24.14.04.24.13.93.74.03.73.83.83.63.43.94.33.73.42.63.63.23.43.54.03.74.0

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

89%85%88%80%72%69%62%66%61%71%57%57%64%53%50%52%62%52%48%56%56%38%41%36%38%40%29%15%25%25%28%25%28%14%6%

14%12%15%17%13%11%4%3%3%
























Figure NE-1



NeurologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.04.64.14.54.44.54.04.43.64.24.54.13.84.14.33.64.24.24.14.14.23.84.34.04.03.64.14.14.04.13.53.44.14.33.43.83.13.93.74.13.64.14.45.03.8

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

64%60%66%63%57%49%54%58%51%52%50%46%47%52%36%28%47%39%46%36%45%28%25%28%17%31%40%23%21%18%18%21%26%23%14%11%8%

13%19%18%7%7%2%2%

20%

























Figure NE-2



NeurologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.64.64.44.64.54.44.64.64.64.24.44.13.94.24.04.24.03.84.34.34.04.54.14.24.14.13.73.83.73.53.63.83.44.03.43.23.03.63.73.64.04.44.2

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

91%84%79%79%76%74%72%60%69%62%66%51%53%53%51%56%47%43%41%44%55%48%41%34%32%34%30%25%30%26%10%26%18%

7%11%23%17%

7%1%

13%7%4%5%5%3%

























Figure NE-2



NeurologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.64.34.54.34.64.44.14.64.44.54.14.44.33.94.33.74.23.84.14.14.24.04.54.04.34.04.14.03.94.03.84.04.33.84.23.83.53.84.34.43.33.63.74.34.1

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

72%70%51%58%64%49%58%45%51%29%56%38%45%35%38%44%39%34%25%47%32%42%25%20%11%24%19%30%27%14%17%15%10%16%

8%14%11%

5%7%

11%14%

5%5%1%2%

13%

























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

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








91%

75%

70%

52%

25%

4%

2%

72%

45%

64%

23%

15%

8%

4%



Figure NE-4NeurologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





28

1713 12

40

8 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





71

11 9 9

70

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure NE-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.3

3.7

3.1

2.5

2.3

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.1

4.0

3.3

2.3

1.5

2.5

2.3

1.3

2.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

4.0

3.4

2.9

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.9

1.5

4.5

4.3

4.2

3.0

1.9

1.5

2.1

2.1

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Neurological Surgery


Figure NS-1



Neurological SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.84.34.64.64.43.94.63.43.74.34.13.94.34.43.84.24.03.74.04.34.04.04.13.73.33.93.94.23.53.23.03.43.63.53.32.64.23.13.53.43.91.53.3

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

77%79%88%73%74%66%44%70%52%44%62%58%78%60%53%45%60%42%58%50%70%22%35%30%23%37%20%52%60%26%10%12%18%6%2%

22%6%5%

13%9%4%6%2%3%
























Figure NS-1



Neurological SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

3.84.74.04.54.64.83.54.53.34.34.44.03.84.24.63.74.34.14.14.14.44.03.84.44.03.13.84.44.34.2

3.34.04.53.03.73.04.0

4.03.04.03.5

4.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

44%67%67%61%67%50%22%67%39%44%61%50%50%56%50%17%44%39%50%39%44%22%33%28%11%39%28%50%39%28%0%

17%17%11%6%

17%6%6%0%

11%6%6%

11%0%

11%

























Figure NS-2



Neurological SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.44.64.34.44.54.24.64.64.54.24.44.53.63.84.13.93.83.94.24.43.44.63.84.24.13.94.23.54.13.43.54.53.83.43.72.02.83.34.34.04.01.04.3

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

88%76%65%80%80%64%76%45%68%65%56%54%45%53%44%31%61%31%29%42%45%65%36%26%29%24%18%21%52%26%30%10%12%

2%20%12%

8%5%3%

10%3%2%2%1%3%

























Figure NS-2



Neurological SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.74.24.84.24.84.73.54.84.74.34.04.34.83.33.94.34.43.03.94.44.33.33.5

4.24.03.74.64.74.74.0

3.04.33.0

4.04.0

3.0

5.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

82%71%29%53%65%47%59%35%53%53%47%59%35%24%35%47%24%29%18%47%29%47%18%12%

0%29%

6%18%47%18%18%

6%0%0%

12%18%

6%0%0%6%6%0%

12%0%0%6%

























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

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








81%

67%

68%

46%

23%

8%

1%

64%

55%

68%

18%

18%

5%

5%



Figure NS-4Neurological SurgeryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





66

26

18 17

71

1613 13

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100

120





101

8 711

78

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure NS-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.3

3.5

3.6

2.9

2.2

2.4

1.7

1.6

1.2

4.2

3.3

3.9

2.4

2.3

2.7

1.5

1.1

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










3.8

3.6

2.3

2.8

1.7

1.8

1.2

1.8

1.2

4.9

4.1

3.0

2.4

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.8

1.4

Matched Not Matched



Obstetrics and Gynecology


Figure OB-1



Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.04.34.64.54.24.43.64.14.34.23.74.04.53.84.34.33.83.94.14.24.34.14.23.74.33.94.03.93.63.33.94.23.43.72.83.73.53.73.43.93.84.0

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

91%84%82%72%67%63%59%57%58%67%54%62%69%52%50%53%58%59%37%44%48%48%39%28%38%37%44%43%24%21%28%18%20%21%32%27%4%

12%13%12%9%5%4%5%
























Figure OB-1



Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.74.03.84.64.64.14.43.74.14.43.93.54.24.43.94.34.23.93.94.04.14.24.23.93.84.24.34.14.03.53.53.84.53.73.83.53.83.54.13.94.33.34.23.7

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

72%76%57%41%68%58%50%59%45%39%54%41%53%52%50%34%36%49%41%33%31%33%32%22%22%40%40%46%32%23%23%21%18%19%47%23%5%

13%13%15%7%6%3%6%9%

























Figure OB-2



Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.74.54.74.24.44.44.34.64.64.44.34.44.23.74.33.94.44.03.74.04.13.74.54.24.24.24.24.03.94.23.23.64.33.83.93.62.23.64.03.83.83.93.94.0

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

92%86%79%81%66%65%64%63%63%61%57%56%56%48%42%48%50%51%44%41%43%42%42%37%38%26%40%42%26%24%33%19%25%16%23%17%11%

2%15%10%

5%4%4%3%6%

























Figure OB-2



Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.74.44.74.14.54.54.24.74.44.24.04.34.33.74.13.94.43.94.04.14.03.84.34.14.14.34.34.24.14.43.63.64.43.73.73.84.34.03.84.33.64.83.64.04.7

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

80%71%59%65%47%55%54%43%50%43%30%33%34%39%32%34%38%43%27%39%28%29%37%27%19%21%28%30%26%20%37%19%20%19%16%15%10%

3%23%11%

6%3%4%3%4%4%

























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

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








89%

74%

73%

50%

28%

3%

1%

80%

60%

67%

28%

22%

7%

2%



Figure OB-4Obstetrics and GynecologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





51

1513 13

55

8 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





79

11 9 9

77

4 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure OB-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.8

3.4

3.1

2.2

2.1

1.7

1.7

1.1

4.5

3.9

3.1

3.5

2.0

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.8

4.2

3.0

3.4

1.5

1.8

1.4

1.3

1.6

4.8

4.0

3.2

3.6

1.7

1.5

1.7

1.5

1.6

Matched Not Matched



Orthopaedic Surgery


Figure OS-1



Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.74.24.04.74.44.14.53.64.14.34.23.54.24.43.84.63.93.63.53.93.74.34.13.83.83.94.14.03.73.23.03.74.13.13.02.63.33.33.53.43.73.83.7

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

83%83%83%58%68%57%53%64%52%49%58%53%58%61%52%49%63%35%44%23%50%21%35%35%31%41%21%42%34%29%14%16%18%7%

19%17%12%16%18%9%6%8%5%3%
























Figure OS-1



Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

3.84.73.94.24.64.74.14.53.74.14.34.13.54.24.73.34.34.33.74.14.23.84.54.14.43.53.74.14.24.03.83.64.24.33.44.35.04.03.24.53.84.5

5.05.0

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

51%57%47%43%57%53%33%55%33%31%43%39%33%43%33%14%45%18%29%22%39%8%

16%22%14%22%20%35%20%16%12%16%12%14%14%16%6%2%

12%12%10%4%0%2%4%

























Figure OS-2



Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.44.44.74.24.34.54.14.44.54.14.24.54.43.64.13.73.93.93.53.53.93.74.33.94.23.94.04.03.74.12.93.03.93.13.53.62.83.43.63.63.74.14.04.1

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

88%77%77%79%75%61%73%60%64%61%43%54%60%60%48%36%45%26%43%39%23%49%45%34%30%30%14%19%35%25%26%15%10%

6%15%

9%11%

9%12%14%

7%3%5%3%3%

























Figure OS-2



Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.33.94.63.94.84.64.14.64.64.14.44.84.24.04.23.34.63.53.53.04.13.24.44.74.05.03.84.34.63.94.0

4.33.83.03.04.04.33.73.5

3.7

5.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

65%39%33%48%39%39%41%17%28%28%22%24%30%24%13%20%15%15%13%26%

2%30%11%15%13%13%

4%13%15%11%17%

7%0%9%

13%7%2%2%

15%13%

4%0%7%0%0%2%

























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

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








87%

72%

82%

31%

14%

6%

3%

65%

43%

75%

10%

14%

20%

12%



Figure OS-4Orthopaedic SurgeryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





84

1613 13

92

6 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





80

2 2 2

90

2 2 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure OS-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.0

3.2

3.6

2.6

2.4

2.5

1.6

1.5

1.1

4.2

3.6

3.3

2.8

2.5

2.3

1.7

1.3

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

2.9

3.9

2.7

1.9

2.0

1.8

1.3

2.2

4.1

3.5

3.5

3.2

2.1

2.3

1.6

1.8

1.5

Matched Not Matched



Otolaryngology


Figure OT-1



OtolaryngologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.64.14.64.54.54.14.53.64.14.14.13.84.24.33.74.33.93.63.34.13.84.14.03.93.54.03.94.03.32.83.43.74.63.23.52.83.33.44.03.43.43.83.4

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

88%85%86%69%63%58%55%67%51%54%47%55%75%59%49%47%63%41%37%21%57%30%36%27%34%42%23%46%42%21%12%13%16%7%6%

27%4%8%

19%6%6%5%3%3%
























Figure OT-1



OtolaryngologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

5.04.94.33.84.74.64.04.84.04.44.44.44.34.24.54.04.84.33.63.84.14.24.84.54.84.34.84.74.64.23.04.04.04.53.53.32.53.84.03.73.35.0

5.05.0

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

55%80%60%75%80%50%45%75%50%65%75%65%30%70%65%40%40%45%45%25%65%25%25%50%20%30%20%55%35%25%5%

15%25%20%30%20%10%20%15%30%15%5%0%5%5%

























Figure OT-2



OtolaryngologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.44.54.74.34.34.64.24.44.54.54.24.34.33.64.13.94.03.73.53.44.13.64.33.83.93.93.94.13.73.83.02.94.13.53.63.42.84.04.03.93.73.73.64.0

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

89%81%79%78%82%53%80%56%60%62%55%60%65%57%52%42%64%42%45%37%21%53%53%41%35%27%29%28%42%16%37%18%12%

4%29%12%

8%2%3%

10%5%2%3%3%2%

























Figure OT-2



OtolaryngologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.74.54.64.44.94.64.74.44.64.24.24.64.24.24.34.04.43.93.93.34.53.04.64.65.03.84.54.24.04.74.55.04.04.03.54.03.04.3

4.5

5.0

4.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

90%81%48%62%43%52%33%33%43%38%48%43%43%24%43%38%19%24%33%33%14%38%10%33%24%14%24%19%24%14%29%10%

5%10%10%10%

5%10%14%

0%10%

0%0%5%0%5%

























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

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








87%

74%

79%

39%

17%

2%

2%

86%

73%

68%

32%

36%

5%

5%



Figure OT-4OtolaryngologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





65

1613 13

69

8 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





85

6 6 5

90

4 4 4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure OT-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.2

3.6

2.8

2.5

2.5

1.5

1.4

1.0

4.5

3.6

3.2

3.8

2.2

2.2

1.6

1.5

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










5.0

3.6

3.3

3.3

1.9

2.4

1.6

1.4

2.4

4.4

4.1

3.5

3.3

2.3

1.6

1.6

1.3

2.4

Matched Not Matched



Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical


Figure PA-1



Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.64.24.64.54.74.34.63.74.54.54.33.84.04.63.84.54.14.04.34.44.14.44.03.73.63.93.44.33.93.53.63.94.53.03.53.33.33.34.43.44.34.04.4

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

81%89%87%71%69%68%74%74%60%80%51%68%64%51%56%52%64%39%50%46%59%31%48%49%34%33%21%15%24%39%35%33%11%23%5%

12%10%3%

16%9%9%9%

12%5%
























Figure PA-1



Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.64.34.44.34.64.24.53.94.44.44.23.94.24.43.84.44.24.34.04.13.94.34.33.73.84.03.94.24.13.84.03.74.43.63.53.23.63.54.13.94.23.74.04.3

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

62%54%61%60%51%54%50%59%49%62%39%50%47%46%32%27%54%31%41%36%47%29%28%34%14%19%36%19%26%17%19%21%10%23%13%10%2%3%

15%15%7%

11%4%3%

19%

























Figure PA-2



Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.64.54.34.24.54.54.74.64.74.24.74.24.04.53.74.03.83.94.34.53.64.54.24.44.13.73.94.23.53.33.54.33.83.55.03.04.33.53.33.34.73.83.0

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

87%79%69%74%68%58%68%67%58%59%56%56%56%39%47%71%48%30%37%46%40%49%30%39%26%37%24%13%30%31%10%24%21%19%10%

4%1%4%3%

12%3%3%7%9%1%

























Figure PA-2



Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.74.54.44.24.54.64.34.54.54.44.44.54.23.94.44.04.23.94.14.14.23.94.64.24.44.04.04.24.24.33.63.64.34.23.93.63.23.74.04.13.94.34.34.04.5

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

63%64%52%52%53%36%54%41%46%29%45%39%44%27%40%54%36%24%22%33%28%45%13%24%13%33%23%20%23%16%10%18%13%18%

7%6%3%3%6%8%

11%3%9%3%1%

16%

























Figure PA-3Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

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








91%

76%

57%

36%

14%

5%

0%

75%

45%

62%

15%

12%

8%

2%



Figure PA-4Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





2017

10 1012 11

8 8

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





63

11 9 8

60

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PA-5

U.S. Seniors


Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










3.8

2.2

3.3

2.0

1.7

2.2

2.1

1.7

1.1

5.0

2.0

5.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

2.9

3.5

2.5

2.2

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.6

4.5

3.5

3.9

3.2

2.6

1.8

2.3

1.5

2.1

Matched Not Matched



Pediatrics


Figure PD-1



PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.74.14.54.54.54.24.43.64.04.23.93.94.04.64.04.44.33.94.14.04.24.54.04.23.74.33.63.93.93.63.34.04.23.53.83.13.63.43.73.43.83.84.3

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

91%83%86%74%65%63%65%52%60%61%51%57%79%51%53%55%56%54%52%51%33%41%37%30%39%36%36%19%35%24%35%28%23%34%14%22%8%

21%14%11%8%4%6%1%
























Figure PD-1



PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.64.24.24.54.64.24.53.84.34.44.13.94.34.53.94.44.34.14.24.14.24.44.34.23.94.14.03.94.03.73.63.94.33.73.83.54.03.83.93.54.14.14.64.0

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

68%66%61%49%58%50%52%48%49%47%50%49%60%50%39%32%49%46%46%38%34%35%23%23%22%28%40%26%26%21%27%26%23%36%28%25%7%

17%17%20%9%5%6%2%

14%

























Figure PD-2



PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.74.64.24.34.44.34.64.74.44.14.44.13.84.24.04.34.13.84.24.03.74.64.44.24.34.33.93.83.93.43.84.13.93.73.93.23.83.73.73.63.94.04.1

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

90%85%82%76%71%65%57%63%60%66%59%45%50%46%47%47%65%51%45%51%51%30%38%35%38%26%36%34%38%22%11%27%28%28%19%19%19%

6%10%11%

8%4%3%6%1%

























Figure PD-2



PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.74.54.54.34.54.54.34.64.64.34.24.54.33.94.34.04.44.14.14.24.13.94.64.54.44.24.24.24.14.13.63.74.33.84.03.93.24.13.84.04.14.63.74.04.3

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

78%74%62%60%55%52%51%48%51%45%41%41%46%42%37%41%51%40%24%46%38%33%27%22%18%24%25%29%27%21%20%25%22%36%17%18%14%

5%14%10%11%

5%3%5%4%9%

























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

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








90%

77%

65%

53%

24%

2%

0%

77%

54%

60%

26%

11%

9%

2%



Figure PD-4PediatricsMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





27

18

13 13

53

3 2 2

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





65

13 11 10

61

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PD-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

2.9

3.1

2.3

2.3

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.1

4.7

4.2

3.7

2.7

1.6

2.1

2.5

1.8

1.3

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.7

3.5

3.2

3.0

1.7

1.8

1.5

1.4

1.7

4.5

3.6

3.5

3.7

2.1

1.7

2.1

2.2

2.0

Matched Not Matched



Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation


Figure PM-1



Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.74.24.44.64.74.34.63.64.14.54.23.84.04.74.24.54.23.64.33.74.04.34.24.23.84.64.13.74.23.63.33.84.23.43.53.43.53.23.83.22.73.04.0

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

87%88%88%52%61%54%73%61%59%62%58%58%57%58%54%58%59%34%53%49%36%30%37%44%31%48%18%44%30%29%28%28%22%18%11%14%13%19%13%14%11%3%2%2%
























Figure PM-1



Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.04.04.54.54.44.53.74.34.54.23.54.14.54.24.54.24.04.23.83.94.44.44.13.94.24.33.83.93.83.44.14.63.33.53.23.73.73.94.04.34.03.24.2

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

77%79%73%49%69%67%77%63%60%64%67%60%58%55%52%49%56%35%41%57%34%28%30%33%26%48%24%54%16%26%27%25%26%18%14%13%20%18%14%13%8%6%4%5%5%

























Figure PM-2



Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.54.54.34.54.44.34.64.74.44.24.54.23.74.23.74.24.13.84.23.93.94.34.24.14.44.13.54.34.43.53.64.43.63.83.53.43.54.03.73.22.74.04.0

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

89%81%72%78%82%72%68%73%69%64%46%45%60%47%49%55%49%35%44%46%48%36%49%34%31%42%21%22%26%26%34%22%21%11%

9%21%15%16%

5%5%

11%6%4%6%7%

























Figure PM-2



Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.74.74.64.34.64.64.54.64.64.34.34.54.33.84.23.84.14.14.14.43.93.84.54.44.44.14.33.84.34.43.33.64.33.33.64.13.43.83.44.14.05.03.04.04.0

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

91%79%67%70%57%69%62%70%63%43%28%45%62%37%46%55%31%30%48%39%49%31%36%26%27%35%26%21%12%19%39%20%19%15%10%15%15%12%

5%13%10%

5%3%2%3%3%

























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

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








90%

70%

73%

44%

26%

2%

1%

82%

63%

65%

26%

18%

7%

2%



Figure PM-4Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





40

18

13 13

55

97 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50





50

1511 11

44

4 4 4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PM-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

4.0

2.8

3.1

2.0

1.8

1.8

1.5

1.1

5.0

3.5

4.0

4.0

3.5

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

4.1

2.5

3.3

1.6

1.7

1.3

1.0

1.5

4.3

4.2

3.4

2.9

2.3

2.2

1.2

1.0

2.2

Matched Not Matched



Plastic Surgery (Integrated)


Figure PS-1



Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.84.34.64.74.74.14.73.74.14.54.23.84.54.53.94.54.13.43.64.23.84.14.14.23.33.94.24.23.83.43.63.54.23.33.52.83.53.24.03.33.54.53.7

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

78%75%79%69%69%53%55%69%42%48%58%61%62%60%57%47%53%44%47%38%58%26%32%40%29%30%26%52%47%22%10%13%8%6%4%

32%5%

13%17%10%4%3%5%4%
























Figure PS-1



Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

3.84.14.04.44.54.13.84.72.83.14.24.03.84.14.83.54.64.33.43.63.84.54.23.53.53.03.33.94.75.04.02.82.03.03.02.35.04.02.7

3.03.5

5.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

77%62%69%69%69%69%46%69%62%54%69%54%62%54%54%31%54%23%54%54%38%15%38%31%15%23%23%54%46%8%8%

38%8%8%8%

23%8%8%

23%0%8%

15%0%0%8%

























Figure PS-2



Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.44.74.44.74.74.14.74.64.54.24.64.53.63.93.94.24.03.63.74.23.54.34.34.33.84.14.34.03.93.73.84.43.34.53.45.05.03.53.8

4.55.05.0

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

91%81%69%80%75%59%73%58%52%60%57%57%54%49%37%40%53%40%47%33%31%53%25%30%27%36%20%20%43%20%44%

9%6%6%

37%7%

10%1%1%

19%5%0%2%2%2%

























Figure PS-2



Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.44.04.34.24.14.44.04.64.74.64.04.14.32.83.74.04.34.03.24.04.03.04.0

3.34.03.64.74.04.22.5

2.52.05.0

5.0

3.05.0

5.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

79%86%50%57%79%64%64%21%71%50%50%36%50%29%36%43%71%21%

7%36%

7%29%14%36%

0%21%14%36%43%14%43%14%

0%0%

14%14%

7%0%0%7%0%7%7%0%0%

14%

























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

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








94%

79%

70%

44%

33%

5%

7%

81%

50%

69%

38%

31%

13%

13%



Figure PS-4Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Median Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





76

21

15 15

74

7 7 8

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





74

12 11 11

60

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PS-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.3

3.6

3.0

2.4

2.5

1.8

1.8

1.1

4.4

3.9

3.9

3.9

2.1

2.6

1.9

1.6

1.4

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










3.1

2.4

3.1

2.3

1.6

2.1

1.2

1.0

1.2

4.5

4.0

2.6

3.2

1.6

1.3

1.6

1.9

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Psychiatry


Figure PY-1



PsychiatryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.74.14.24.44.44.44.43.93.84.33.83.54.04.54.04.14.33.94.13.94.24.44.04.24.04.23.53.83.83.73.53.84.03.53.43.63.63.43.83.64.03.74.2

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

90%83%77%64%61%62%74%59%58%54%54%43%41%44%46%54%37%54%43%50%28%49%37%36%39%46%39%5%

25%22%27%32%18%10%23%10%32%19%16%13%10%7%5%4%
























Figure PY-1



PsychiatryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.73.94.14.54.64.54.53.94.04.53.93.64.24.54.04.24.44.14.24.04.14.34.14.24.04.13.84.14.23.83.64.24.03.93.83.73.83.64.03.64.24.14.14.4

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

71%70%53%40%51%50%60%50%48%38%43%30%40%51%35%38%31%43%39%43%32%37%23%33%26%36%37%13%24%21%24%26%20%12%34%8%

20%12%18%19%10%11%6%5%

13%

























Figure PY-2



PsychiatryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.64.54.14.44.44.44.54.54.33.94.04.14.03.93.74.34.13.84.23.83.84.44.24.04.24.13.73.93.53.63.73.93.43.43.53.83.73.53.93.53.74.04.1

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

88%83%81%73%68%68%64%73%62%59%52%35%38%48%47%43%39%50%43%44%55%28%55%33%38%30%42%37%30%26%

9%35%27%

7%10%14%18%31%16%13%

9%6%6%5%3%

























Figure PY-2



PsychiatryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.74.74.54.14.54.44.64.64.54.43.84.24.34.24.03.84.34.24.14.34.14.04.54.44.34.44.24.24.24.23.83.94.33.94.14.13.84.13.84.43.94.54.73.84.4

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

74%71%57%58%46%53%53%55%48%40%32%23%26%40%38%31%32%39%29%39%35%27%35%21%21%25%27%31%23%21%13%24%19%11%

7%18%11%18%20%14%10%

6%7%3%3%8%

























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

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








85%

73%

72%

44%

24%

4%

1%

72%

49%

67%

20%

13%

12%

4%



Figure PY-4PsychiatryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





37

1311 11

45

7 7 8

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





79

9 8 8

80

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PY-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.4

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.2

4.4

3.3

3.1

3.2

2.3

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.3

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.6

3.0

3.2

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.4

1.8

4.6

3.8

3.7

3.4

2.4

1.8

2.0

1.9

1.8

Matched Not Matched



Radiation Oncology


Figure RD-1



Radiation OncologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.54.64.24.44.24.33.53.74.24.33.73.74.33.93.64.03.74.14.23.94.34.63.83.04.23.73.63.53.32.63.93.72.83.72.03.82.93.33.23.54.04.0

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

85%85%90%63%70%62%79%75%66%15%65%69%59%54%59%55%7%

34%55%48%70%45%45%59%34%32%31%32%38%34%24%17%21%17%7%

14%3%

15%24%11%8%8%4%7%
























Figure RD-1



Radiation OncologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.74.34.54.74.35.04.83.75.04.74.33.54.55.02.5

4.03.84.04.7

5.05.03.54.03.53.54.05.05.05.05.04.03.0

4.04.04.0

4.04.5

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

50%100%67%67%

100%67%67%83%50%17%50%50%67%67%50%33%0%

33%67%33%50%0%

17%50%33%33%33%33%83%17%17%17%17%33%50%0%0%0%

17%33%33%0%0%

17%33%

























Figure RD-2



Radiation OncologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.34.54.44.64.54.64.34.44.54.54.5

3.93.72.03.74.14.14.04.24.32.84.64.44.63.84.03.73.93.22.83.33.63.63.33.71.51.53.03.52.54.03.04.0

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

94%84%82%75%76%75%76%68%59%57%47%65%

0%41%46%

1%50%25%47%47%38%63%15%40%31%56%31%29%35%34%29%15%21%24%12%10%10%

3%3%

22%7%4%6%1%7%

























Figure RD-2



Radiation OncologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

5.04.63.84.23.84.74.54.04.84.35.04.5

3.83.5

3.85.02.53.74.74.34.03.74.04.72.54.03.84.03.74.5

4.05.03.5

2.0

4.0

5.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

57%71%71%71%57%43%71%43%71%57%43%57%

0%57%29%

0%57%14%29%43%43%57%29%43%14%43%29%43%57%14%43%29%

0%14%14%29%

0%0%

14%0%0%

14%0%0%0%

29%

























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

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








88%

67%

62%

43%

16%

1%

5%

75%

75%

75%

50%

25%

0%

0%



Figure RD-4Radiation OncologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





65

25

15 14

86

2 2 3

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





65

12 12 1210

06

8

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure RD-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.4

2.9

2.6

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

1.0

1.0

4.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.2

3.4

2.2

1.6

2.2

1.4

1.4

2.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

3.0

1.0

3.0

5.0

5.0

Matched Not Matched



Radiology-Diagnostic


Figure RO-1



Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.74.24.34.54.64.54.43.84.04.44.13.74.04.54.14.54.23.84.04.04.04.44.34.23.94.03.94.03.73.73.63.94.32.83.73.63.63.43.93.84.13.84.2

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

91%81%82%70%63%63%70%58%68%52%55%55%62%57%42%54%56%36%50%40%41%28%40%49%34%45%21%28%31%23%30%28%16%24%16%12%36%3%

13%9%8%

13%6%2%
























Figure RO-1



Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.64.14.14.44.64.34.53.94.14.34.33.74.14.53.84.34.24.04.04.03.94.04.14.14.04.04.24.04.23.93.64.04.23.24.23.84.43.84.03.84.24.54.54.1

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

81%65%60%44%50%47%61%53%57%42%44%46%44%46%40%36%41%33%43%27%29%23%32%35%22%30%21%26%30%15%22%28%15%25%19%11%26%8%

20%11%12%12%6%2%9%

























Figure RO-2



Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.74.74.64.44.44.54.44.74.64.44.24.54.23.94.13.84.24.24.04.24.13.84.64.34.44.23.94.23.84.13.63.84.33.44.13.63.93.53.74.03.74.24.34.5

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

86%81%77%73%73%66%62%67%59%53%59%50%47%44%56%42%57%34%43%45%34%35%48%35%31%43%20%19%29%21%20%29%27%25%11%12%

2%35%

6%10%

6%6%

10%4%4%

























Figure RO-2



Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.64.54.34.44.64.44.74.64.24.44.54.24.04.23.94.43.94.24.14.04.04.24.34.44.03.94.14.64.23.84.04.43.94.54.54.03.74.14.24.64.44.24.04.3

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

73%71%68%63%59%51%53%52%50%45%39%40%45%36%48%38%38%30%31%47%30%26%34%31%15%28%19%14%27%14%23%29%19%23%11%16%

7%27%11%13%

7%5%

10%3%4%9%

























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

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








89%

72%

68%

51%

25%

6%

5%

77%

63%

72%

26%

17%

7%

6%



Figure RO-4Radiology-DiagnosticMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





46

1914 14

63

9 9 9

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





80

11 10 10

83

4 4 4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure RO-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.3

3.9

2.8

2.7

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.5

1.1

4.0

4.6

2.9

2.6

2.3

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.9

3.0

3.0

1.7

1.8

1.5

1.3

1.5

4.3

3.9

3.4

3.2

2.1

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.6

Matched Not Matched



Surgery-General


Figure SG-1



Surgery-GeneralPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.74.24.34.54.43.94.53.44.24.34.43.64.24.53.74.54.23.63.84.14.14.24.24.13.44.24.04.13.63.13.23.84.23.53.62.93.13.33.63.53.63.74.1

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

85%84%84%75%68%61%49%61%53%64%60%72%53%57%56%48%69%47%38%39%61%31%32%29%34%25%28%40%31%24%16%16%19%37%31%24%10%5%

12%9%5%4%4%9%
























Figure SG-1



Surgery-GeneralPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.63.94.14.54.64.14.53.64.24.44.23.84.24.43.54.44.14.23.84.14.04.24.03.73.53.84.24.13.83.33.43.84.33.63.83.24.13.54.03.93.94.13.83.9

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

48%60%59%43%59%47%37%49%36%48%46%48%38%53%37%20%45%34%39%27%38%18%19%25%12%21%30%40%32%20%13%15%15%24%37%16%7%7%

13%17%3%2%4%2%

12%

























Figure SG-2



Surgery-GeneralPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.44.64.24.54.54.14.54.74.54.54.54.43.64.13.74.23.93.74.04.33.54.44.24.24.14.24.13.84.13.33.44.13.63.83.83.03.83.63.83.63.73.64.1

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

91%86%75%77%72%71%68%46%61%66%63%67%65%53%42%47%42%39%38%35%37%58%25%32%30%27%25%27%29%23%25%15%14%35%22%13%

5%8%

17%10%

6%3%3%3%9%

























Figure SG-2



Surgery-GeneralPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.34.64.34.64.54.24.64.54.44.34.54.33.84.33.84.23.94.24.14.13.54.44.04.24.04.14.34.04.33.63.44.24.14.04.13.04.04.14.23.14.64.63.74.2

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

72%68%41%58%52%52%56%31%49%38%35%40%45%40%28%37%26%32%13%42%22%36%19%16%

9%19%16%21%26%22%25%17%12%25%11%

9%7%4%

21%8%

12%3%3%3%3%6%

























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

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








88%

78%

64%

52%

21%

5%

1%

77%

54%

62%

21%

17%

9%

7%



Figure SG-4Surgery-GeneralMedian Number of Applications, Interviews, and Programs Ranked by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





51

1814 14

68

8 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





84

10 9 9

100

3 3 4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure SG-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

4.1

3.2

2.4

2.1

1.9

1.6

1.8

1.1

4.6

4.4

2.8

2.8

1.9

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

4.1

2.7

3.0

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.3

1.3

4.6

4.1

3.3

2.7

1.7

1.8

1.6

1.6

1.6

Matched Not Matched



results of the 2019 nrmp applicant survey...this report presents survey results by preferred...

Documents