Resident Selection Committees Research Articles

The Selection of a Residency Program

A study was undertaken to investigate factors important to senior medical students, particularly prospective anesthesiology residents, in selecting a residency program. A previously published questionnaire was used to determine whether previous findings could be replicated. One hundred ninety-seven senior medical students rated the importance of 22 items in their selection of a residency program. Factors were ranked nearly identically as in the previous study. Factors rated as most important were "diversity of training experience" as well as "house officer satisfaction," whereas items about treating patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome were rated as least important. There were gender differences that showed women assigned more importance to having a manageable case load, call schedules, and geographic location. Prospective anesthesiology residents perceived "prestige" of the program, and the department as significantly more important than did prospective nonanesthesiology residents. The replication of results with regard to the overall ranking of factors demonstrates the reliability of the results. Resident selection committees need to focus on the issue of quality of training, the impression made by the interviewers, and include satisfied residents as part of the interview process.

Integrity in the National Resident Matching Program

To the Editor. —As chairman of the resident selection committee of a large university anesthesiology residency program, I eagerly awaited this year's match results. As usual, there were several individuals we strongly anticipated matching, who selected different programs. These candidates communicated with our faculty and/or residents by letter or phone expressing strong interest in our program. Most wrote several letters and phoned making statements about their intention to rank our program first on their match list. Each year we are amazed at the manipulative behavior of some of our applicants. They often don't tell the truth. The intensely competitive nature of obtaining postgraduate training may be their justification. Like competing for employment in the business world, they will tell their prospective employer anything just to get the job! The fear and embarrassment of not matching is a compelling motivation. Part of our duty as physician educators is to be role

Computer Facilitation of the Resident Selection Process

A personal computer software system has been designed and implemented to facilitate the numerous complex tasks involved in the resident selection process. The computer tracks the status of each candidate, monitors each application for incomplete documentation, generates personalized correspondence, computes and maintains a scoring system based on evaluation by each Resident Selection Committee member, and provides various data printouts (eg, list of candidates by medical school; persons granted an interview; and ranking lists). Developed with the intent to share with the academic community, the system improves organization and accuracy, and notably decreases time spent by administrative assistants and staff members in the resident selection process.

The Selection of Residents

To the Editor. —Dr McCollister 1 should be more sympathetic to the surgical subspecialty residency selection committees. They have the same problem medical student selection committees have, which is to select the best candidates. Medical schools have available to them numerical college grades, class standing, and results of the Medical College Admission Test as relative quantitative measures of academic performance. Residency selection committees are not as blessed. Most American medical schools provide them with a Pollyannaish dean's letter, which finds complimentary things to say about all students and seldom provides class ranking. The medical school transcript frequently lists grades in terms of pass-fail and few objective relative measures are passed along. Intelligent medical judgment is based, among many factors, on pathophysiological understanding. Thus, a measure of it should be an important criterion in residency selection. In the absence of class standings, numerical grades, and a meaningful dean's letter, scores from

Determining the policies of a residency selection committee.

Determining the policies of a residency selection committee.

Impact of medical school class ranking systems on applicantsʼ ratings for residency positions

The systems used by the medical schools for evaluation of 106 applicants for 1984-85 pediatric level 1 (PL-1) residency positions at the Duke University Medical Center were studied by the authors to determine the possible relationship between contents of the applications and the rankings of these applicants for the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). In the 56 U.S. medical schools studied, the grading systems of 24 medical schools used three passing grades (usually A, B, C), 14 used two passing grades (usually honors and pass), six used one passing grade (pass) and seven used a mixed system or number grades. The grading systems of five schools could not be discerned. Ten schools provided the class distribution of the awarded grades, and 23 identified the relative class standing of the applicant. Twenty-seven schools disclosed the position of the applicant in the class through grade distribution data or class standing; the 29 other schools did not make such information known. Students whose schools had identified their class positions achieved higher rankings from the residency selection committee than did students from schools which did not, in spite of the fact that schools which did not disclose the student's comparative positions were categorized as being more "distinguished."

Analysis of selection criteria for medical residents: Differences between primary care and traditional pathway committees

A self-administered questionnaire was given to faculty members of resident selection committees for traditional and primary care medical residencies at one institution. Results from both committees revealed that applicant performance in medicine clerkships and communication from the applicant's department of medicine faculty, especially the chairman, were key criteria in evaluating the strength of each applicant. Negative personal characteristics were important in determining undesirable resident candidates. Primary care program selectors put more emphasis on the applicant's personal goals, skills, and interests, especially career plans in general internal medicine, than did their traditional program counterparts. Other differences included the tendency of traditional program committee members to value collegial communications and the perceived quality of the applicant's medical school more than the primary care members did.