Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey...Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred...

Results of the 2017NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type

www.nrmp.org

September 2017

Requests for permission to use these data, as well as questions about the content of this publication or the National Resident Matching Program data and reports, may be directed to

Mei Liang, Director of Research, NRMP, at [email protected]

Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, President and CEO, NRMP, at [email protected].

Suggested CitationNational Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident Matching

Program, Washington, DC. 2017.

Copyright © 2017 National Resident Matching Program, 2121 K Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20037 USA. All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy, and/or distribute any documentation

and/or related images from this publication shall be expressly obtained from the NRMP.

Table of Contents

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

Charts for Individual Specialties Anesthesiology .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Child Neurology ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Dermatology .............................................................................................................................................. 30 Emergency Medicine ................................................................................................................................ 38 Family Medicine ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Internal Medicine ..................................................................................................................................... 54 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics ...................................................................................................................... 62 Interventional Radiology ........................................................................................................................... 70 Neurology .................................................................................................................................................. 78 Neurological Surgery................................................................................................................................. 86 Obstetrics and Gynecology ........................................................................................................................ 94 Orthopaedic Surgery ................................................................................................................................ 102 Otolaryngology ........................................................................................................................................ 110 Pathology ................................................................................................................................................. 118 Pediatrics ................................................................................................................................................. 126 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ..................................................................................................... 134 Plastic Surgery ......................................................................................................................................... 142 Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................ 150

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

Introduction

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2017

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted a survey of all applicants who participated in the 2017 Main Residency Match®. The first Applicant Survey was sent in2008; Subsequent surveys have been conducted in odd yearssince 2009.

The primary purpose of the survey was to elucidate the factorsapplicants weigh in applying to and ranking programs. The survey was fielded during the 18 days between the Rank OrderList Certification Deadline and Match Week so that applicantMatch outcomes would not influence respondents' answers.

The survey was sent to all applicants who certified a rankorder list (ROL) by the Rank Order List Deadline. A very small number of applicants could certify a blank ROL. Between the Rank Order List Certification Deadline and thetime when the matching algorithm was processed, however,some applicants still could be withdrawn from the Match. The responses of those who certified a blank rank order list andthose who were withdrawn from the Match were not includedin this report.

This report presents survey results by preferred specialty andapplicant type. Preferred specialty is defined as the specialtylisted first on an applicant's ROL. Because preliminarypositions provide only one or two years of prerequisitetraining for entry into advanced specialty training, anapplicant ranking a preliminary position first is treated as nothaving a preferred specialty. Two applicant types arepresented in this report: U.S. allopathic medical school seniors ("U.S. seniors") and independent applicants. Independent applicants include allopathic medical school graduates, U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen students and graduates ofinternational medical schools, students and graduates ofschools of osteopathy, students and graduates of Canadianmedical schools, and graduates of Fifth Pathway programs.

Changes from Previous ReportsIn surveys prior to 2015, applicants were asked to indicate factors used in selecting programs for application and to rate the importance of factors used in selecting programs for ranking. Beginning with the 2015 survey, applicants were asked about the factors that influenced both application and ranking choices and the relative importance of each of those factors.

Additional attributes were introduced in the 2017 survey. "Future job opportunities for myself," "job opportunities formy spouse/significant other," and "schools for my children inthe area" were added to the list of factors used in selecting

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

ResultsOverall, desired geographic location, perceived goodness of fit, and reputation of program topped the list of factors that applicants considered most when applying to programs. When ranking programs, overall goodness of fit, interview day experience, and desired geographic location were the top three considerations. Applicants also valued such factors as career path, future fellowship training opportunities, housestaff morale, and work/life balance. Although there werre commonalities among all applicants, differences were observed among specialties. For example, applicants who preferred Internal Medicine programs were more interested in future fellowship training opportunities, but the opportunity to conduct certain procedures was of greater importance to applicants who preferred Neurological Surgery programs.

The median number of applications submitted by independent applicants was much higher than for U.S. seniors, but U.S. seniors obtained more interviews than did independent applicants. Matched U.S. seniors applied to fewer programs than unmatched U.S. seniors, but the number of applications was similar between matched and unmatched independent applicants. Regardless of applicant type,matched applicants attended more interviews and thus were able to rank more programs than unmatched applicants. Thegreatest number of applications was submitted toDermatology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Plastic Surgery, Neurological Surgery, Radiation Oncology, and Otolaryngology; however, the numbers of interviews obtained and programs ranked in those specialties werecomparable to other specialties.

The NRMP hopes that program directors, medical school officials, and applicants find these data useful as they preparefor and participate in the Match. _________________________The NRMP's data reporting and research activities are guidedby its Data Release and Research Committee. NRMP dataand reports can be found at: www.nrmp.org/match-data/.

1

Yes No Yes No

Anesthesiology 465 568 45.0% 302 488 38.2%Child Neurology 46 59 43.8% 23 49 31.9%

Dermatology 207 257 44.6% 57 117 32.8%Emergency Medicine 789 975 44.7% 262 490 34.8%

Family Medicine 709 784 47.5% 898 1,752 33.9%Internal Medicine 1,442 2,047 41.3% 2,826 3,498 44.7%

Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 169 129 56.7% 45 47 48.9%Interventional Radiology 59 120 33.0% 11 18 37.9%

Neurological Surgery 109 101 51.9% 25 64 28.1%Neurology 203 228 47.1% 276 268 50.7%

Obstetrics and Gynecology 571 595 49.0% 206 258 44.4%Orthopaedic Surgery 367 469 43.9% 45 106 29.8%

Otolaryngology 146 152 49.0% 8 15 34.8%Pathology 118 108 52.2% 196 279 41.3%

Pediatrics 952 950 50.1% 611 704 46.5%Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 121 178 40.5% 109 213 33.9%

Plastic Surgery 77 117 39.7% 7 31 18.4%Psychiatry 446 548 44.9% 466 755 38.2%

Radiation Oncology 85 111 43.4% 10 17 37.0%Radiology-Diagnostic 256 449 36.3% 174 320 35.2%

Surgery-General 524 641 45.0% 222 515 30.1%All Other 131 163 44.6% 53 74 41.7%

No Preferred Specialty 186 598 23.7% 236 256 48.0%Total (All specialties) 8,178 10,347 44.1% 7,068 10,334 40.6%

Response Rate

Independent ApplicantsCompleted Survey Completed Survey

U.S. Seniors

Response Rate

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 2

Response RatesIn the 2017 Applicant Survey, 35,968 electronic surveys were sent, and 15,246 complete or partial responses were received. After excluding respondents who were withdrawn after the Rank Order List Deadline (41), the overall response rate was 42.8 percent for applicants ranking the 20 largest preferred specialties detailed in this report, and 44.1 percent forall respondents. Response rates varied by specialty and applicant type (see table below). Specialties with 50 or fewer responses were excluded from this report.

All Specialties Combined


4

Figure 1

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2017

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

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.24.54.34.54.24.43.74.33.64.14.14.54.13.94.34.23.84.04.14.34.14.14.14.04.13.63.93.83.93.54.23.73.43.63.73.43.43.73.53.93.73.8

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

88%83%82%67%67%63%63%62%56%56%56%55%54%54%54%53%51%50%46%44%40%37%36%35%33%31%31%29%29%27%26%24%23%22%22%21%16%15%14%12%7%6%4%4%

Desired geographic locationPerceived goodness of fit

Reputation of programQuality of residents in program

Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training

Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program

Quality of program directorCost of living

Balance between supervision and responsibility**Career paths of recent program graduates

House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities

Social and recreational opportunities of the areaPreparation for fellowship training

Diversity of patient problemsQuality of hospital facilities

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

Job opportunities for my spouse/significant otherCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location

Future job opportunities for myselfSupport network in the area

Opportunity to perform specific proceduresCultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institution

Call scheduleSize of patient caseload

Quality of ancillary support staffAvailability of electronic health records

Vacation/parental/sick leaveABMS board pass rates

Opportunity for international experienceSalary

Community-based settingQuality of ambulatory care facilities

Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesHaving friends at the program

Opportunity for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours

Schools for my children in the areaOther benefits

Presence of a previous Match violation

Percent Citing Factor Average Rating

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

Figure 1

5NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2017

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.64.24.44.34.64.24.43.84.43.84.24.14.44.33.84.44.24.14.04.14.34.04.34.04.14.03.84.04.04.03.74.33.73.63.84.03.53.74.13.74.24.14.04.2

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

63%56%57%54%49%51%48%52%45%45%40%46%42%37%49%30%43%45%46%36%39%22%30%26%25%30%37%23%25%23%27%19%30%19%21%34%15%12%21%23%

9%8%5%4%

16%






















Presence of a previous Match violationH-1B visa sponsorship

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor


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

Figure 2


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.64.64.34.54.44.64.64.34.44.24.24.43.83.84.24.33.84.14.14.24.54.24.23.94.24.23.73.94.13.43.94.13.83.63.83.93.53.73.94.13.93.73.9

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

88%80%75%74%70%63%63%61%61%59%52%47%47%45%45%44%42%42%41%41%40%36%32%30%29%28%28%28%27%23%22%19%19%19%18%18%13%12%12%11%

7%5%4%3%3%

Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience

Desired geographic locationQuality of residents in program

Reputation of programQuality of faculty

Quality of program directorHouse staff morale

Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance

Academic medical center programCareer paths of recent program graduates

Balance between supervision and responsibility**Preparation for fellowship training

Size of programCost of living

Future fellowship training opportunitiesDiversity of patient problems

Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area


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

Support network in the areaSize of patient caseload

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

Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff

Opportunity to perform specific proceduresSalary

Availability of electronic health recordsABMS board pass rates

Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave

Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesCommunity-based setting


Opportunity for training in systems-based practiceSchools for my children in the area

Presence of a previous Match violationAlternative duty hours in program

Other benefits



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

Figure 2


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.64.44.54.34.54.54.54.64.34.44.24.34.43.93.94.44.34.24.04.24.24.44.44.24.14.14.13.94.14.23.84.14.33.93.84.14.13.73.94.24.44.13.94.14.4

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

67%65%53%53%50%50%46%36%47%41%39%34%37%39%35%31%42%35%40%23%29%33%20%23%21%22%23%26%19%19%22%18%20%27%13%13%12%21%

8%15%15%

7%4%6%3%

13%























Other benefitsH-1B visa sponsorship



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

All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

Figure 3


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

I ranked the programs in order of my preferences

I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend

I ranked all programs at which I interviewed

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

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

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

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

94%

77%

71%

23%

49%

4%

2%

77%

52%

69%

14%

21%

12%

4%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

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

Figure 4

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


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Median number ofapplications submitted

Median number ofinterviews offered

Median number ofinterviews attended

Median number ofprograms ranked

35

1612 12

54

6 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100

Median number ofapplications submitted




83

9 8 8

80

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors

Independent Applicants

Figure 5All SpecialtiesLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not MatchBy Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


1 2 3 4 5

Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty

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

Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year

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

Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year

Not participate in SOAP and re-enter the Match nextyear

Pursue non-clinical training

Pursue another graduate degree

Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.

4.4

3.3

3.1

2.6

2.1

2.0

1.8

1.7

1.1

4.5

3.9

3.0

3.1

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5






Not participate in SOAP and re-enter the Match nextyear

Pursue another graduate degree



4.5

3.4

3.3

3.0

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.7

4.5

3.7

3.6

3.4

2.1

1.8

2.0

2.0

1.8

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors


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

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


†Self-reported data

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

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

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

Figure 7All SpecialtiesApplications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks in Preferred Specialty†

By Preferred Specialty

Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants

Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants



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

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

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

Figure 7All SpecialtiesApplicants' First Choice Specialty†

By Specialty (Cont'd)


Number of Interviews Attended by Applicants

Number of Programs Ranked by Applicants


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

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

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

Anesthesiology


Figure AN-1


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

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.64.34.54.44.54.34.43.54.33.74.04.24.54.24.04.44.13.93.83.84.44.14.44.14.04.13.73.93.83.93.64.33.53.63.53.63.53.63.73.64.04.33.8

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

90%82%86%63%71%64%72%61%58%59%62%54%56%54%67%56%63%46%47%39%34%35%30%51%32%33%25%35%30%23%29%23%28%22%27%6%6%

32%15%12%14%9%4%

12%























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


Figure AN-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.34.64.24.44.34.54.34.43.64.43.84.14.14.54.24.04.34.24.03.83.84.33.94.44.04.14.13.83.93.83.83.74.43.73.73.53.83.63.83.93.84.33.93.84.2

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

70%58%65%54%55%51%56%55%44%47%47%46%46%42%53%32%46%38%49%31%29%28%21%32%25%35%23%32%24%21%23%18%30%17%24%13%

7%23%16%17%13%11%

5%6%

11%























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


Figure AN-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.84.54.64.54.44.44.44.64.54.44.54.34.14.43.73.94.34.13.94.24.03.94.64.44.24.04.24.03.73.94.03.63.94.23.53.73.83.03.53.84.14.53.93.74.4

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

88%80%77%70%80%58%62%62%62%68%54%51%43%58%47%50%57%37%43%41%35%27%32%44%27%26%23%21%33%19%21%24%19%24%16%19%

4%3%

28%10%

5%6%9%6%2%























Other benefits

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


Figure AN-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.74.54.44.54.34.44.54.64.54.44.34.24.24.43.83.94.34.14.13.93.94.04.64.34.13.94.03.83.94.04.23.93.84.43.63.84.03.53.84.13.94.54.33.83.94.4

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

71%64%61%53%57%48%50%42%49%47%46%38%34%43%39%36%46%29%40%28%23%24%21%30%23%22%17%17%31%16%24%20%20%26%12%16%

5%5%

17%11%10%

8%5%8%3%

10%
























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


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

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




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


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


94%

79%

69%

24%

52%

6%

1%

80%

60%

63%

18%

28%

12%

6%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Median number ofapplication submitted




35

1713 12

31

9 9 9

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





60

10 8 8

46

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure AN-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5






Re-enter the Match next year


Pursue a graduate degree


4.6

3.9

2.6

2.7

2.0

1.8

1.8

1.6

1.1

4.5

3.5

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

2.5

3.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.7

3.8

2.8

2.9

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.5

1.5

4.4

3.9

2.9

3.6

2.2

1.8

1.9

1.8

1.8

Matched Not Matched



Child Neurology (Neurology)


Figure CN-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.84.24.74.74.74.14.43.94.33.73.94.24.44.23.94.24.14.04.24.04.33.94.04.14.04.03.73.93.54.13.64.03.23.33.03.62.73.13.33.03.43.0

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

93%91%91%71%82%71%56%80%73%62%69%64%44%60%58%60%58%60%69%49%49%38%40%49%38%4%

29%31%36%36%27%18%11%33%24%7%

22%9%

18%9%7%

11%2%0%























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


Figure CN-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.14.84.14.44.74.84.54.53.94.73.74.24.04.54.34.14.54.44.44.14.44.04.44.34.04.14.44.24.14.03.63.64.23.23.43.84.34.03.74.02.85.03.5

3.0

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

57%60%66%53%62%66%55%68%55%51%42%53%42%47%49%34%43%58%57%38%62%

9%26%26%30%26%36%26%34%17%32%21%17%28%17%11%13%

9%13%25%

9%4%8%0%6%























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


Figure CN-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.54.64.74.24.74.74.54.64.24.63.94.24.34.13.74.24.24.14.03.94.24.43.94.14.23.94.13.93.64.03.14.14.23.23.34.13.03.03.3

4.05.04.02.7

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

90%83%81%81%88%79%71%69%71%67%57%43%62%55%64%69%43%71%62%50%48%43%40%45%38%43%36%26%33%29%

2%33%19%12%21%14%19%

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























Other benefits

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


Figure CN-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.74.54.54.74.24.44.64.64.64.34.44.14.44.54.23.94.14.64.54.34.24.55.04.54.84.14.14.54.04.04.33.53.93.74.03.64.14.54.04.04.5

4.0

3.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

71%61%47%51%67%65%53%47%59%49%61%35%27%35%43%29%35%43%49%31%33%47%21%11%18%29%24%29%22%18%12%16%22%12%16%16%14%

8%6%6%

16%0%0%4%0%4%
























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


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

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








100%

74%

67%

33%

64%

0%

0%

79%

47%

47%

21%

16%

11%

0%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





24

17

12 12

30 30

15 15

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





32

10 9 7

70

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure CN-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.3

3.3

3.5

3.0

2.3

2.3

1.8

1.7

1.2

5.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.4

4.4

2.9

1.2

1.8

1.3

1.6

2.0

5.0

3.8

4.7

4.0

2.8

1.3

2.6

2.8

2.0

Matched Not Matched



Dermatology


Figure DM-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.64.14.44.44.54.24.53.64.33.64.04.04.53.84.04.14.43.83.94.14.34.04.04.03.83.93.53.43.83.83.73.82.93.73.53.82.83.53.53.43.23.65.0

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

78%68%71%53%52%47%59%62%55%51%45%41%43%43%35%39%30%35%28%34%39%31%28%30%24%26%24%21%20%24%16%13%7%9%

12%10%19%5%

13%7%4%7%4%2%























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


Figure DM-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.34.74.14.44.34.64.34.53.74.43.44.34.14.54.13.84.14.24.04.14.14.44.04.44.34.13.83.84.34.03.63.74.64.03.43.94.34.03.93.93.64.54.03.85.0

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

69%58%63%61%47%45%57%68%39%51%35%40%26%48%30%32%30%38%37%29%38%29%29%33%25%28%25%25%20%23%17%18%14%13%13%12%17%

7%18%15%

7%10%

4%5%2%























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


Figure DM-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.84.54.54.54.34.64.44.64.64.34.43.94.14.33.73.43.84.33.74.03.84.04.44.24.13.74.34.33.33.94.03.53.83.83.53.53.63.13.33.54.63.73.33.84.0

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

80%70%73%67%66%72%58%57%59%52%49%40%43%26%50%37%28%42%25%37%34%35%33%21%27%19%27%25%22%23%19%11%12%

8%12%10%24%

4%6%

10%3%7%2%2%1%























Other benefits

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


Figure DM-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.84.64.34.54.14.54.54.74.84.04.54.34.34.54.13.84.24.54.04.04.34.14.14.14.04.13.94.33.54.24.34.14.04.63.84.04.25.03.83.54.44.04.55.05.05.0

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

67%67%57%55%50%61%40%41%35%34%35%23%26%22%29%26%23%22%27%25%22%29%20%29%17%13%20%17%14%14%20%12%11%15%

5%5%

15%2%5%

15%10%

4%4%1%1%1%
























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


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

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








92%

74%

86%

23%

30%

7%

2%

71%

61%

73%

10%

12%

16%

8%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





92

10 9 9

90

5 5 5

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





59

5 5 5

69

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure DM-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.0

3.6

3.5

2.2

1.7

2.4

1.9

1.4

1.1

4.4

3.6

3.3

2.6

1.5

2.4

1.7

1.7

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.3

2.0

3.9

1.6

1.9

2.1

1.6

1.4

1.3

4.6

3.7

3.8

2.2

2.3

2.2

1.7

1.6

1.5

Matched Not Matched



Emergency Medicine


Figure EM-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.74.14.53.94.54.34.43.44.43.74.14.04.53.54.13.94.33.73.93.84.44.14.14.24.04.13.54.03.83.93.44.23.73.33.63.53.43.53.53.54.24.03.9

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

90%83%80%68%50%61%70%62%42%60%61%53%46%49%38%61%28%56%46%45%20%38%40%40%34%41%31%11%26%31%20%22%10%27%21%25%5%

25%15%9%7%7%5%6%























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


Figure EM-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.44.74.04.54.04.64.34.43.64.43.84.23.94.43.73.93.94.33.93.83.84.44.14.14.14.24.23.63.93.93.93.64.33.73.43.73.63.43.43.93.73.74.14.03.7

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

81%74%64%66%39%54%58%59%42%51%42%51%35%46%35%40%25%50%51%37%17%29%26%27%33%42%22%15%30%29%25%20%19%26%25%25%

6%23%19%14%

9%7%5%3%2%























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


Figure EM-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.54.64.64.14.44.44.54.54.43.94.04.24.03.53.83.64.33.64.24.04.04.54.24.23.94.24.13.63.94.13.43.74.03.93.53.63.73.43.73.64.24.03.63.8

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

89%79%78%76%69%65%70%54%59%67%37%38%44%22%31%47%27%46%41%46%41%18%36%30%28%22%30%28%10%26%28%19%13%

7%23%16%

4%14%19%10%

5%6%4%5%4%























Other benefits

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


Figure EM-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.84.54.64.64.14.44.54.54.64.44.03.94.34.13.83.73.94.33.93.93.94.14.44.24.24.14.14.23.83.94.33.54.04.33.93.73.84.03.63.43.94.53.84.04.14.2

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

79%70%69%64%52%59%53%46%48%53%29%27%41%19%31%38%23%38%41%34%26%12%28%26%30%20%20%17%11%24%32%20%16%15%19%14%

6%15%17%11%

8%3%3%3%4%2%
























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


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

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








94%

75%

83%

23%

44%

3%

1%

87%

68%

81%

24%

34%

8%

7%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





41

1713 13

60

6 5 5

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





57

11 10 9

67

4 4 4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure EM-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.5

2.7

3.1

2.2

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.2

4.6

4.0

2.6

3.6

2.2

1.8

1.5

1.5

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.7

2.2

3.3

1.6

1.7

1.4

1.4

1.6

4.6

3.6

2.8

3.8

1.9

1.5

1.6

1.5

1.3

Matched Not Matched



Family Medicine


Figure FM-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.84.04.63.44.64.44.53.54.43.64.03.84.53.64.03.94.23.84.23.74.34.34.14.34.24.13.63.73.93.93.64.13.83.43.93.93.53.53.73.54.04.04.0

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

90%88%73%74%37%69%69%68%47%62%52%55%49%52%25%55%21%51%48%60%13%42%46%32%34%54%44%34%22%27%32%29%27%33%25%67%43%21%13%20%9%7%9%4%























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


Figure FM-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.44.74.14.54.04.64.34.53.84.53.84.23.94.54.03.94.24.24.14.23.94.24.14.24.14.24.13.84.04.24.13.84.43.83.74.14.03.63.84.13.84.04.13.84.4

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

66%61%49%55%31%50%52%52%42%45%42%47%33%38%27%31%21%44%43%42%19%23%31%27%26%38%36%23%22%21%26%21%23%25%25%53%22%17%17%23%

9%10%

8%4%9%























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


Figure FM-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.64.64.64.24.54.54.64.64.43.94.04.24.03.73.83.94.33.84.14.23.84.64.24.33.74.44.33.94.14.13.53.84.13.93.83.94.33.73.93.94.43.83.74.2

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

86%77%75%77%55%67%64%55%63%62%23%38%41%15%32%38%17%40%39%41%51%

9%34%21%30%20%34%34%26%27%41%21%27%20%21%21%32%46%13%10%11%

5%4%4%5%























Other benefits

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


Figure FM-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.84.74.64.64.34.54.54.64.64.44.24.14.44.24.04.04.14.34.24.04.24.14.54.44.44.04.24.24.04.34.33.84.24.34.03.94.24.33.94.04.24.54.04.14.24.7

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

71%66%57%54%40%53%46%37%46%45%23%24%36%17%29%31%19%34%39%23%35%15%22%24%22%19%25%25%19%19%31%21%17%20%17%15%19%37%11%13%16%

9%3%6%5%6%
























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


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

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








94%

79%

56%

14%

37%

3%

1%

77%

56%

67%

10%

16%

16%

4%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





21

1612 11

30

7 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





55

9 8 7

79

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure FM-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

2.9

2.5

2.3

2.1

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.2

4.5

3.8

2.3

3.4

1.8

1.6

2.3

2.1

1.6

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.7

3.5

2.8

3.2

1.9

1.5

1.8

1.4

1.6

4.6

3.7

3.3

3.7

2.4

1.6

2.2

1.8

1.8

Matched Not Matched



Internal Medicine


Figure IM-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.34.54.64.64.24.43.64.33.64.04.24.54.53.94.54.33.84.04.24.34.14.24.13.74.13.63.73.94.03.44.23.83.33.43.73.23.53.73.63.93.53.5

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

87%82%87%67%83%64%61%60%46%57%53%57%62%59%74%47%68%57%46%45%55%35%38%37%31%23%34%26%24%33%37%23%32%17%21%13%18%13%14%15%8%4%4%4%























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


Figure IM-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.24.54.24.34.44.64.24.43.84.43.84.24.24.44.43.84.44.24.24.04.24.34.04.34.04.14.03.84.04.14.13.74.33.73.73.84.13.53.84.13.74.24.14.04.2

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

59%50%58%53%52%50%46%50%44%44%39%47%45%35%60%27%51%48%46%35%47%20%31%26%23%29%41%22%24%24%32%17%38%15%20%37%17%

9%27%26%10%

6%4%5%

22%























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


Figure IM-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.84.54.64.64.44.44.34.64.64.34.64.34.24.53.73.74.54.33.94.14.14.34.54.24.23.84.24.23.63.93.83.44.04.13.83.63.93.73.43.53.94.04.03.83.6

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

86%78%73%72%76%59%63%66%62%55%70%55%48%62%37%41%61%45%43%36%39%50%29%31%27%23%29%29%25%26%15%18%26%28%15%16%13%

6%9%

11%10%

3%3%4%3%























Other benefits

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


Figure IM-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.74.64.34.44.44.44.54.54.64.24.54.34.34.53.93.94.54.34.34.04.24.34.44.44.24.14.14.13.94.24.23.84.24.34.03.94.24.03.74.04.24.34.14.04.14.4

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

63%64%49%49%52%47%45%34%47%39%43%37%37%47%35%30%53%37%41%21%28%41%16%21%20%21%24%28%17%19%21%16%25%34%10%13%13%23%

6%19%19%

6%4%6%2%

18%
























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


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

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








94%

75%

66%

24%

54%

2%

1%

75%

44%

70%

12%

18%

11%

3%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





30

1512 12

54

4 3 3

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100

120





118

9 8 8

100

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure IM-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

2.9

3.2

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.8

1.1

4.9

3.9

3.2

4.0

2.8

2.1

2.0

2.1

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.3

3.6

2.9

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.9

1.8

4.5

3.6

3.8

3.4

2.1

1.9

2.0

2.1

1.9

Matched Not Matched



Internal Medicine/Pediatrics


Figure MP-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.74.24.64.54.64.34.53.64.53.73.93.94.74.03.94.24.44.04.13.84.24.34.14.13.64.43.33.73.94.13.53.93.93.23.33.93.23.73.73.44.23.34.4

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

91%87%83%66%72%66%63%54%59%60%57%49%56%50%43%62%37%61%45%48%27%38%49%25%34%13%34%18%20%21%32%25%30%29%20%12%29%10%18%15%7%5%5%3%























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


Figure MP-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.34.64.14.44.34.64.24.43.64.43.94.24.24.44.13.74.34.44.24.03.84.14.03.94.03.94.13.64.04.13.83.64.23.93.44.13.93.33.43.83.72.04.73.84.4

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

67%63%54%61%50%57%51%54%51%56%47%51%46%51%39%35%34%51%42%44%32%22%36%24%29%34%44%22%30%27%39%28%31%30%22%33%21%17%18%20%10%

2%3%5%5%























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


Figure MP-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.64.44.64.24.44.54.64.64.34.43.94.04.43.53.64.04.33.84.24.24.04.33.94.23.84.24.23.53.93.53.24.04.04.03.53.93.33.13.44.03.63.52.73.8

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

95%91%79%84%67%65%79%75%66%65%67%45%48%36%52%48%33%57%51%46%48%23%33%27%33%30%45%42%14%22%13%18%25%21%31%26%31%

6%10%12%

8%6%1%2%4%























Other benefits

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


Figure MP-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.94.64.34.64.14.54.44.54.64.04.44.14.14.23.73.94.14.54.33.53.93.94.24.44.23.84.04.23.74.04.03.44.04.24.33.74.04.03.33.53.85.04.53.94.04.7

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

77%68%60%64%41%57%61%49%54%47%49%39%39%35%45%40%39%40%44%33%43%23%28%26%28%31%31%32%19%22%23%22%32%29%22%19%24%23%10%18%10%

2%3%8%5%3%
























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


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

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








96%

80%

70%

30%

60%

2%

1%

86%

64%

64%

31%

36%

10%

2%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





28

19

13 1316

6 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





40

11 9 9

85

1 1 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure MP-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.1

2.9

3.7

2.2

2.0

1.5

1.7

1.1

3.7

2.5

2.7

2.8

1.5

2.0

1.7

1.8

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.5

2.7

4.0

1.7

1.4

2.1

1.3

1.4

4.6

3.2

3.0

3.5

2.3

2.8

1.8

1.8

2.2

Matched Not Matched



Interventional Radiology (Integrated)


Figure IR-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.84.34.64.54.54.24.63.64.73.74.04.14.54.44.14.44.34.14.04.24.14.24.14.24.34.33.34.13.94.33.54.43.43.83.04.33.74.03.83.03.93.53.0

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

95%79%84%60%70%54%60%58%49%51%63%54%54%56%56%56%58%44%56%35%53%42%35%51%30%53%21%35%40%21%25%23%16%14%23%2%5%

42%11%11%9%

14%7%2%























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


Figure IR-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.04.34.14.04.25.04.64.83.34.33.84.34.04.34.84.24.74.55.03.74.04.54.03.73.04.25.05.03.8

4.03.0

4.01.0

4.01.5

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

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

0%0%

20%10%

0%30%10%

0%10%20%

0%0%0%0%0%0%























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


Figure IR-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.84.54.74.54.44.64.54.54.54.24.44.04.44.23.83.84.34.44.03.83.84.24.24.44.24.24.44.73.24.24.53.54.34.43.53.44.84.53.44.03.53.82.04.5

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

82%75%80%59%75%52%57%50%55%52%61%36%41%43%38%46%41%32%39%38%29%45%30%34%23%21%20%18%32%20%43%23%

7%20%

7%16%

7%4%

34%13%

7%11%

4%4%0%























Other benefits

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


Figure IR-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.85.04.24.34.34.24.44.74.84.34.04.53.34.54.33.54.04.34.04.03.53.83.54.03.04.04.0

3.03.04.24.04.0

3.0

2.03.5

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

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

0%20%10%60%20%10%

0%0%

20%0%

10%20%

0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
























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


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

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








93%

80%

48%

50%

54%

7%

11%

90%

70%

40%

30%

20%

0%

20%



Figure IR-4Interventional Radiology (Integrated)Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





33

1511 10

30

8 8 8

Matched Not Matched

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45





36

9 8 8

45

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure IR-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










3.9

4.0

2.9

3.0

2.0

2.4

1.8

1.4

1.3

4.5

3.7

2.5

2.6

1.7

1.4

1.3

1.6

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.8

3.6

2.2

3.3

1.2

1.8

1.0

1.4

2.0

3.8

2.4

2.8

2.2

1.6

1.8

1.0

2.0

1.3

Matched Not Matched



Neurology


Figure NE-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.64.34.54.74.64.34.63.74.43.64.14.14.54.23.94.34.24.04.24.34.34.04.24.03.84.03.73.83.74.03.54.13.63.23.13.73.13.43.53.73.93.54.7

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

88%82%88%68%77%71%63%67%67%59%60%57%59%49%66%51%57%53%52%54%49%43%36%38%30%9%

29%37%33%28%30%24%17%15%23%8%

19%6%

11%12%7%5%1%3%























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


Figure NE-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.14.54.24.34.64.54.14.53.84.43.84.34.14.34.33.84.44.24.14.14.14.24.04.34.04.23.93.94.04.04.13.94.43.73.63.63.93.43.64.13.84.33.94.24.0

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

61%50%65%55%62%55%43%62%47%46%45%48%45%38%57%32%51%45%48%36%54%25%29%27%22%24%35%29%27%21%28%17%22%17%20%16%13%

9%21%24%10%

9%4%5%

18%























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


Figure NE-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.64.54.74.34.64.44.54.74.44.74.34.14.44.03.84.24.44.03.94.34.34.44.24.13.84.24.13.83.83.83.43.84.53.43.63.83.43.43.43.83.63.54.84.0

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

91%86%80%76%75%73%76%69%63%59%65%55%48%56%53%51%61%55%53%43%53%50%39%44%29%41%31%30%40%25%

8%19%22%12%19%21%13%

4%5%9%4%4%2%3%3%























Other benefits

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


Figure NE-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.74.64.34.44.54.54.54.44.64.44.64.44.44.53.93.84.44.34.33.94.24.34.34.24.14.14.24.14.04.14.23.84.14.34.03.84.14.13.23.84.14.64.43.84.44.3

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

68%68%50%55%58%58%50%37%53%38%54%37%39%45%40%36%51%36%44%27%33%46%24%26%22%24%24%29%26%15%19%17%19%23%10%12%12%

6%5%

16%18%10%

5%6%4%

15%
























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


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

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








96%

84%

70%

23%

53%

2%

2%

78%

50%

76%

20%

25%

9%

3%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





24

1612 11

15

5 4 4

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





80

10 8 8

67

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure NE-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.9

3.3

2.4

2.4

1.9

2.0

1.9

1.2

5.0

4.7

3.3

3.3

2.7

1.3

1.0

1.3

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.9

3.6

2.9

2.0

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.6

4.4

4.2

3.9

3.3

2.0

2.0

2.2

2.4

1.8

Matched Not Matched



Neurological Surgery


Figure NS-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.14.84.34.54.54.53.84.63.94.43.34.24.04.54.03.54.23.93.84.14.34.23.94.23.74.34.03.74.33.73.83.54.33.54.03.23.34.03.33.84.04.84.54.0

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

78%83%89%76%75%60%39%78%78%66%49%62%68%63%45%42%53%31%54%47%67%29%25%47%23%55%20%30%56%43%22%13%7%

22%7%5%3%9%

14%10%3%4%2%5%























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


Figure NS-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

3.64.64.44.34.64.63.94.34.04.33.64.24.04.24.23.34.43.94.34.14.63.83.34.14.24.54.03.44.23.43.65.04.73.63.35.04.34.04.53.83.55.0

4.74.1

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

48%58%69%60%71%48%35%67%63%54%33%52%44%40%46%23%46%40%50%27%67%23%21%36%13%40%27%13%38%19%21%

6%8%

17%8%4%8%4%

10%25%

6%9%0%8%

25%























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


Figure NS-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.84.54.24.64.44.64.44.64.53.84.44.14.44.24.13.34.04.33.93.84.34.44.14.24.34.33.83.93.63.94.44.23.94.43.73.73.83.33.03.34.04.53.82.72.0

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

90%81%67%83%78%76%67%69%57%45%63%54%64%44%75%45%41%31%51%37%45%56%34%37%19%63%19%20%31%34%42%

6%15%

7%23%

7%4%4%6%

12%5%4%4%3%1%























Other benefits

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


Figure NS-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.84.64.04.54.44.74.44.44.54.04.74.14.54.24.13.64.24.34.23.44.04.64.34.03.44.44.04.33.53.64.5

4.85.04.04.03.55.04.05.04.65.04.04.0

4.6100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

61%59%37%55%59%57%39%39%41%24%55%35%33%41%41%16%31%20%43%18%33%55%13%17%12%35%12%14%10%10%31%

2%8%6%4%6%4%2%8%4%

10%9%2%2%0%

20%
























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


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

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








93%

77%

76%

25%

47%

9%

7%

74%

61%

74%

22%

22%

17%

9%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





65

27

18 17

71

11 11 11

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





95

8 7 7

34

1 1 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure NS-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.2

3.2

3.4

2.6

2.2

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

3.8

3.8

3.1

3.0

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.4

1.5

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.7

2.2

3.8

2.4

2.1

1.8

1.6

1.3

1.4

4.4

3.0

3.4

2.8

2.6

2.7

2.1

2.4

1.6

Matched Not Matched



Obstetrics and Gynecology


Figure OB-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.74.14.54.24.64.24.53.84.33.64.14.14.54.04.04.34.33.83.94.24.44.24.04.24.04.13.64.03.73.93.44.33.63.33.33.63.33.53.63.04.03.84.2

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

89%81%82%65%77%63%57%53%67%48%53%52%55%48%66%55%59%55%34%41%42%40%45%27%41%41%40%29%24%20%22%25%22%30%18%31%10%3%

12%10%4%4%2%5%























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


Figure OB-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.34.64.14.53.94.64.24.43.84.43.94.24.04.44.13.64.34.34.03.74.04.33.94.14.14.34.03.74.13.83.63.54.43.73.53.73.73.43.73.93.14.14.24.24.4

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

69%61%53%58%44%51%40%46%48%44%34%44%40%39%39%28%34%42%44%29%32%29%27%20%27%35%31%23%26%19%22%19%23%21%20%44%11%

5%13%17%

4%6%7%6%

11%























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


Figure OB-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.74.54.64.24.44.44.64.64.24.44.24.24.33.83.74.14.33.64.04.04.24.54.24.23.94.24.23.73.94.23.33.94.33.63.53.63.63.23.94.04.24.33.83.6

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

92%87%76%78%67%63%63%63%64%57%58%54%49%53%52%41%51%52%35%43%39%40%36%25%37%24%36%37%31%21%32%15%17%17%23%22%10%13%

3%12%

6%4%3%2%2%























Other benefits

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


Figure OB-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.84.54.44.64.34.54.64.54.64.24.14.24.34.43.93.84.34.44.03.94.24.24.44.24.34.24.14.13.74.04.43.74.04.44.13.64.13.94.04.04.24.54.03.73.84.5

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

72%69%61%61%46%52%46%38%47%36%31%33%37%37%38%25%31%38%41%22%21%27%25%21%27%25%18%21%19%19%28%16%14%22%14%12%

9%27%

2%10%

9%6%6%3%3%7%
























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


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

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








94%

77%

72%

26%

53%

4%

3%

83%

60%

67%

21%

28%

12%

4%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





45

1613 13

46

7 7 8

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





75

10 9 9

60

2 2 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure OB-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.7

3.2

3.0

2.2

2.0

1.7

1.7

1.1

4.6

4.2

3.2

3.6

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.6

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.9

3.1

3.4

1.6

1.7

1.5

1.4

1.7

4.5

3.9

3.2

3.5

1.9

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Orthopaedic Surgery


Figure OS-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.74.24.74.14.54.14.63.64.33.54.34.24.54.03.94.54.03.73.53.94.24.04.24.04.04.03.64.03.83.63.44.53.33.43.23.53.03.53.73.53.73.82.9

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

85%83%84%74%57%59%58%70%59%59%58%61%55%53%43%51%64%30%47%23%52%38%18%32%28%36%18%42%36%27%15%14%9%

20%14%21%16%11%17%7%4%7%2%4%























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


Figure OS-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.34.44.14.33.94.43.94.43.54.43.43.84.24.44.33.64.54.04.03.13.74.23.74.14.04.24.53.24.14.14.13.34.73.23.33.23.33.04.03.63.04.04.85.03.8

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

59%59%52%54%40%43%33%48%29%41%32%38%37%32%37%15%36%25%36%15%36%20%11%16%20%23%16%18%17%20%13%14%14%

7%8%

16%3%5%

16%6%3%2%6%1%

10%























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


Figure OS-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.54.64.74.34.64.44.64.54.24.24.24.34.53.83.84.04.03.73.93.94.04.54.24.04.13.93.93.83.94.33.43.64.43.43.53.53.73.83.63.73.94.03.53.9

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

88%77%70%80%72%72%56%54%56%57%41%45%53%59%45%46%27%23%37%39%21%47%33%29%25%32%11%14%39%21%22%13%

9%7%

15%8%

10%11%

6%13%

5%6%4%3%3%























Other benefits

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


Figure OS-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.74.64.54.54.44.44.44.44.34.24.34.24.34.33.84.04.24.44.44.13.64.14.34.14.34.23.84.63.53.84.43.73.64.43.43.64.03.83.34.03.34.5

4.04.53.6

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

65%58%56%57%51%61%48%32%36%31%33%35%29%39%19%25%32%15%31%19%10%35%20%18%17%21%14%12%14%18%19%10%11%14%

8%11%

2%11%

4%8%

10%5%0%2%2%

11%
























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


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

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








90%

69%

89%

15%

29%

6%

3%

76%

67%

74%

24%

19%

17%

7%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





81

1712 12

88

6 6 7

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





91

3 3 3

95

2 2 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure OS-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










3.7

3.5

3.6

2.7

2.1

2.5

1.8

1.4

1.1

3.6

3.9

3.2

2.8

1.9

2.5

1.5

1.4

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










3.7

3.3

2.4

2.8

1.5

1.9

1.4

1.0

1.9

4.2

3.2

2.9

2.7

2.2

1.7

1.7

1.6

1.8

Matched Not Matched



Otolaryngology


Figure OT-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.74.14.64.54.53.94.63.94.33.54.23.94.43.93.64.33.93.63.44.04.24.03.93.84.04.33.74.13.43.43.24.33.22.93.73.42.53.23.32.74.33.23.0

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

83%88%90%72%77%68%56%77%82%59%54%66%66%57%46%51%61%47%39%26%61%35%31%30%33%47%23%39%46%26%14%13%12%32%15%6%

15%1%

12%11%2%5%3%2%























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


Figure OT-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

3.84.83.94.14.24.34.04.43.64.33.04.34.14.44.53.34.54.03.93.74.24.04.3

3.24.34.43.83.74.34.33.53.83.42.7

3.73.03.04.05.05.05.03.54.5

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

70%85%90%85%75%70%55%90%80%45%35%55%75%60%55%50%80%40%45%30%80%50%20%

0%30%55%25%30%35%20%15%10%30%40%15%

5%15%

5%15%25%10%13%

5%15%10%























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


Figure OT-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.64.34.64.34.64.34.64.64.04.54.34.44.44.03.44.04.03.63.83.74.24.44.04.14.34.04.13.53.44.23.13.44.23.63.63.44.42.73.53.73.93.61.03.4

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

93%87%77%85%76%85%61%61%60%59%54%47%59%50%63%46%33%39%39%44%21%52%32%19%24%42%30%23%51%21%34%

9%11%12%24%12%

8%5%2%9%2%6%4%1%4%























Other benefits

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


Figure OT-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.94.64.04.54.34.64.34.74.74.54.44.34.54.64.13.34.44.33.64.03.64.54.34.03.44.04.05.04.03.54.53.54.04.33.32.75.04.0

3.3

5.05.04.0

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

95%68%58%74%53%63%53%47%53%42%58%42%42%63%63%21%37%16%42%21%26%53%38%13%26%21%21%16%16%11%21%11%21%16%32%16%

5%5%0%

16%0%

13%5%5%0%5%
























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


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

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








95%

76%

82%

13%

31%

3%

2%

75%

75%

75%

0%

13%

0%

0%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





62

1914 14

67

7 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





85

14 14 14

67

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure OT-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.1

3.3

3.6

2.9

2.5

2.5

1.7

1.5

1.0

4.5

3.5

4.0

2.3

2.0

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.8

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










5.0

3.5

2.3

4.5

1.3

2.0

2.3

1.5

1.5

4.8

4.8

4.3

4.7

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched



Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical


Figure PA-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.64.34.54.64.54.34.43.84.13.74.14.04.44.43.84.44.14.04.14.34.44.44.43.93.54.03.13.83.83.53.43.93.53.63.23.03.33.44.53.33.83.53.3

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

86%81%87%71%80%74%64%70%66%46%57%50%68%61%86%53%74%35%56%56%69%39%23%46%35%11%18%25%33%36%10%26%15%10%27%5%1%7%

17%4%3%

12%7%3%























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


Figure PA-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.24.54.24.34.54.64.14.43.64.33.84.24.24.44.33.74.44.34.14.04.14.23.74.44.03.83.93.64.14.03.63.74.43.63.73.33.63.53.64.13.44.24.44.14.3

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

62%46%59%49%61%52%48%60%46%39%38%42%47%30%52%24%50%33%42%40%53%29%28%31%22%19%31%18%32%23%13%20%22%12%19%13%

5%7%

14%22%

7%16%

3%4%

19%























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


Figure PA-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.84.74.74.74.64.54.34.64.64.64.54.23.94.43.73.84.44.14.03.94.24.44.44.34.03.74.04.33.24.14.03.33.04.24.03.31.05.03.03.44.04.03.53.03.5

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

87%74%71%68%69%60%37%55%54%49%54%46%24%58%41%36%67%27%40%34%34%50%35%29%22%19%18%14%17%26%

5%21%

1%11%

7%14%

1%1%5%6%3%6%2%1%5%























Other benefits

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


Figure PA-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.64.54.44.34.34.44.34.64.54.24.54.24.44.43.94.04.44.24.34.04.04.24.44.44.14.24.14.13.94.14.13.83.84.43.83.83.74.23.94.04.24.24.33.43.94.4

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

66%63%51%49%54%56%40%29%50%41%50%38%32%47%35%30%47%28%34%18%28%46%26%30%16%26%18%18%14%17%13%20%10%18%

7%15%

4%6%5%8%

16%15%

2%4%4%

16%
























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


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

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








95%

76%

63%

24%

49%

2%

0%

72%

52%

65%

7%

18%

13%

6%



Figure PA-4Pathology-Anatomic and ClinicalPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





2117

11 11

35

8 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





70

7 7 7

57

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PA-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.2

2.3

3.5

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.4

1.8

1.1

5.0

3.0

3.2

1.2

1.2

1.8

2.2

1.6

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

2.8

3.7

2.7

2.2

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.5

4.4

3.1

3.6

2.7

2.5

1.9

1.8

1.9

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Pediatrics


Figure PD-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.74.24.64.44.64.34.43.94.33.64.14.04.64.14.04.44.33.94.14.14.44.24.14.13.74.33.63.93.84.03.64.23.93.43.73.73.03.33.93.43.73.74.0

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

91%86%83%67%73%64%63%59%83%53%57%57%52%57%58%54%57%57%52%51%34%39%40%28%40%19%34%26%34%23%28%31%37%28%28%14%19%8%

15%9%6%5%6%3%























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


Figure PD-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.34.64.24.44.24.64.24.53.84.43.74.14.04.54.23.84.34.24.14.14.14.34.14.34.14.14.13.73.94.03.83.64.33.83.53.83.93.43.74.13.74.33.84.24.2

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

70%63%59%60%54%57%54%53%59%48%42%48%45%40%47%36%49%50%52%45%39%26%34%26%30%28%43%20%29%22%30%24%37%28%25%30%18%

8%20%21%

7%8%5%3%

15%























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


Figure PD-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.64.64.64.34.54.44.74.64.34.54.14.24.44.03.84.14.34.04.14.24.14.64.14.34.04.34.23.63.94.03.44.04.24.03.53.84.03.23.73.94.03.63.53.8

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

89%83%78%75%68%59%62%68%62%60%56%43%48%50%65%45%43%50%48%44%47%29%34%25%37%37%32%32%22%22%10%22%24%26%24%23%15%

8%6%

10%6%3%2%2%4%























Other benefits

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


Figure PD-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.84.64.44.54.34.54.54.64.64.34.44.34.24.54.03.94.34.34.23.94.24.34.54.44.34.14.14.23.74.24.23.74.04.34.03.84.24.03.73.84.14.44.23.93.84.4

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

73%71%59%59%53%52%49%41%55%45%42%37%41%44%49%33%40%40%45%26%37%33%23%21%23%24%25%28%16%21%20%21%22%33%22%16%14%18%

4%14%14%

5%4%5%3%

10%
























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


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

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








94%

81%

72%

26%

55%

3%

1%

84%

58%

63%

14%

28%

9%

3%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





27

1612 12

38

4 3 4

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





66

10 9 8

70

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PD-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.0

3.2

2.5

2.3

2.1

1.8

1.8

1.1

4.8

3.7

3.6

3.1

2.2

1.5

2.3

1.9

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.3

3.2

2.9

1.8

1.9

1.6

1.6

1.8

4.5

3.6

3.5

3.5

2.3

1.8

2.1

2.1

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation


Figure PM-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.84.24.54.24.74.44.53.74.53.74.04.14.54.24.04.34.13.94.13.94.44.34.34.14.14.43.63.74.13.63.44.13.83.43.33.73.13.23.83.74.33.84.5

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

97%85%84%67%57%73%73%60%63%57%57%55%57%52%63%57%61%41%47%54%38%43%35%43%40%47%24%45%20%28%20%28%20%13%24%15%17%13%13%14%10%8%6%6%























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


Figure PM-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.34.84.14.44.34.64.34.53.74.43.64.03.94.44.33.94.34.04.04.14.14.23.94.13.94.24.13.63.73.93.63.34.33.73.33.63.93.43.63.93.54.33.83.83.9

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

71%71%66%59%46%52%60%56%48%55%47%48%47%50%51%38%51%31%49%42%39%24%25%35%31%40%24%41%22%25%21%24%22%14%25%11%13%15%14%16%10%

6%7%5%3%























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


Figure PM-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.64.74.64.24.64.54.54.74.44.34.14.24.33.93.74.14.13.74.14.34.14.54.44.33.44.24.13.64.04.13.33.53.83.43.33.33.73.33.13.94.44.33.84.0

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

89%83%85%71%77%66%69%62%67%67%40%53%48%58%44%48%53%37%46%47%50%37%40%41%39%29%24%22%41%23%40%24%14%17%14%19%19%

5%7%9%8%7%5%5%3%























Other benefits

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


Figure PM-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.84.54.54.44.24.54.54.54.64.44.24.14.14.43.73.74.24.14.04.04.24.04.54.44.33.83.93.93.54.14.13.53.74.33.53.54.03.93.73.64.03.34.03.74.05.0

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

77%72%60%64%66%61%61%48%51%58%36%41%43%47%37%39%44%29%43%31%40%30%21%29%22%26%17%16%36%25%35%19%16%23%

9%16%14%

7%13%11%10%

6%4%6%4%1%
























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


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

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








96%

77%

72%

28%

49%

3%

4%

88%

61%

69%

10%

27%

7%

6%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





33

1713 13

40

7 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50





40

1210 10

48

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PM-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

4.2

3.1

2.8

1.9

1.8

1.8

1.6

1.1

4.7

4.5

2.4

3.1

1.8

1.8

2.1

1.5

1.5

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

4.1

2.5

2.8

1.5

1.8

1.5

1.2

1.4

4.8

4.4

3.1

3.9

1.9

1.4

1.6

1.4

1.8

Matched Not Matched



Plastic Surgery (Integrated)


Figure PS-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.84.34.64.64.64.04.63.94.43.64.44.24.44.14.14.34.04.14.04.24.24.24.23.94.24.13.44.43.63.53.74.33.83.63.73.73.04.03.34.03.64.05.0

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

72%78%85%68%64%64%61%66%47%62%55%59%58%57%46%45%64%39%45%32%49%30%18%36%23%50%19%28%42%24%16%9%

15%42%15%8%

16%4%

11%8%3%7%5%1%























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


Figure PS-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.44.64.34.54.64.43.64.74.14.33.04.64.24.54.03.84.04.03.93.74.9

3.85.04.03.73.83.04.34.04.03.34.53.73.0

4.52.81.0

4.05.0

3.3

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

48%52%62%38%48%48%24%48%43%43%14%38%29%29%19%19%33%24%43%14%33%

0%24%17%10%33%24%

5%38%19%19%19%10%29%14%

0%0%

10%19%

5%0%

17%5%0%

14%























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


Figure PS-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.44.34.74.44.74.64.74.64.14.44.44.64.54.13.74.24.44.04.14.24.14.44.14.04.34.14.43.83.84.23.63.84.53.64.03.93.72.73.74.74.04.05.0

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

88%82%66%80%78%82%61%65%73%62%54%57%64%55%57%53%41%32%36%38%34%53%28%35%24%47%15%15%24%19%41%

7%12%14%41%

3%11%

4%4%

15%4%7%3%1%0%























Other benefits

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


Figure PS-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.84.74.34.24.44.24.04.54.44.64.84.44.74.13.83.53.84.54.63.84.34.45.04.74.04.24.04.02.03.53.33.04.05.03.63.0

2.0

5.0

3.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

68%59%36%64%45%77%36%45%41%23%36%23%27%32%27%18%23%18%32%23%18%36%29%43%

9%27%

9%14%

9%18%18%14%14%

5%23%

5%0%0%0%5%0%

14%0%0%0%9%
























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


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

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








96%

85%

68%

34%

45%

6%

8%

71%

43%

57%

43%

14%

0%

14%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





70

1814 14

72

12 11 9

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





61

10 10 10

56

2 2 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PS-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










3.8

3.1

3.6

3.1

2.1

2.6

1.7

1.6

1.1

4.0

3.4

2.6

3.6

1.7

1.3

1.6

1.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










3.0

4.0

4.0

5.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

4.4

3.4

3.6

3.6

1.8

2.6

2.2

1.6

1.5

Matched Not Matched



Psychiatry


Figure PY-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.74.14.44.34.54.44.43.64.43.94.03.84.43.94.14.14.33.84.14.04.44.24.04.13.64.13.83.63.93.93.74.03.43.53.53.73.73.63.63.44.23.94.3

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

90%83%78%64%62%62%72%62%48%58%64%50%43%53%55%60%42%56%47%55%33%40%45%39%38%6%

38%45%23%27%21%29%10%10%31%19%20%37%13%16%10%10%5%3%























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


Figure PY-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.34.54.24.44.24.54.34.43.74.43.84.24.04.44.13.94.24.34.04.13.94.34.14.24.03.94.13.93.94.13.93.74.23.83.63.83.83.83.74.13.64.04.34.04.2

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

63%61%53%51%44%51%55%54%39%47%42%47%36%37%46%35%34%45%42%39%38%25%37%27%26%13%42%31%23%21%21%21%15%15%24%32%12%20%18%23%10%11%

5%5%

13%























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


Figure PY-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.94.64.74.64.14.44.44.54.54.44.34.04.14.23.74.04.14.33.74.24.34.04.64.24.33.74.34.13.93.94.13.73.84.33.73.83.64.03.93.84.04.53.74.23.9

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

90%85%74%68%68%64%66%55%60%69%47%33%45%34%39%49%39%47%41%42%52%30%34%33%29%21%37%33%42%21%

4%26%14%

7%8%

23%14%12%29%10%

9%7%1%3%4%























Other benefits

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


Figure PY-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.74.64.54.54.34.44.54.54.64.44.34.04.34.23.93.94.14.34.14.14.14.14.24.24.13.94.14.23.94.24.13.84.04.33.73.94.14.13.83.74.24.34.24.04.04.3

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

71%68%54%51%47%51%47%36%46%50%34%29%36%30%29%32%37%40%37%26%33%30%20%25%23%22%28%30%27%18%

9%19%15%12%10%15%10%20%16%12%14%

7%4%6%3%

10%
























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


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

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








94%

80%

71%

21%

49%

4%

0%

72%

53%

70%

12%

18%

15%

5%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





29

1411 10

40

8 7 8

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





60

9 8 7

74

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PY-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.2

3.1

2.3

2.1

2.1

2.0

1.8

1.2

4.6

3.5

3.2

3.1

2.2

1.8

2.1

1.7

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.7

3.5

3.2

2.9

2.0

1.7

1.7

1.4

1.7

4.5

3.5

3.5

3.3

2.4

1.7

2.1

1.9

1.6

Matched Not Matched



Radiation Oncology


Figure RD-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.64.44.34.54.44.44.43.64.34.03.94.44.44.23.94.63.83.73.84.34.33.84.43.93.83.83.43.83.73.63.54.03.83.43.53.63.33.03.53.03.83.04.3

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

87%80%79%62%67%59%57%68%51%56%48%46%60%43%10%50%7%

35%45%39%67%35%24%56%33%27%22%24%33%32%24%20%7%

18%18%4%

13%12%17%6%6%

13%4%6%























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


Figure RD-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.14.54.24.34.54.83.84.74.04.52.44.04.64.44.84.74.84.04.34.74.54.74.54.64.0

3.53.5

4.03.34.0

4.73.52.5

5.0

4.34.05.0

2.05.0

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

71%29%71%50%86%57%36%50%36%50%36%29%36%36%43%21%36%29%21%43%57%33%29%56%21%

0%14%14%

0%21%29%14%

0%21%14%14%

0%7%0%

29%7%

11%0%7%

14%























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


Figure RD-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.84.54.64.64.54.64.44.44.64.34.74.53.93.73.73.83.94.04.04.14.14.34.44.63.63.94.03.63.33.94.03.34.03.83.83.54.24.03.22.94.44.33.32.73.3

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

82%77%77%73%85%80%68%61%52%56%54%68%41%

9%53%47%13%33%34%42%37%67%38%61%30%37%25%23%28%29%29%14%10%10%19%14%13%

1%8%

14%6%9%4%4%4%























Other benefits

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


Figure RD-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.34.55.04.44.74.64.44.24.64.74.74.94.85.03.53.04.73.74.03.33.84.64.04.84.73.84.03.73.73.84.04.54.04.03.53.0

5.05.03.02.05.03.0

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

62%85%38%62%77%69%69%46%38%23%92%69%31%31%15%31%46%23%23%31%31%69%38%50%23%31%23%23%23%38%15%15%15%38%15%

8%0%8%

15%8%8%

25%8%0%0%8%
























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


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

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








92%

76%

77%

27%

54%

0%

3%

100%

75%

88%

13%

50%

13%

13%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





63

1713 13

81

10 10 9

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





56

3 3 3

40

4 4 4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure RD-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.1

3.5

3.2

2.8

1.8

2.4

1.9

1.5

1.1

4.3

3.8

3.3

3.0

3.0

2.0

1.8

1.8

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.0

3.0

3.8

2.0

2.5

2.5

2.0

2.3

1.0

4.0

4.0

3.7

4.0

2.3

2.0

1.3

2.0

3.3

Matched Not Matched



Radiology-Diagnostic


Figure RO-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.74.24.44.34.54.34.53.74.43.84.04.24.54.13.94.44.23.93.93.74.43.94.24.03.84.23.84.03.93.73.84.43.23.43.33.73.63.23.63.54.03.74.3

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

91%78%86%66%67%65%71%64%60%55%65%55%51%51%58%53%58%40%51%37%46%36%28%47%33%33%18%41%36%20%18%29%22%10%29%12%4%

36%14%5%7%

11%4%4%























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


Figure RO-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.44.74.24.34.34.64.34.43.74.43.94.14.34.54.24.04.54.04.13.83.94.53.94.54.04.34.13.74.13.94.03.84.33.63.63.74.13.53.64.13.84.43.83.94.1

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

70%55%65%54%52%53%54%55%50%47%44%46%40%36%52%32%50%34%51%25%37%19%27%26%26%32%27%34%29%17%19%22%26%14%22%18%

6%21%21%19%10%

5%5%5%

16%























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


Figure RO-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.84.54.74.54.44.54.44.64.64.54.44.34.04.43.93.84.24.24.04.13.93.94.64.44.34.24.14.13.83.73.93.43.94.33.73.74.43.63.53.53.64.34.73.84.7

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

82%80%77%69%74%62%63%55%59%65%58%45%38%53%53%48%42%35%47%42%33%38%31%42%27%31%19%16%41%22%20%28%15%26%

8%25%

4%5%

32%11%

5%7%3%6%3%























Other benefits

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


Figure RO-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.74.54.54.44.44.44.44.64.54.44.44.34.24.33.84.04.44.24.14.13.94.14.44.34.24.24.24.13.94.14.23.83.94.23.54.14.13.53.83.74.24.23.83.63.64.4

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

71%71%62%56%57%56%47%38%47%48%45%40%39%47%42%39%44%33%42%30%24%34%21%25%22%26%18%20%29%15%24%21%13%26%10%15%

6%10%18%13%10%

4%4%6%3%

13%
























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


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

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








92%

76%

68%

30%

55%

5%

7%

81%

63%

65%

16%

29%

6%

6%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





40

19

14 14

52

139 9

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





68

12 11 10

59

3 3 5

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure RO-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

4.0

2.9

2.5

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.5

1.1

4.8

4.1

3.2

2.7

1.9

2.5

2.5

1.5

1.3

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.7

3.7

2.8

3.1

1.8

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.6

4.9

4.1

3.4

3.2

1.9

1.6

1.8

1.9

1.9

Matched Not Matched



Surgery-General


Figure SG-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.74.14.54.34.43.94.43.54.33.54.24.44.54.23.84.54.03.73.84.24.34.04.14.03.94.13.44.03.73.63.44.23.63.23.63.73.13.13.73.43.33.43.7

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

87%84%81%64%69%57%46%56%51%53%52%56%64%54%55%51%59%40%36%36%51%27%28%27%32%35%22%17%33%21%19%16%37%22%16%33%4%7%

12%8%3%4%3%5%























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


Figure SG-1



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.14.74.24.54.04.63.94.43.74.43.74.34.34.54.43.64.44.24.13.84.04.34.04.34.04.34.13.74.23.94.13.64.43.83.43.73.93.83.73.83.84.44.14.04.3

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

60%55%56%54%46%48%36%52%47%48%36%45%48%39%46%27%47%35%46%30%43%18%20%27%21%33%29%15%34%24%22%12%29%18%17%35%

8%6%

16%19%

7%5%5%4%

13%























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


Figure SG-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5

4.84.64.44.64.24.54.44.64.54.04.44.44.34.63.63.64.24.13.74.03.84.24.54.34.14.14.14.03.43.74.13.23.84.03.63.33.64.02.93.63.53.94.03.43.8

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

89%82%72%74%67%59%61%62%57%43%56%62%52%55%40%38%38%35%34%38%33%48%26%25%28%29%23%23%16%19%24%14%14%27%17%15%

3%19%

7%9%5%4%7%2%2%























Other benefits

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


Figure SG-2



1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.

4.84.54.34.54.34.54.44.54.54.14.34.34.34.53.93.84.44.34.23.74.14.14.34.54.14.44.04.23.74.04.33.64.04.33.83.74.24.03.83.74.14.03.93.63.84.2

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

60%57%51%53%50%46%45%37%48%28%36%38%38%42%39%27%35%29%42%20%22%35%16%20%18%28%15%21%11%20%25%15%16%28%13%

8%7%

21%4%

10%11%

3%5%3%2%9%
























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


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

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








92%

77%

67%

26%

54%

5%

2%

74%

62%

71%

21%

27%

14%

9%



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





48

1914 14

60

6 5 6

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





75

8 7 6

100

3 3 4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure SG-5

U.S. Seniors


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

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

4.0

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.7

1.2

4.8

4.3

2.9

3.0

1.8

1.4

1.6

1.6

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

4.0

3.1

2.9

1.5

1.7

1.5

1.5

1.5

4.7

4.2

3.3

2.9

1.8

1.8

1.5

2.2

1.6

Matched Not Matched



Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey...Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred...

Documents

Transcript of Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey...Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred...