Reply by Authors.

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyLetters to the Editor/Errata1 Oct 2020Reply by Authorsis a reply to letterRe: COVID-19 and the Urology Match: Perspectives and a Call to Action A. T. Gabrielson, T. P. Kohn, and M. M. Clifton A. T. GabrielsonA. T. Gabrielson More articles by this author , T. P. KohnT. P. Kohn More articles by this author , and M. M. CliftonM. M. Clifton More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001146AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail We thank Warren et al for their thoughtful comments. In addition to the uncertainty that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused, the cancelation of visiting student learning opportunities and in person interviews will certainly exacerbate the tendency for students to apply to an excessive number of residency programs during this cycle. An application cap would cut costs and may reduce the likelihood of applicants applying to geographic regions or programs they may not be truly interested in. To determine a reasonable cap (one that applicants and residency programs can agree on), a rational strategy could involve limiting urology applicants to the average number of applications submitted during this past cycle (72 per applicant), a number that more than 85% of students applying in this upcoming cycle may accept per a recent survey. While implementing a permissive application cap may address many of the aforementioned dilemmas, it is unlikely to be an all-encompassing solution. Just as medical students may feel pressured to apply to more programs, residency programs may similarly feel pressured to increase the number of applicants they interview in order to better assess the applicant class. These applicants may have less exposure to urology and fewer letters of recommendation compared to prior cohorts. If programs follow the recommendations of the Association of American Medical Colleges and use virtual platforms for interviews, applicants can attend, and residency programs can offer, a larger number of interviews than in the past. Thus, if student applications are capped and residency programs increase the number of interview offers, this may lead to a minority of students garnering and retaining a large number of interview positions. Therefore, if application caps are implemented, limits on the number of interviews that residency programs can offer must be put into place as well. Determining an appropriate interview limit for residency programs will be challenging to implement with a one-size-fits-all policy. Strategies could involve limiting the number of interviews based on the number of positions a program offers (eg 60 interviews for a program with 3 positions, 45 interviews for a program with 2 positions etc) or implementing a quota based on how many interviews a program offered the year before. This may require special considerations for smaller programs with 1 position per year. To ensure adherence, there would likely need to be a mandate or statement issued by the Society of Academic Urologists or the American Urological Association. So how does an applicant know which programs they should apply to this cycle? Ultimately there is a need for improved transparency among residency programs and improved access to data driven metrics for applicants to understand the characteristics of candidates that certain programs are matching. Helping students navigate the black box of “Will I be considered for an interview at this program?” will streamline efficiency of the self-selection process and improve future application cycles as well. Before the upcoming application deadline the Johns Hopkins Department of Urology intends to publish 15-year aggregated and anonymized application data (including test score ranges, research activities, number of clerkship honors etc) of applicants who were offered interviews at our institution. We hope this will allow applicants the opportunity to assess their fit with our program and initiate the transparency process for other programs. Lastly, just as residency programs will struggle to gauge student fit with their program, so too will medical students struggle to determine their fit with programs. We strongly recommend that urology departments bolster their virtual and online footprint (ie department websites, social media pages, town hall meetings, video content etc). Programs may consider offering virtual visiting student learning opportunities, allowing students an opportunity to interact with faculty and residents at their institution. Unlike in previous years, when the onus was on applicants to seek out program information and networking opportunities, residency programs must establish new mechanisms of seeking out applicants in the virtual setting. © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesJournal of Urology27 May 2020Re: COVID-19 and the Urology Match: Perspectives and a Call to Action Volume 204Issue 4October 2020Page: 851-852 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information A. T. Gabrielson More articles by this author T. P. Kohn More articles by this author M. M. Clifton More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...