National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Resident Matching Program (NRMP)
2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1...
Transcript of 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1...
![Page 1: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Results of the 2009NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type
www.nrmp.org
January 2010
![Page 2: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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 Julia Raether, Director of Research, NRMP, at [email protected].
Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, Executive Director, NRMP,
Suggested Citation National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2009 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident
Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2010.
Copyright ©2010 National Resident Matching Program.
![Page 3: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Table of Contents
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................1
All Specialties ...................................................................................................................................................2
Charts for Individual Specialties Anesthesiology ............................................................................................................................................9 Dermatology..............................................................................................................................................16 Diagnostic Radiology ................................................................................................................................23 Emergency Medicine.................................................................................................................................30 Family Medicine........................................................................................................................................37 General Surgery.........................................................................................................................................44 Internal Medicine.......................................................................................................................................51 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics......................................................................................................................58 Neurology..................................................................................................................................................65 Obstetrics and Gynecology .......................................................................................................................72 Orthopaedic Surgery..................................................................................................................................79 Otolaryngology..........................................................................................................................................86 Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical .............................................................................................................93 Pediatrics .................................................................................................................................................100 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation .....................................................................................................107 Plastic Surgery.........................................................................................................................................114 Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................121 Radiation Oncology.................................................................................................................................128 Transitional Year .....................................................................................................................................135
![Page 4: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
No Ye s No Ye s
An e s th e s io lo g y Coun t 664 530 335 200
P erc en t 5 5 .6% 44 .4% 62 .6% 37 .4%
D e rm a to lo g y Coun t 213 198 112 44
P erc en t 5 1 .8% 48 .2% 71 .8% 28 .2%
D ia g n o s tic R a d io lo g y Coun t 608 478 242 149
P erc en t 5 6 .0% 44 .0% 61 .9% 38 .1%
E m e rg e n cy Me d ic in e Coun t 681 564 362 210
P erc en t 5 4 .7% 45 .3% 63 .3% 36 .7%
Fa m ily Me d ic in e Coun t 526 537 1342 897
P erc en t 4 9 .5% 50 .5% 59 .9% 40 .1%
G e n e ra l S u rg e ry Coun t 680 505 642 324
P erc en t 5 7 .4% 42 .6% 66 .5% 33 .5%
In te rn a l Me d ic in e Coun t 1662 1347 2746 2296
P erc en t 5 5 .2% 44 .8% 54 .5% 45 .5%
In te rn a l Me d ic in e /P e d ia tr ics Coun t 103 149 64 77
P erc en t 4 0 .9% 59 .1% 45 .4% 54 .6%
N e u ro lo g y Coun t 159 157 210 178
P erc en t 5 0 .3% 49 .7% 54 .1% 45 .9%
O b s te tr ics a n d G yn e co lo g y Coun t 422 519 359 296
P erc en t 4 4 .8% 55 .2% 54 .8% 45 .2%
O rth o p a e d ic S u rg e ry Coun t 415 329 114 65
P erc en t 5 5 .8% 44 .2% 63 .7% 36 .3%
O to la ryn g o lo g y Coun t 153 173 36 11
P erc en t 4 6 .9% 53 .1% 76 .6% 23 .4%
P a th o lo g y-An a to m ic a n d C l in ica l Coun t 169 167 209 163
P erc en t 5 0 .3% 49 .7% 56 .2% 43 .8%
P e d ia trics Coun t 809 914 545 529
P erc en t 4 7 .0% 53 .0% 50 .7% 49 .3%
P h ys ica l Me d ic in e a n d R e h a b i l i ta tio n Coun t 92 79 195 113
P erc en t 5 3 .8% 46 .2% 63 .3% 36 .7%
P la s tic S u rg e ry Coun t 92 71 22 7
P erc en t 5 6 .4% 43 .6% 75 .9% 24 .1%
P s ych ia try Coun t 374 307 491 391
P erc en t 5 4 .9% 45 .1% 55 .7% 44 .3%
R a d ia tio n O n co lo g y Coun t 75 80 17 7
P erc en t 4 8 .4% 51 .6% 70 .8% 29 .2%
Tra n s itio n a l Ye a r Coun t 188 73 42 22
P erc en t 7 2 .0% 28 .0% 65 .6% 34 .4%
Tota l C o u n t 8085 7177 8085 5979
P er cen t 53 .0% 47 .0% 57 .5% 42 .5%
U.S . S e n ior s In d e p e n d e n t A p p lican ts
Com ple te d S urve y C o m p le te d S u r ve y
IntroductionThe National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted a survey of all applicants who participated in the 2009 Main Residency Match and who submitted rank order lists of programs.
The primary purpose of the survey was to shed light on the factors that applicants weigh in selecting programs (1) at which to interview and (2) to rank for the Match. The survey was fielded during the 19 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 seniors and independent applicants. Independent applicants include prior allopathic
graduates, both U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen graduates of international medical schools, graduates of schools of osteopathy, graduates of Canadian medical schools, and graduates of the Fifth Pathway program.
The overall response rate for the 19 largest preferred specialties detailed in this report was 44.9 percent and varied by specialty and applicant type (see table below). The NRMP hopes that program directors, 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/.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 1
![Page 5: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
All Specialties Combined
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 2
![Page 6: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
All SpecialtiesMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
Figure 1
3
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.3
3.8
4.1
3.9
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.9
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.6
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
5,979 7,177U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
![Page 7: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
All SpecialtiesMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Figure 1
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.9
3.4
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.5
3.1
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.4
2.6
2.7
3.1
3.6
4.0
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.3
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
1.7
2.8
2.6
2.9
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 4Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).5,979 7,177
U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
![Page 8: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Figure 2All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
56.9%
46.3%
43.7%
41.7%
33.1%
51.7%
46.7%
43.6%
38.3%
44.3%
37.3%
62.4%
43.8%
50.3%
52.8%
38.4%
37.4%
40.2%
40.4%
37.3%
56.0%
35.8%
39.2%
40.6%
30.0%
48.9%
57.2%
36.2%
39.0%
40.4%
27.0%
72.4%
35.0%
44.7%
59.6%
34.0%
29.3%
35.7%
35.8%
25.7%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 5Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
5,979 7,177U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
![Page 9: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
49.4%
29.9%
27.6%
39.9%
34.3%
34.2%
45.5%
39.0%
27.6%
30.5%
30.3%
26.4%
31.3%
39.8%
26.3%
21.4%
22.6%
22.0%
21.2%
23.6%
46.1%
37.7%
19.0%
29.5%
29.7%
33.2%
45.5%
31.4%
21.3%
26.0%
13.0%
18.5%
16.6%
29.1%
16.6%
13.7%
2.4%
20.6%
14.4%
14.9%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure 2
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009
All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
6Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
5,979 7,177U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
![Page 10: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
Figure 3
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
96.1%
38.0%
70.4%
74.1%
87.0%
30.9%
27.1%
11.9%
98.5%
12.0%
86.1%
54.6%
95.4%
49.1%
10.4%
3.7%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 7
5,979 7,177U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
![Page 11: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
42.0
8.0 7.0 6.0
50.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
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).
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
22.0
14.010.0 9.0
35.0
7.0 6.0 6.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
3,0083 008
2,9712 971
IndNot MatchedMatched
6,6356 635
542542
U.Not MatchedMatched
![Page 12: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Anesthesiology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 9
![Page 13: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Figure A-1 AnesthesiologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.6
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.4
3.9
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.3
4.5
4.2
4.5
4.1
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.6
4.0
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
200 530U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 10
![Page 14: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.9
3.7
3.4
3.3
3.0
3.1
2.9
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.8
2.3
2.9
3.1
3.7
4.1
3.5
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.4
2.8
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.7
2.4
2.9
2.8
1.7
2.6
2.9
3.1
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure A-1 AnesthesiologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
200 530U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 11
![Page 15: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
52.0%
42.5%
40.0%
39.5%
35.5%
47.5%
52.5%
39.5%
39.0%
40.0%
38.0%
60.0%
40.5%
48.5%
49.0%
32.5%
38.5%
37.5%
34.5%
37.5%
54.3%
32.5%
36.2%
36.2%
28.9%
44.0%
53.2%
32.1%
38.1%
34.0%
26.2%
71.3%
32.3%
42.6%
56.0%
27.0%
33.4%
31.3%
26.8%
28.9%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure A-2 AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
200 530U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 12
![Page 16: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
41.5%
35.5%
25.5%
42.0%
34.5%
39.0%
41.0%
32.0%
23.0%
25.5%
23.5%
23.0%
24.0%
28.0%
22.5%
19.5%
12.5%
18.5%
21.0%
20.5%
46.8%
36.2%
17.9%
34.0%
28.7%
33.4%
39.2%
21.5%
18.5%
20.2%
12.3%
16.0%
12.6%
21.1%
16.8%
17.4%
1.9%
15.1%
17.7%
14.9%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure A-2 AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
200 530U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 13
![Page 17: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I appliedbut did not interview
96.4%
27.5%
78.5%
73.3%
91.8%
34.9%
30.4%
11.5%
98.9%
13.2%
89.4%
60.7%
96.2%
57.8%
14.9%
7.4%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure A-3 AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
200 530U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 14
![Page 18: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Figure A-4 AnesthesiologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
35.0
7.0 7.0 7.0
48.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
24.0
15.011.0 10.0
32.0
5.0 4.5 4.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
117117
8383
IndNot MatchedMatched
502502
2828
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 15
![Page 19: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Dermatology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 16
![Page 20: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Figure D-1 DermatologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.3
3.9
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.0
3.9
4.2
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.8
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.2
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.8
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
44 198U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 17
![Page 21: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.4
2.9
3.5
3.2
2.6
3.3
2.8
2.6
2.7
1.9
2.2
2.3
2.5
3.6
4.0
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.3
3.1
3.3
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.6
2.6
2.2
2.6
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure D-1 DermatologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
44 198U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 18
![Page 22: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
34.1%
27.3%
25.0%
22.7%
25.0%
34.1%
27.3%
27.3%
20.5%
27.3%
25.0%
40.9%
27.3%
29.5%
34.1%
27.3%
18.2%
20.5%
22.7%
22.7%
38.9%
29.8%
34.3%
31.3%
23.7%
35.4%
34.8%
26.3%
24.2%
32.8%
21.7%
54.0%
29.3%
34.8%
47.0%
21.2%
21.7%
23.2%
27.8%
21.2%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure D-2 DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
44 198U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 19
![Page 23: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
18.2%
18.2%
18.2%
20.5%
13.6%
11.4%
27.3%
22.7%
20.5%
11.4%
15.9%
6.8%
15.9%
18.2%
11.4%
11.4%
4.5%
15.9%
11.4%
9.1%
32.8%
23.7%
14.1%
22.7%
17.7%
21.2%
38.9%
25.8%
15.2%
19.2%
10.6%
11.1%
12.1%
12.6%
8.6%
7.6%
2.0%
13.6%
7.6%
6.6%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure D-2 DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
44 198U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 20
![Page 24: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
97.6%
32.5%
65.0%
80.5%
90.2%
35.9%
30.0%
23.1%
95.4%
12.0%
86.1%
82.0%
95.9%
48.4%
37.4%
8.3%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure D-3 DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
44 198U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 21
![Page 25: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Figure D-4 DermatologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10.0
2.0 2.04.0
40.0
1.0 1.0 1.5
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
66.0
11.0 9.0 9.0
75.0
5.0 5.0 4.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
1515
2929
IndNot MatchedMatched
150150
4848
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 22
![Page 26: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Diagnostic Radiology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 23
![Page 27: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Figure DR-1 Diagnostic RadiologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.8
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.1
4.4
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.6
3.7
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
149 478U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 24
![Page 28: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.1
2.1
3.0
3.1
3.6
4.0
3.4
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.2
3.6
3.0
2.8
3.2
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.5
1.7
2.0
3.2
3.1
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure DR-1 Diagnostic RadiologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
149 478U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 25
![Page 29: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
52.3%
45.6%
47.0%
43.0%
35.6%
49.7%
47.0%
38.9%
36.2%
40.3%
39.6%
65.1%
46.3%
49.0%
53.0%
36.2%
36.2%
37.6%
39.6%
34.9%
47.7%
34.9%
38.5%
37.0%
29.1%
43.1%
52.7%
31.8%
37.7%
32.6%
26.2%
66.7%
35.6%
44.8%
55.0%
31.0%
29.9%
34.1%
30.3%
26.6%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure DR-2 Diagnostic RadiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
149 478U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 26
![Page 30: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
49.0%
29.5%
30.9%
36.2%
38.3%
34.2%
45.6%
36.2%
29.5%
26.8%
26.8%
24.2%
26.2%
32.2%
23.5%
22.1%
20.8%
20.1%
24.2%
21.5%
43.5%
36.4%
19.5%
30.3%
30.5%
34.9%
44.4%
33.9%
22.0%
22.8%
13.8%
18.8%
14.2%
29.1%
16.5%
15.1%
3.6%
9.0%
21.8%
15.9%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure DR-2 Diagnostic RadiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
149 478U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 27
![Page 31: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
97.9%
30.9%
82.3%
71.5%
88.8%
48.2%
38.4%
18.7%
98.3%
10.6%
91.8%
71.8%
95.8%
61.0%
22.5%
7.2%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure DR-3 Diagnostic RadiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
149 478U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 28
![Page 32: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Figure DR-4 Diagnostic RadiologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
50.0
8.0 8.0 8.0
41.0
2.0 2.0 3.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
36.0
15.012.0 12.0
41.0
6.5 6.0 6.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
5858
9191
IndNot MatchedMatched
426426
5252
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 29
![Page 33: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Emergency Medicine
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 30
![Page 34: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Figure EM-1 Emergency MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.5
3.5
3.9
3.1
3.7
4.1
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.6
4.2
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.1
3.8
3.9
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
210 564U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 31
![Page 35: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.1
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.4
3.4
3.1
2.7
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.4
2.2
3.2
2.9
3.0
3.0
4.1
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.5
2.9
2.7
3.2
3.2
2.7
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.6
1.6
3.2
2.9
2.8
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure EM-1 Emergency MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
210 564U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 32
![Page 36: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
43.8%
30.0%
29.5%
31.0%
21.9%
39.0%
41.0%
30.5%
33.8%
35.2%
25.7%
49.0%
26.7%
40.5%
36.2%
21.0%
26.2%
16.2%
29.0%
28.1%
60.6%
40.2%
43.3%
44.7%
32.1%
55.3%
60.6%
43.1%
44.0%
50.5%
30.5%
72.0%
36.5%
48.0%
53.5%
32.8%
33.3%
22.3%
43.6%
32.3%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure EM-2 Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
210 564U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 33
![Page 37: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
26.7%
24.8%
16.2%
22.9%
16.7%
25.2%
33.3%
16.2%
18.1%
13.8%
11.0%
15.7%
13.8%
22.9%
17.6%
9.0%
3.8%
20.5%
14.3%
15.2%
30.9%
42.9%
20.2%
28.9%
22.0%
35.1%
36.3%
23.6%
23.6%
25.4%
10.3%
18.8%
17.6%
31.9%
16.7%
13.1%
2.0%
27.8%
18.6%
15.6%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure EM-2 Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
210 564U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 34
![Page 38: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
97.6%
26.0%
80.8%
69.4%
95.6%
34.0%
20.1%
10.8%
98.6%
8.4%
90.0%
60.7%
96.2%
49.2%
6.1%
2.4%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure EM-3 Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
210 564U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 35
![Page 39: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Figure EM-4 Emergency MedicineMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
30.0
10.0 8.0 7.0
30.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
26.0
17.0
11.0 10.0
30.0
10.0 8.0 7.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
133133
7777
IndNot MatchedMatched
539539
2525
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 36
![Page 40: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Family Medicine
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 37
![Page 41: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Figure FM-1 Family MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.3
3.8
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.2
3.9
4.1
4.1
3.7
3.7
4.0
3.4
3.9
4.1
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.1
4.5
4.2
4.1
3.8
4.0
3.9
3.1
3.7
3.8
2.6
4.1
3.9
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
897 537U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 38
![Page 42: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.3
3.3
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.0
3.5
3.3
3.7
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.1
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.9
3.2
2.6
3.9
3.7
3.3
3.8
3.4
3.3
2.1
3.6
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.0
4.0
2.9
2.6
1.5
3.1
2.9
3.2
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure FM-1 Family MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
897 537U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 39
![Page 43: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
59.9%
50.1%
46.7%
45.0%
36.8%
54.8%
47.6%
48.0%
41.4%
46.6%
41.0%
54.7%
46.3%
50.5%
47.6%
34.4%
40.4%
30.2%
45.7%
46.4%
62.2%
39.9%
43.8%
50.3%
34.5%
56.2%
62.8%
40.8%
50.1%
43.4%
30.9%
63.7%
39.7%
44.3%
41.9%
31.3%
29.8%
14.2%
47.7%
42.8%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure FM-2 Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
897 537U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 40
![Page 44: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
38.6%
32.4%
32.0%
41.4%
40.0%
36.3%
46.3%
29.7%
31.3%
36.3%
35.3%
31.1%
37.0%
50.8%
29.4%
22.9%
16.6%
30.9%
26.6%
28.3%
21.8%
41.0%
22.3%
22.9%
38.0%
33.0%
40.2%
13.0%
30.4%
30.2%
17.3%
24.8%
20.9%
62.9%
22.3%
11.7%
1.7%
31.3%
19.7%
21.6%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure FM-2 Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
897 537U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 41
![Page 45: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
94.9%
52.8%
61.9%
77.4%
86.2%
26.1%
26.3%
15.3%
98.3%
14.8%
74.2%
44.9%
95.5%
31.5%
6.9%
2.7%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure FM-3 Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
897 537U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 42
![Page 46: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Figure FM-4 Family MedicineMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
40.0
5.0 5.0 5.0
47.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
12.0 11.08.0 7.0
12.0 10.05.0 4.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
467467
430430
IndNot MatchedMatched
532532
55
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 43
![Page 47: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
General Surgery
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 44
![Page 48: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Figure GS-1 General SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.6
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.2
3.7
4.0
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.9
3.4
3.9
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.2
3.9
3.9
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.7
4.0
4.3
3.9
4.1
3.3
3.8
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
324 505U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 45
![Page 49: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.9
3.2
3.4
3.7
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.6
3.1
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
3.4
2.3
2.3
3.0
3.7
3.7
3.4
3.7
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.6
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.5
2.6
1.6
2.4
2.3
2.6
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure GS-1 General SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
324 505U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 46
![Page 50: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
53.4%
39.5%
39.8%
34.9%
26.2%
46.3%
40.7%
39.2%
29.3%
32.4%
30.6%
57.4%
37.3%
44.1%
50.9%
34.9%
34.3%
34.6%
30.6%
33.0%
56.6%
38.6%
42.0%
40.0%
29.9%
43.8%
58.4%
38.8%
34.9%
35.8%
31.1%
75.6%
30.7%
44.0%
65.7%
44.0%
32.5%
46.3%
30.1%
31.1%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure GS-2 General SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
324 505U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 47
![Page 51: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
44.4%
23.8%
21.9%
35.8%
24.7%
31.8%
40.7%
38.9%
22.5%
21.9%
23.8%
19.8%
24.4%
32.7%
20.7%
17.0%
19.1%
16.7%
14.2%
20.1%
52.3%
36.4%
18.8%
38.4%
25.9%
36.4%
45.5%
43.0%
16.2%
25.0%
11.9%
17.0%
17.8%
36.6%
17.0%
19.2%
2.8%
19.0%
13.5%
14.1%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure GS-2 General SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
324 505U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 48
![Page 52: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
95.3%
39.5%
71.7%
72.3%
93.5%
38.0%
29.7%
21.5%
98.4%
13.4%
89.1%
48.1%
95.6%
55.5%
6.5%
3.2%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure GS-3 General SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
324 505U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 49
![Page 53: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Figure GS-4 General SurgeryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
50.0
8.0 7.0 6.0
60.0
3.0 2.0 3.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
31.0
19.0
13.0 11.0
35.0
10.0 9.0 9.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
8484
240240
IndNot MatchedMatched
404404
101101
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 50
![Page 54: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Internal Medicine
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 51
![Page 55: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Figure IM-1 Internal MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.0
4.3
3.7
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.1
3.9
3.9
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.1
3.9
4.4
4.2
3.8
4.1
3.9
3.2
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
2,296 1,347U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 52
![Page 56: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
4.2
3.2
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.8
3.3
3.2
3.6
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.0
3.1
3.5
2.5
2.7
3.0
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.5
1.8
2.8
2.5
2.7
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure IM-1 Internal MedicineMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
2,296 1,347U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 53
![Page 57: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
58.8%
46.2%
43.4%
42.1%
32.7%
52.9%
44.8%
44.8%
38.0%
46.2%
36.7%
65.1%
44.3%
51.2%
56.0%
42.0%
38.0%
47.4%
41.6%
37.6%
57.3%
35.3%
36.3%
40.8%
30.4%
49.8%
55.4%
37.3%
36.9%
43.1%
25.2%
74.4%
36.3%
43.0%
65.8%
37.3%
26.6%
44.7%
35.9%
19.1%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure IM-2 Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
2,296 1,347U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 54
![Page 58: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
57.7%
28.4%
28.4%
42.3%
34.5%
33.4%
45.6%
45.4%
29.8%
30.3%
32.4%
26.8%
32.8%
40.2%
27.6%
22.7%
29.7%
20.3%
22.0%
23.3%
57.8%
34.6%
19.7%
28.1%
27.8%
29.3%
38.2%
39.0%
25.0%
26.2%
14.9%
15.9%
17.2%
24.1%
14.8%
10.5%
3.0%
20.3%
12.3%
12.3%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure IM-2 Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
2,296 1,347U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 55
![Page 59: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
95.7%
38.2%
69.7%
74.8%
84.7%
30.3%
27.6%
10.6%
98.9%
12.3%
82.9%
48.5%
93.2%
51.0%
7.5%
3.2%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure IM-3 Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
2,296 1,347U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 56
![Page 60: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Figure IM-4 Internal MedicineMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
60.0
8.0 8.0 7.0
66.0
2.0 2.0 3.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
18.013.0
10.0 9.0
19.0
8.05.0 6.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
1,0991 099
1,1971 197
IndNot MatchedMatched
1,2701 270
7777
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 57
![Page 61: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 58
![Page 62: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Figure IM/P-1 Internal Medicine/PediatricsMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.0
3.8
4.1
3.9
4.8
4.7
4.5
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.2
3.9
3.7
3.4
4.0
3.2
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
77 149U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 59
![Page 63: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
4.0
3.6
3.9
3.9
3.5
3.8
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.9
3.4
3.6
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.9
3.6
2.8
3.3
3.2
4.1
3.6
3.7
3.2
3.6
3.3
3.0
3.4
3.8
3.0
2.9
3.3
2.8
2.6
2.7
1.6
3.6
2.5
2.8
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure IM/P-1 Internal Medicine/PediatricsMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
77 149U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 60
![Page 64: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
66.2%
50.6%
45.5%
50.6%
33.8%
59.7%
55.8%
46.8%
49.4%
50.6%
44.2%
75.3%
50.6%
64.9%
68.8%
41.6%
42.9%
44.2%
51.9%
37.7%
63.8%
33.6%
38.3%
40.9%
28.9%
59.7%
63.8%
37.6%
37.6%
51.0%
32.9%
77.9%
36.9%
51.0%
69.8%
34.2%
22.1%
32.2%
40.9%
16.8%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure IM/P-2 Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
77 149U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 61
![Page 65: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
59.7%
40.3%
27.3%
46.8%
33.8%
42.9%
51.9%
45.5%
29.9%
41.6%
32.5%
28.6%
33.8%
41.6%
23.4%
22.1%
31.2%
32.5%
19.5%
27.3%
43.0%
46.3%
16.8%
40.3%
23.5%
37.6%
50.3%
32.2%
24.2%
36.9%
11.4%
18.1%
21.5%
24.8%
14.8%
17.4%
2.0%
36.9%
12.8%
14.8%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure IM/P-2 Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
77 149U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 62
![Page 66: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
97.3%
24.3%
79.2%
67.1%
86.3%
29.0%
48.6%
4.2%
98.7%
8.2%
89.0%
44.2%
95.2%
37.7%
14.3%
0.0%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure IM/P-3 Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
77 149U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 63
![Page 67: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Figure IM/P-4 Internal Medicine/PediatricsMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
25.0
8.0 6.0 5.0
40.0
2.5 2.5 3.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
16.013.0
9.5 8.011.0
8.0 7.0 6.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
4646
3131
IndNot MatchedMatched
142142
77
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 64
![Page 68: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Neurology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 65
![Page 69: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Figure N-1 NeurologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.1
4.0
4.4
3.8
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.1
3.9
4.1
3.8
3.7
4.8
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.2
3.9
4.3
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.1
3.0
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
178 157U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 66
![Page 70: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
4.2
3.4
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.9
3.3
3.3
3.4
2.9
3.2
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.6
2.3
2.6
2.9
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.5
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.4
2.8
2.7
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.9
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure N-1 NeurologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
178 157U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 67
![Page 71: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
62.4%
53.4%
51.1%
41.6%
30.9%
55.6%
52.8%
46.1%
32.6%
51.1%
41.0%
75.3%
50.6%
53.4%
65.7%
41.6%
41.6%
48.3%
42.1%
38.2%
62.4%
36.9%
43.9%
40.8%
25.5%
49.7%
61.8%
31.8%
37.6%
42.0%
29.3%
79.0%
36.3%
44.6%
68.2%
32.5%
28.0%
38.2%
38.9%
15.3%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure N-2 NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
178 157U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 68
![Page 72: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
60.7%
29.8%
28.7%
38.2%
35.4%
34.3%
49.4%
51.7%
32.0%
33.7%
37.1%
21.3%
30.9%
33.7%
24.2%
24.7%
26.4%
21.3%
19.1%
18.5%
52.2%
39.5%
14.6%
17.2%
28.0%
35.0%
45.9%
42.0%
20.4%
29.3%
12.7%
14.6%
12.1%
13.4%
14.6%
9.6%
0.6%
15.3%
9.6%
13.4%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure N-2 NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
178 157U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 69
![Page 73: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
96.0%
25.4%
72.5%
70.5%
85.3%
31.3%
36.3%
9.5%
99.4%
9.0%
89.1%
46.2%
97.4%
50.0%
8.4%
6.4%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure N-3 NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
178 157U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 70
![Page 74: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Figure N-4 NeurologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
34.0
7.5 7.0 6.0
41.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
17.013.0
9.0 9.0
40.0
6.5 5.0 4.5
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
117117
6161
IndNot MatchedMatched
153153
44
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 71
![Page 75: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Obstetrics and Gynecology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 72
![Page 76: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Figure OG-1 Obstetrics and GynecologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.7
3.6
4.2
4.8
4.6
4.5
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.7
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.7
4.0
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
296 519U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 73
![Page 77: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.4
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.6
2.5
3.2
3.6
3.9
3.5
3.6
3.8
3.5
3.7
3.5
3.0
3.4
2.7
3.1
3.1
2.8
2.7
2.8
1.5
2.8
2.1
2.8
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure OG-1 Obstetrics and GynecologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
296 519U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 74
![Page 78: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
59.1%
48.0%
44.6%
44.6%
35.1%
52.4%
52.7%
44.9%
39.2%
42.2%
37.8%
63.9%
44.6%
51.0%
53.7%
37.2%
41.9%
38.5%
34.8%
41.9%
58.4%
35.1%
38.0%
41.8%
30.6%
50.5%
64.9%
37.4%
40.1%
40.8%
21.8%
77.8%
34.1%
41.6%
68.6%
38.5%
28.7%
43.0%
35.8%
37.2%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure OG-2 Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
296 519U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 75
![Page 79: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
48.0%
31.4%
26.4%
44.3%
36.5%
32.4%
51.7%
32.8%
23.6%
33.8%
29.1%
27.0%
30.4%
52.7%
26.7%
26.4%
17.6%
20.3%
18.2%
24.3%
53.4%
41.2%
18.1%
34.3%
40.1%
35.1%
61.8%
35.5%
18.3%
30.6%
10.8%
23.7%
18.1%
38.2%
17.1%
18.7%
2.1%
22.2%
8.1%
13.7%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure OG-2 Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
296 519U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 76
![Page 80: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
97.3%
35.0%
75.8%
69.7%
87.3%
32.6%
23.0%
9.7%
98.5%
12.4%
90.2%
43.7%
95.7%
49.8%
7.0%
1.7%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure OG-3 Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
296 519U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 77
![Page 81: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Figure OG-4 Obstetrics and GynecologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
35.0
9.0 8.0 7.0
46.0
3.0 3.0 3.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
25.0
16.011.0 10.0
30.0
10.0 8.0 8.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
149149
147147
IndNot MatchedMatched
486486
3333
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 78
![Page 82: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Orthopaedic Surgery
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 79
![Page 83: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Figure OS-1 Orthopaedic SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.1
4.1
3.8
4.1
3.8
3.5
4.0
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.8
3.3
3.7
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.4
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.2
3.7
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.1
3.1
3.9
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
65 329U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 80
![Page 84: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.7
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.0
2.7
3.0
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.7
3.6
4.0
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.7
1.7
2.3
2.3
2.8
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure OS-1 Orthopaedic SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
65 329U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 81
![Page 85: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
40.0%
36.9%
32.3%
33.8%
27.7%
36.9%
32.3%
27.7%
27.7%
20.0%
29.2%
50.8%
32.3%
36.9%
43.1%
21.5%
18.5%
27.7%
18.5%
26.2%
51.1%
35.9%
38.3%
35.6%
25.8%
41.6%
49.8%
38.3%
32.5%
28.0%
29.5%
65.7%
32.2%
45.0%
50.8%
31.6%
27.4%
40.4%
20.7%
29.8%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure OS-2 Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
65 329U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 82
![Page 86: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
29.2%
23.1%
16.9%
15.4%
20.0%
24.6%
33.8%
26.2%
13.8%
16.9%
10.8%
10.8%
20.0%
29.2%
10.8%
9.2%
13.8%
12.3%
6.2%
9.2%
39.2%
35.0%
17.3%
24.6%
27.1%
32.2%
43.8%
31.3%
14.9%
17.9%
12.2%
14.0%
14.0%
27.1%
13.7%
17.9%
4.6%
13.4%
12.5%
11.6%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure OS-2 Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
65 329U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 83
![Page 87: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
98.4%
37.1%
64.5%
90.2%
86.9%
37.7%
35.0%
19.7%
99.7%
16.2%
87.1%
82.6%
96.0%
42.3%
9.2%
6.8%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure OS-3 Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
65 329U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 84
![Page 88: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
Figure OS-4 Orthopaedic SurgeryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
48.0
5.5 5.5 5.5
53.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
49.0
16.012.0 12.0
50.0
7.0 7.0 6.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
3030
3535
IndNot MatchedMatched
280280
4949
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 85
![Page 89: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Otolaryngology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 86
![Page 90: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Figure O-1 OtolaryngologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.5
3.5
4.2
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.5
4.2
3.6
4.6
4.0
3.5
4.3
3.4
4.1
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.1
3.9
4.2
4.1
3.7
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.2
4.0
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
11 173U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 87
![Page 91: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
4.5
2.9
3.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.5
4.4
2.6
2.7
3.0
2.4
3.2
2.3
1.9
2.9
3.5
2.9
1.7
1.8
3.5
3.9
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.5
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.6
1.8
2.7
2.2
2.6
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure O-1 OtolaryngologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
11 173U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 88
![Page 92: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
72.7%
54.5%
72.7%
72.7%
54.5%
72.7%
45.5%
81.8%
36.4%
36.4%
54.5%
10
45.5%
63.6%
90.9%
63.6%
54.5%
72.7%
45.5%
63.6%
49.7%
32.4%
41.0%
34.7%
27.2%
38.7%
48.6%
41.0%
31.8%
31.8%
30.1%
65.3%
26.6%
37.6%
50.3%
31.8%
33.5%
38.2%
20.2%
31.8%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure O-2 OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
11 173U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 89
![Page 93: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
72.7%
36.4%
45.5%
54.5%
36.4%
27.3%
72.7%
72.7%
36.4%
27.3%
36.4%
18.2%
36.4%
27.3%
18.2%
18.2%
45.5%
27.3%
18.2%
18.2%
42.2%
28.9%
17.9%
24.9%
26.0%
28.3%
48.6%
34.7%
18.5%
21.4%
9.8%
12.7%
17.9%
16.8%
12.1%
14.5%
1.7%
16.2%
12.1%
11.6%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure O-2 OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
11 173U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 90
![Page 94: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
100.0%
18.2%
81.8%
90.0%
90.9%
36.4%
18.2%
0.0%
97.7%
12.2%
90.6%
74.3%
95.3%
43.5%
14.2%
3.5%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure O-3 OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
11 173U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 91
![Page 95: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
Figure O-4 OtolaryngologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
79.0
8.0 8.0 8.0
47.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
45.0
17.012.0 12.0
50.0
5.0 4.0 4.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
55
66
IndNot MatchedMatched
147147
2626
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 92
![Page 96: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 93
![Page 97: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
Figure PAC-1 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.2
4.2
4.3
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.7
4.5
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
3.9
4.4
4.1
4.0
4.3
4.2
3.9
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.3
3.9
3.2
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
163 167U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 94
![Page 98: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
4.0
3.4
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.0
3.1
2.8
3.3
2.3
2.6
3.2
4.3
3.8
3.6
3.7
3.3
3.7
3.4
3.7
3.0
2.9
2.8
3.1
2.6
2.4
3.0
2.5
1.9
1.9
2.3
3.1
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PAC-1 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
163 167U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 95
![Page 99: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
53.4%
58.3%
57.7%
52.1%
39.3%
54.6%
54.0%
39.9%
47.9%
48.5%
48.5%
66.3%
49.7%
58.3%
58.3%
45.4%
46.6%
46.0%
44.8%
36.2%
46.7%
40.7%
47.3%
44.9%
32.3%
56.3%
62.9%
28.1%
43.1%
36.5%
31.7%
76.6%
42.5%
47.3%
64.7%
43.1%
37.7%
44.9%
41.9%
18.0%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PAC-2 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
163 167U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 96
![Page 100: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
54.6%
38.0%
32.5%
46.0%
39.9%
44.8%
54.0%
46.6%
27.0%
35.6%
29.4%
36.8%
38.7%
34.4%
31.9%
22.1%
22.7%
19.6%
20.9%
31.3%
64.7%
38.9%
22.8%
32.3%
26.9%
38.9%
51.5%
44.3%
12.0%
22.2%
11.4%
22.8%
13.2%
16.2%
24.0%
12.0%
2.4%
7.2%
13.8%
20.4%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PAC-2 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
163 167U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 97
![Page 101: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
98.1%
32.0%
68.0%
71.9%
91.2%
22.2%
20.4%
6.1%
98.8%
13.3%
78.9%
51.2%
94.0%
47.9%
6.1%
2.4%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PAC-3 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
163 167U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 98
![Page 102: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
Figure PAC-4 Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
40.0
7.0 6.0 5.0
32.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
16.013.5
10.0 9.0
22.0
9.0 7.5 6.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
8484
7979
IndNot MatchedMatched
161161
66
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 99
![Page 103: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
Pediatrics
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 100
![Page 104: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
Figure P-1 PediatricsMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.6
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.9
3.8
4.0
3.2
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
529 914U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 101
![Page 105: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.7
3.4
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.4
3.1
3.4
3.5
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.5
2.8
2.5
3.1
3.5
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.0
3.3
3.4
2.9
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.6
1.6
3.2
2.4
3.0
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure P-1 PediatricsMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
529 914U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 102
![Page 106: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
57.5%
47.1%
43.5%
42.0%
33.8%
52.7%
50.1%
42.7%
38.6%
46.3%
37.4%
66.9%
45.0%
51.4%
53.7%
40.8%
36.5%
41.0%
42.3%
34.8%
56.7%
33.7%
36.8%
40.7%
30.2%
51.4%
60.2%
34.7%
40.5%
45.0%
23.5%
78.1%
34.2%
47.6%
65.0%
33.6%
28.8%
38.5%
40.9%
16.8%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure P-2 PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
529 914U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 103
![Page 107: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
48.8%
31.4%
24.8%
40.3%
35.0%
35.5%
48.6%
38.2%
24.6%
31.2%
30.4%
28.2%
31.8%
40.1%
26.8%
23.6%
24.6%
26.3%
19.8%
25.3%
48.2%
39.7%
18.1%
34.2%
33.7%
34.0%
61.8%
25.4%
21.7%
28.3%
13.7%
21.2%
16.5%
26.5%
17.7%
10.6%
2.0%
30.0%
11.8%
17.2%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure P-2 PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
529 914U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 104
![Page 108: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
97.1%
36.5%
74.1%
72.0%
86.2%
30.9%
25.4%
9.6%
98.0%
8.4%
86.9%
46.2%
96.6%
50.2%
6.1%
1.0%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure P-3 PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
529 914U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 105
![Page 109: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
Figure P-4 PediatricsMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
33.0
8.0 7.0 6.0
40.5
2.0 2.0 2.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
17.014.0
10.0 9.0
18.013.0
8.0 7.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
318318
211211
IndNot MatchedMatched
899899
1515
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 106
![Page 110: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 107
![Page 111: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
Figure PMR-1 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.0
4.3
3.9
4.2
4.1
4.3
4.2
3.8
4.0
3.7
3.9
3.9
4.1
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.6
4.0
4.3
4.1
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.9
3.8
4.1
3.9
4.0
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
113 79U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 108
![Page 112: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.8
3.6
3.7
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.5
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.4
2.6
2.7
3.1
3.7
4.2
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.4
2.9
3.1
3.0
2.7
3.0
2.8
1.6
2.3
2.8
3.1
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PMR-1 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
113 79U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 109
![Page 113: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
53.1%
45.1%
43.4%
42.5%
37.2%
54.0%
49.6%
46.0%
43.4%
38.9%
37.2%
65.5%
46.9%
53.1%
47.8%
42.5%
32.7%
39.8%
39.8%
43.4%
58.2%
46.8%
45.6%
44.3%
34.2%
55.7%
60.8%
31.6%
51.9%
41.8%
32.9%
83.5%
39.2%
50.6%
50.6%
41.8%
30.4%
44.3%
45.6%
35.4%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PMR-2 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
113 79U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 110
![Page 114: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
45.1%
31.0%
31.0%
41.6%
37.2%
36.3%
51.3%
34.5%
27.4%
31.0%
26.5%
24.8%
24.8%
38.9%
25.7%
19.5%
9.7%
19.5%
22.1%
24.8%
49.4%
44.3%
27.8%
30.4%
38.0%
43.0%
45.6%
34.2%
25.3%
34.2%
12.7%
21.5%
21.5%
20.3%
24.1%
17.7%
1.3%
15.2%
17.7%
20.3%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PMR-2 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
113 79U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 111
![Page 115: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
99.1%
25.5%
77.5%
71.2%
91.3%
35.6%
28.6%
12.4%
97.4%
16.9%
87.0%
42.3%
94.9%
42.3%
10.4%
9.0%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PMR-3 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
113 79U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 112
![Page 116: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
Figure PMR-4 Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
21.0
10.0 9.0 8.0
39.0
3.0 3.0 2.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
20.015.0
10.0 9.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
8080
3333
IndNot MatchedMatched
7979
U.Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 113
![Page 117: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
Plastic Surgery
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 114
![Page 118: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
Figure PS-1 Plastic SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.9
4.7
4.9
4.7
4.3
4.4
3.9
4.2
3.3
3.4
4.7
4.0
4.1
3.3
4.0
4.0
3.7
4.3
3.0
4.3
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.3
3.9
3.9
4.4
4.4
3.8
3.8
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
3.4
4.1
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
7 71U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 115
![Page 119: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.7
3.5
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
3.2
3.6
2.2
2.5
2.9
2.6
2.0
1.6
2.1
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.2
2.9
3.7
3.9
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.5
2.7
2.8
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.5
3.1
1.8
3.2
2.1
2.7
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PS-1 Plastic SurgeryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
7 71U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 116
![Page 120: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
42.9%
57.1%
57.1%
28.6%
14.3%
42.9%
42.9%
28.6%
0.0%
14.3%
57.1%
71.4%
42.9%
57.1%
71.4%
57.1%
14.3%
28.6%
14.3%
28.6%
50.7%
31.0%
38.0%
33.8%
29.6%
45.1%
45.1%
36.6%
32.4%
29.6%
25.4%
69.0%
31.0%
45.1%
59.2%
36.6%
29.6%
39.4%
26.8%
28.2%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PS-2 Plastic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
7 71U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 117
![Page 121: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/121.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
57.1%
14.3%
0.0%
28.6%
0.0%
0.0%
28.6%
42.9%
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
47.9%
29.6%
16.9%
21.1%
18.3%
29.6%
42.3%
35.2%
19.7%
18.3%
11.3%
14.1%
12.7%
25.4%
11.3%
19.7%
5.6%
23.9%
11.3%
14.1%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PS-2 Plastic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
7 71U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 118
![Page 122: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/122.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
100.0%
14.3%
57.1%
85.7%
71.4%
0.0%
42.9%
14.3%
98.6%
11.9%
74.6%
57.4%
97.1%
42.6%
41.2%
7.4%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PS-3 Plastic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
7 71U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 119
![Page 123: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/123.jpg)
Figure PS-4 Plastic SurgeryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
37.0
3.5 3.5 4.0
36.0
6.03.0 3.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
42.5
14.5 12.5 12.5
42.0
6.0 5.5 5.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
44
33
IndNot MatchedMatched
4343
2828
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 120
![Page 124: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/124.jpg)
Psychiatry
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 121
![Page 125: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/125.jpg)
Figure PSY-1 PsychiatryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.3
3.9
4.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.1
3.8
3.8
4.0
3.9
3.6
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.7
4.0
4.6
4.3
4.4
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.0
2.4
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
391 307U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 122
![Page 126: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/126.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.9
3.5
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.2
3.4
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.3
2.5
2.9
3.1
3.8
4.2
3.5
3.0
3.8
3.7
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.5
2.9
3.3
3.1
2.8
3.0
2.6
1.6
2.4
3.2
3.1
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PSY-1 PsychiatryMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
391 307U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 123
![Page 127: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/127.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
54.7%
46.8%
43.5%
38.9%
33.0%
48.3%
47.1%
44.0%
40.9%
47.6%
37.6%
61.4%
44.8%
49.6%
49.4%
36.1%
33.8%
37.9%
41.4%
25.1%
59.0%
35.2%
40.1%
39.4%
29.6%
50.2%
62.9%
34.9%
45.6%
45.9%
27.7%
74.6%
38.8%
48.9%
59.6%
26.4%
24.8%
33.9%
40.7%
11.4%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PSY-2 PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
391 307U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 124
![Page 128: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/128.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
46.5%
32.0%
27.4%
35.8%
35.5%
36.3%
41.4%
38.4%
25.1%
34.3%
30.9%
27.6%
32.2%
36.8%
26.9%
17.4%
19.2%
16.9%
23.3%
23.5%
54.4%
45.0%
18.6%
19.2%
35.8%
37.5%
39.7%
31.6%
20.2%
33.2%
13.7%
21.2%
18.2%
24.4%
18.2%
13.4%
1.3%
12.4%
22.5%
16.3%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PSY-2 PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
391 307U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 125
![Page 129: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/129.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
95.6%
36.4%
67.6%
74.1%
87.4%
28.1%
19.6%
9.6%
99.0%
16.8%
83.0%
50.5%
96.1%
40.1%
6.3%
2.0%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure PSY-3 PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
391 307U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 126
![Page 130: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/130.jpg)
Figure PSY-4 PsychiatryMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
38.0
8.0 7.0 7.0
48.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
15.011.0
8.0 7.0
21.5
6.0 5.0 4.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
193193
198198
IndNot MatchedMatched
297297
1010
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 127
![Page 131: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/131.jpg)
Radiation Oncology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 128
![Page 132: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/132.jpg)
Figure RO-1 Radiation OncologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
5.0
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.9
4.9
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.6
4.0
4.7
3.9
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.6
3.6
3.5
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.4
3.9
4.3
3.9
4.1
4.4
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.1
3.9
2.6
3.8
3.4
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
7 80U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 129
![Page 133: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/133.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
3.2
4.3
4.0
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.4
4.3
3.6
4.0
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.2
3.0
5.0
2.5
2.7
3.1
2.6
3.8
3.4
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.4
4.2
3.0
3.1
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
1.6
1.9
2.0
2.5
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure RO-1 Radiation OncologyMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
7 80U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 130
![Page 134: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/134.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
71.4%
57.1%
42.9%
57.1%
57.1%
71.4%
71.4%
57.1%
57.1%
28.6%
57.1%
71.4%
71.4%
85.7%
57.1%
57.1%
28.6%
14.3%
28.6%
42.9%
58.8%
33.8%
46.3%
38.8%
28.8%
47.5%
48.8%
23.8%
32.5%
31.3%
33.8%
73.8%
35.0%
50.0%
68.8%
36.3%
35.0%
5.0%
32.5%
21.3%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure RO-2 Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
7 80U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 131
![Page 135: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/135.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
14.3%
28.6%
42.9%
28.6%
28.6%
28.6%
57.1%
57.1%
28.6%
42.9%
14.3%
14.3%
42.9%
28.6%
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
28.6%
15.0%
33.8%
18.8%
21.3%
18.8%
31.3%
45.0%
56.3%
13.8%
25.0%
10.0%
16.3%
12.5%
12.5%
15.0%
12.5%
0.0%
8.8%
15.0%
12.5%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure RO-2 Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
7 80U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 132
![Page 136: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/136.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
85.7%
14.3%
71.4%
85.7%
100.0%
28.6%
42.9%
14.3%
98.7%
12.7%
92.4%
73.4%
97.4%
57.0%
21.5%
5.1%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure RO-3 Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
7 80U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 133
![Page 137: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/137.jpg)
Figure RO-4 Radiation OncologyMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
52.0
8.0 8.0 8.0
63.5
4.0 3.5 3.5
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
43.0
13.0 11.0 11.0
47.5
5.5 4.5 4.5
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
22
55
IndNot MatchedMatched
7070
1010
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 134
![Page 138: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/138.jpg)
Transitional Year
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 135
![Page 139: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/139.jpg)
Figure TY-1 Transitional YearMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
4.4
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.9
4.3
3.5
3.9
4.1
4.1
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.3
4.1
4.0
4.3
4.1
4.1
3.8
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.4
3.9
3.9
3.8
4.0
4.1
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.8
4.1
3.6
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
22 73U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 136
![Page 140: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/140.jpg)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
4.1
3.5
4.0
3.4
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.7
3.3
3.1
3.6
3.6
3.9
3.5
2.8
3.5
3.5
3.1
2.9
3.2
3.4
4.0
3.6
3.4
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.8
1.5
2.9
2.2
3.0
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure TY-1 Transitional YearMean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programsby Applicant Type (Cont.)
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
22 73U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 137
![Page 141: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/141.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of clinical training
Faculty commitment to resident education
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents in program
Housestaff morale
Quality of educational curriculum
Geographic location
Appropriate balance between faculty supervision andresident management responsibility for patient care
Work/life balance
Diversity of patient problems
Program director qualities
Academic reputation of program
Quality of conference/didactic training
Quality of hospital facility
Academic setting
Career paths of recent program graduates
Size of patient caseload
Preparation for fellowship training
Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interests
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
59.1%
50.0%
40.9%
27.3%
22.7%
50.0%
50.0%
27.3%
45.5%
40.9%
18.2%
59.1%
31.8%
54.5%
45.5%
36.4%
36.4%
31.8%
54.5%
27.3%
50.7%
37.0%
38.4%
42.5%
30.1%
43.8%
52.1%
38.4%
32.9%
37.0%
24.7%
61.6%
31.5%
49.3%
47.9%
30.1%
28.8%
31.5%
39.7%
27.4%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure TY-2 Transitional YearPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
22 73U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 138
![Page 142: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/142.jpg)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Future fellowship training opportunities with institution
Social and recreational opportunities of the area
Quality of ancillary support staff
Board pass rates
Call schedule
Cost of living
Size of program
Opportunity to conduct research
Availability of electronic health records
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic location
Opportunities for training in systems-based practice
Vacation/parental/sick leave
Cultural/racial-ethic/gender diversity of institutionalstaff
Community-based setting
Salary
Match violation
H-1B visa sponsorship
Opportunity for international travel
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Other Benefits
45.5%
22.7%
22.7%
18.2%
31.8%
36.4%
40.9%
40.9%
27.3%
31.8%
31.8%
31.8%
36.4%
31.8%
22.7%
18.2%
18.2%
22.7%
13.6%
18.2%
35.6%
26.0%
20.5%
23.3%
32.9%
28.8%
47.9%
28.8%
16.4%
17.8%
9.6%
15.1%
17.8%
28.8%
12.3%
17.8%
4.1%
15.1%
8.2%
12.3%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure TY-2 Transitional YearPercentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selectionby Applicant Type (Cont.)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
22 73U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 139
![Page 143: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/143.jpg)
0% 50% 100%
I ranked programs in the order of my preferences
I ranked programs based on the likelihood ofmatching
I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan
I ranked one or more programs where I applied butdid not interview
95.0%
42.9%
70.0%
90.9%
81.8%
33.3%
25.0%
5.0%
100.0%
15.9%
87.0%
69.4%
97.2%
45.7%
15.5%
8.6%
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
Figure TY-3 Transitional YearPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type
22 73U S SeniorsIndependent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 140
![Page 144: 2010 NRMP Applicant Survey Report...NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 3 *Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Note: Items are presented in descending](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050214/5f5fe37b59b5897f8d6e3e7e/html5/thumbnails/144.jpg)
Figure TY-4 Transitional YearMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
32.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
18.5
2.0 2.0 2.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number ofinterviews offered
Median number ofinterviews attended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
Independent Applicants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
20.0
10.0 8.0 7.0
30.0
8.0 8.0 6.0
Median number ofapplications submitted
Median number of interviewsoffered
Median number of interviewsattended
Median number of programsranked
Matched Not Matched
US Seniors
77
1515
IndNot MatchedMatched
5555
1818
U.Not MatchedMatched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2009 141