当前在线人数16755
首页 - 博客首页 - 美国医学教育博客 - 文章阅读 [博客首页] [首页]
NRMP Applicant Survey Results of the 2008
作者:USMedEdu
发表时间:2009-11-25
更新时间:2009-11-25
浏览:895次
评论:0篇
地址:140.
::: 栏目 :::
现代医学vs“中医”
社会、艺术与医学
住院/FELLOW单位
中外医学网站精选
国内外医学交流信息
生物医学人物
力刀美加医学教育专
临床见习/实习/义工
医学生理学诺贝尔奖
医生助理(PA)职业
医学书籍照片及图谱
社会与医学瞬间定格
医学典故/医史杂谈
USMLE复习和考试
申请和面试住院医生
住院医生生活和工作
FELLOWSHIP
医生就业、工作及生
医学科普及问题解答
美加医学院申请/MCA
中美医学临床教育比
医学新进展及新闻
社会医学伦理

www.nrmp.org May 2009

Results of the 2008 NRMP Applicant Survey

by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type

Requests for permission to use these data as well as questions about the content of this
publication or the National Resident Matching Program data and reports may be directed to
Julia Raether, Director of Research, NRMP, at [email protected]
Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, Executive Director, NRMP,
at [email protected]
Suggested Citation
National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the
2008 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident
Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2009.
Copyright ©2009 National Resident Matching Program.
Table of Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1
All Specialties ..................................................................................................................................................2
Charts for Individual Specialties
Anesthesiology ...........................................................................................................................................9
Dermatology.............................................................................................................................................16
Diagnostic Radiology ...............................................................................................................................23
Emergency Medicine................................................................................................................................30
Family Medicine.......................................................................................................................................37
General Surgery........................................................................................................................................44
Internal Medicine......................................................................................................................................51
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics.....................................................................................................................58
Neurology.................................................................................................................................................65
Obstetrics and Gynecology .......................................................................................................................72
Orthopaedic Surgery.................................................................................................................................79
Otolaryngology.........................................................................................................................................86
Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical .............................................................................................................93
Pediatrics ................................................................................................................................................100
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.....................................................................................................107
Plastic Surgery........................................................................................................................................114
Psychiatry ...............................................................................................................................................121
Radiation Oncology................................................................................................................................128
Transitional Year....................................................................................................................................135
Introduction
The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted a
survey of all applicants who participated in the 2008 Main
Residency Match and who submitted rank order lists of
programs.
The primary purpose of the survey was to shed light on the
factors that applicants weigh in selecting programs (1) at which
to interview and (2) to rank for the Match. The survey was
fielded during the 19 days between the rank order list deadline
and Match Week so that applicant match outcomes would not
influence respondents' answers.
This report presents survey results by preferred specialty and
applicant type. Preferred specialty is defined as the specialty
listed first on an applicant's rank order list of programs.
Applicant type includes U.S. allopathic seniors and independent
applicants. Independent applicants include prior allopathic
graduates, both U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen graduates of
international medical schools, graduates of schools of
osteopathy, graduates of Canadian medical schools, and
graduates of the Fifth Pathway program.
The overall response rate for the 19 largest preferred specialties
detailed in this report was 58.5 percent and varied by specialty
and applicant type (see table below).
The NRMP hopes that program directors, school officials, and
applicants find these data useful as they prepare for and
participate in the Match.
_________________________
The NRMP's data reporting and research activities are guided
by its Data Release and Research Committee. NRMP data and
reports can be found at: www.nrmp.org/data/.
Response Rates by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Completed Survey Completed Survey*
Preferred Specialty No Yes No Yes
Anesthesiology Count 408 729 257 244
Percent 35.9 64.1 51.3 48.7
Dermatology Count 96 267 98 73
Percent 26.4 73.6 57.3 42.7
Diagnostic Radiology Count 343 596 215 168
Percent 36.5 63.5 56.1 43.9
Emergency Medicine Count 387 780 266 251
Percent 33.2 66.8 51.5 48.5
Family Medicine Count 396 749 1185 903
Percent 34.6 65.4 56.8 43.2
General Surgery Count 317 687 434 283
Percent 31.6 68.4 60.5 39.5
Internal Medicine Count 950 1884 2225 2323
Percent 33.5 66.5 48.9 51.1
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics Count 54 201 53 77
Percent 21.2 78.8 40.8 59.2
Neurology Count 119 216 133 223
Percent 35.5 64.5 37.4 62.6
Obstetrics-Gynecology Count 253 675 344 340
Percent 27.3 72.7 50.3 49.7
Orthopaedic Surgery Count 225 508 97 70
Percent 30.7 69.3 58.1 41.9
Otolaryngology Count 90 217 33 15
Percent 29.3 70.7 68.8 31.3
Pathology Count 101 209 177 168
Percent 32.6 67.4 51.3 48.7
Pediatrics Count 442 1222 547 601
Percent 26.6 73.4 47.6 52.4
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Count 65 134 141 133
Percent 32.7 67.3 51.5 48.5
Plastic Surgery Count 55 91 7 15
Percent 37.7 62.3 31.8 68.2
Psychiatry Count 246 355 408 386
Percent 40.9 59.1 51.4 48.6
Radiation Oncology Count 45 114 16 10
Percent 28.3 71.7 61.5 38.5
Transitional Year Count 120 115 35 26
Percent 51.1 48.9 57.4 42.6
Total Count 4712 9749 6671 6309
Percent 32.6 67.4 51.4 48.6
*8.5% of US IMGs and 9.1% of Non-US IMGs did not receive survey invitations due to technical issues related to Hotmail email accoun ts.
1
All Specialties Combined
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 2
Figure 1
All Specialties
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
79%
72%
64%
54%
56%
45%
43%
46%
35%
40%
36%
36%
36%
52%
69%
55%
57%
51%
47%
45%
42%
34%
48%
38%
43%
43%
42%
16%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 3
Figure 1
(continued)
All Specialties
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
38%
36%
29%
26%
28%
33%
27%
25%
18%
16%
23%
10%
35%
37%
42%
41%
39%
31%
29%
32%
29%
23%
11%
15%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 4
All Specialties
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure 2
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.2
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.4
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.4
3.7
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants. The data were sorted by aggregate totals.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 5
Figure 2
(continued)
All Specialties
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.4
3.1
3.4
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.8
3.1
2.7
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
3.2
3.5
3.0
3.4
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.1
2.8
2.6
2.1
2.6
2.9
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.3
1.8
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 6
Figure 3
All Specialties
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
52%
95%
91%
49%
10%
32%
71%
89%
81%
35%
25%
46%
12%
7%
3%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less
competitive programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my
first-choice specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but
did not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to
participate as a couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 7
Figure 4 All Specialties
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
15.9
10.9 9.8
41.9
11.6
8.7 0.6 8.2
27.6
0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
10.5
86.1
8.3 0.8 7.5
59.5
6.7 6.2 0.6 5.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 8
Anesthesiology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 9
Figure AN-1
Anesthesiology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
80%
71%
62%
53%
58%
45%
48%
48%
39%
43%
31%
40%
30%
54%
62%
50%
51%
44%
43%
36%
34%
35%
41%
32%
28%
36%
30%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=729)
Independent Applicants (n=244)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 10
Figure AN-1
(continued)
Anesthesiology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
43%
43%
30%
17%
37%
32%
23%
27%
17%
24%
25%
17%
34%
37%
31%
22%
34%
26%
22%
30%
22%
23%
9%
12%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 11
Anesthesiology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure AN-2
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.3
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.4
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.9
3.5
3.6
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 12
Figure AN-2
(continued)
Anesthesiology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.4
2.6
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.6
3.2
2.6
1.9
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.2
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.1
3.2
2.7
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.5
1.9
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.6
1.8
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 13
Figure AN-3
Anesthesiology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
54%
96%
92%
51%
15%
31%
64%
90%
79%
39%
24%
47%
12%
7%
3%
6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 14
Figure AN-4 Anesthesiology
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
17.2
12.4 11.6
41.1
11.8
8.8 0.5 9
30.5
0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
11.5
67.5
8.9 0.5 8.3
52.6
8 6.2 0.5 6.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 15
Dermatology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 16
Figure DM-1
Dermatology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
58%
51%
46%
33%
40%
35%
29%
35%
30%
29%
25%
20%
30%
38%
47%
45%
44%
26%
33%
26%
25%
32%
25%
18%
22%
23%
19%
11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=267)
Independent Applicants (n=73)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 17
Figure DM-1
(continued)
Dermatology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
29%
25%
25%
16%
27%
26%
20%
15%
15%
10%
15%
7%
19%
19%
19%
12%
16%
32%
12%
16%
10%
10%
3%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 18
Dermatology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure DM-2
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.2
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.8
4.0
3.7
4.0
3.8
4.0
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.4
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.2
3.3
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 19
Figure DM-2
(continued)
Dermatology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.2
3.6
3.5
2.9
3.3
3.0
3.2
2.5
2.8
2.4
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.2
2.3
1.8
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.7
3.1
3.6
2.7
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.0
3.0
2.2
2.0
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.5
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 20
Figure DM-3
Dermatology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
80%
96%
93%
53%
33%
34%
86%
96%
76%
41%
29%
49%
22%
6%
3%
9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 21
Figure DM-4 Dermatology
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
14.7 11.9 11.6
68.6
14.3
10.7 0.2 10.1
69.5
0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
56.6
5.0 5.0 0.2 5.0
53.2
4.8 4.3 0.1 4.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 22
Diagnostic Radiology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 23
Figure DR-1
Diagnostic Radiology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
77%
72%
62%
52%
49%
49%
43%
46%
36%
42%
36%
36%
23%
46%
60%
50%
48%
43%
42%
33%
30%
32%
40%
27%
32%
34%
24%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=596)
Independent Applicants (n=168)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 24
Figure DR-1
(continued)
Diagnostic Radiology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
42%
39%
24%
26%
27%
29%
18%
28%
13%
28%
17%
8%
27%
29%
31%
29%
33%
35%
18%
21%
17%
23%
6%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 25
Diagnostic Radiology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure DR-2
4.2
4.0
4.1
4.5
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.0
3.6
3.4
3.1
4.1
3.9
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.8
4.0
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.1
3.8
3.2
3.4
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 26
Figure DR-2
(continued)
Diagnostic Radiology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.6
3.1
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.4
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.4
3.0
2.6
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.9
1.9
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.5
1.9
2.8
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.5
1.7
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 27
Figure DR-3
Diagnostic Radiology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
66%
94%
93%
66%
18%
25%
67%
94%
81%
45%
32%
41%
12%
4%
3%
6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 28
Figure DR-4 Diagnostic Radiology
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
20.8
15.3 14.5
49
12
9.5 0.4 9.1
49.5
0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
11.3
72
10.4 0.6 9.7
84.5
8.6 7.2 0.7 6.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 29
Emergency Medicine
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 30
Figure EM-1
Emergency Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
76%
76%
53%
27%
52%
32%
41%
49%
24%
40%
24%
21%
37%
50%
63%
55%
43%
29%
48%
34%
36%
35%
34%
29%
24%
23%
36%
11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=780)
Independent Applicants (n=251)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 31
Figure EM-1
(continued)
Emergency Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
38%
28%
29%
27%
32%
36%
28%
24%
16%
20%
15%
9%
30%
27%
28%
27%
39%
33%
21%
23%
17%
19%
6%
8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 32
Emergency Medicine
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure EM-2
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.2
3.8
4.2
3.8
3.4
3.7
2.7
3.8
3.1
3.5
3.5
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.8
4.1
3.7
3.4
3.9
2.9
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.5
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 33
Figure EM-2
(continued)
Emergency Medicine
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.2
3.6
3.6
2.5
2.7
3.3
2.5
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.2
2.9
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.6
1.9
3.2
3.9
3.3
2.7
3.0
3.2
2.6
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.8
1.9
3.0
2.8
2.4
2.7
2.3
2.7
1.7
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 34
Figure EM-3
Emergency Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
60%
97%
93%
52%
7%
32%
68%
95%
80%
33%
25%
55%
10%
6%
2%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 35
Figure EM-4 Emergency Medicine
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
17.6
11.4 10.7
36
10.7
8.6 8.6
0.8
28.7
1.3
0
10
20
30
40
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
11.3
56
8.7 0.8 7.8
37.3
6.3 5.3 0.7 6.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 36
Family Medicine
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 37
Figure FM-1
Family Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
71%
76%
37%
23%
62%
43%
43%
50%
34%
38%
13%
19%
38%
37%
62%
57%
44%
33%
51%
44%
39%
36%
46%
35%
29%
31%
45%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=749)
Independent Applicants (n=903)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 38
Figure FM-1
(continued)
Family Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
35%
42%
30%
62%
47%
34%
30%
34%
19%
23%
13%
9%
35%
42%
44%
53%
46%
29%
31%
35%
30%
27%
10%
14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 39
Family Medicine
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure FM-2
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
3.6
4.3
3.8
2.5
3.9
2.3
3.8
3.4
3.6
3.4
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.3
3.9
2.9
3.9
3.8
3.4
3.8
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 40
Figure FM-2
(continued)
Family Medicine
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.5
3.8
3.7
2.2
3.0
3.2
1.9
3.4
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.6
2.7
3.8
2.5
3.0
2.1
2.6
1.8
3.3
3.8
3.2
2.8
3.2
3.1
2.7
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.0
2.6
3.5
2.7
3.0
2.5
2.6
1.8
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 41
Figure FM-3
Family Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
38%
94%
82%
33%
5%
43%
73%
90%
76%
28%
21%
53%
14%
7%
1%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 42
Figure FM-4 Family Medicine
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
12.3
8.4
6.8
11.8
6.9
4.5
1.3 3.5
13.9
0.5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
95.5
8.9 6.6 5.8
1.3
52.8
3.5 3.2 0.7 4.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 43
General Surgery
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 44
Figure GS-1
General Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
78%
69%
67%
64%
57%
39%
45%
34%
35%
40%
50%
36%
35%
61%
63%
47%
54%
55%
43%
44%
35%
27%
42%
35%
45%
39%
36%
20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=687)
Independent Applicants (n=283)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 45
Figure GS-1
(continued)
General Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
34%
30%
28%
34%
30%
30%
24%
20%
19%
11%
26%
13%
27%
26%
34%
37%
39%
28%
23%
24%
25%
14%
12%
14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 46
General Surgery
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure GS-2
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.2
3.6
3.7
3.6
4.2
3.7
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.4
3.7
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.6
4.0
3.5
3.6
3.2
3.4
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 47
Figure GS-2
(continued)
General Surgery
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.4
2.9
2.8
2.5
2.6
3.5
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.2
2.7
3.7
2.8
3.4
3.1
2.7
3.4
2.9
3.0
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.7
2.8
2.4
2.3
2.3
1.9
1.8
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 48
Figure GS-3
General Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
42%
96%
93%
51%
7%
32%
76%
88%
82%
37%
26%
49%
16%
10%
2%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 49
Figure GS-4 General Surgery
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
18.1
12.1 10.7
41.8
10.5
8.1 0.6 8.2
32.2
0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
11.2
83.5
8.8 0.7 8.4
60.9
6.2
26 25.3
0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 50
Internal Medicine
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 51
Figure IM-1
Internal Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
84%
71%
77%
71%
53%
36%
42%
45%
35%
43%
48%
50%
41%
54%
73%
55%
65%
63%
46%
47%
46%
32%
53%
44%
54%
54%
47%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=1,884)
Independent Applicants (2,323)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 52
Figure IM-1
(continued)
Internal Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
35%
32%
29%
21%
18%
30%
29%
21%
20%
13%
31%
7%
37%
39%
46%
47%
40%
32%
33%
34%
33%
25%
13%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 53
Internal Medicine
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure IM-2
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.0
3.7
4.3
3.6
4.2
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.4
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.8
4.2
3.5
3.7
3.9
3.6
4.0
3.7
3.9
3.5
3.7
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 54
Figure IM-2
(continued)
Internal Medicine
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.2
2.7
3.3
3.7
2.9
3.1
3.6
3.0
3.0
2.6
3.0
3.2
2.5
2.0
2.6
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.4
3.1
3.4
2.9
3.7
3.0
2.9
3.6
3.1
3.3
2.7
2.6
2.1
2.5
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.2
1.9
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 55
Figure IM-3
Internal Medicine
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
49%
95%
89%
46%
7%
26%
73%
86%
83%
37%
27%
40%
10%
8%
4%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 56
Figure IM-4 Internal Medicine
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
14.8
10.0 8.9
24.6
7 5.8 0.5 5.5
21.4
0.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first of rank order list on programs).
Independent Applicants
10.7
98.5
8.8 0.7 8.0
72.6
5.2 4.9 0.8 5.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 57
Internal Medicine-Pediatrics
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 58
Figure IP-1
Internal Medicine-Pediatrics
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
84%
77%
79%
42%
62%
51%
47%
49%
30%
47%
23%
27%
33%
67%
71%
55%
65%
45%
61%
56%
49%
35%
52%
42%
43%
38%
47%
25%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=201)
Independent Applicants (n=77)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 59
Figure IP-1
(continued)
Internal Medicine-Pediatrics
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
41%
28%
20%
26%
18%
25%
41%
21%
22%
16%
27%
11%
43%
36%
44%
55%
48%
31%
40%
36%
40%
31%
19%
25%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 60
Internal Medicine-Pediatrics
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure IP-2
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.1
3.7
4.1
3.7
3.2
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.4
4.4
4.3
4.2
3.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.8
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 61
Figure IP-2
(continued)
Internal Medicine-Pediatrics
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
2.8
2.8
3.4
2.6
3.1
3.3
2.6
3.2
3.0
2.6
3.4
3.4
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.1
3.1
3.4
2.9
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.4
3.6
3.2
2.9
2.9
2.1
2.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.2
1.9
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 62
Figure IP-3
Internal Medicine-Pediatrics
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
38%
96%
93%
41%
14%
34%
61%
91%
87%
29%
35%
51%
10%
11%
3%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 63
Figure IP-4 Internal Medicine-Pediatrics
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
14.9
9.6 8.3
25.1
17.1
11.9
10.2
0.5
19.3
0.7
0
10
20
30
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
126.9
11.2 9.5 0.8 8.4
47.7
6 5.5 6
0.4
0
40
80
120
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 64
Neurology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 65
Figure N-1
Neurology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
82%
72%
72%
58%
54%
41%
40%
39%
36%
36%
39%
41%
33%
54%
77%
54%
69%
57%
54%
51%
41%
34%
51%
39%
50%
47%
37%
20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=216)
Independent Applicants (n=223)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 66
Figure N-1
(continued)
Neurology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
37%
37%
27%
15%
16%
30%
27%
19%
16%
10%
23%
7%
33%
37%
43%
30%
35%
35%
26%
29%
29%
20%
13%
16%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 67
Neurology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure N-2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.2
3.8
4.2
3.7
4.0
3.6
3.8
3.4
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.8
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.3
3.8
3.9
4.1
3.7
3.9
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.8
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 68
Figure N-2
(continued)
Neurology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.6
2.5
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.1
2.8
2.7
2.9
3.2
2.6
2.0
2.5
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.1
3.1
3.2
3.0
3.5
3.3
2.9
3.5
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.8
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.1
1.9
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 69
Figure N-3
Neurology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
50%
97%
93%
50%
11%
29%
70%
89%
85%
37%
31%
44%
15%
7%
3%
6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 70
Figure N-4 Neurology
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
17.4
11.7
10.2
27.5
13.9
8.8 8
0.6
25.2
0.7
0
10
20
30
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
12.4
91.2
10.1 0.8 9.8
73.5
7.7 6.8 0.5 6.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 71
Obstetrics and Gynecology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 72
Figure OB-1
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
84%
78%
69%
62%
63%
60%
48%
50%
36%
42%
40%
36%
38%
62%
70%
62%
52%
49%
50%
50%
41%
37%
44%
37%
41%
39%
41%
15%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=675)
Independent Applicants (n=340)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 73
Figure OB-1
(continued)
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
44%
42%
30%
32%
39%
37%
36%
26%
24%
12%
30%
18%
34%
40%
40%
45%
41%
33%
28%
29%
28%
14%
10%
15%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 74
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure OB-2
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.0
4.3
3.7
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.6
3.4
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.8
3.8
3.4
3.7
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 75
Figure OB-2
(continued)
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.5
3.7
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.7
3.0
3.3
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.5
1.7
2.3
3.4
3.9
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.0
2.7
3.1
2.7
3.1
2.6
2.0
1.8
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 76
Figure OB-3
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
47%
95%
94%
55%
8%
26%
61%
91%
86%
37%
23%
47%
9%
5%
3%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 77
Figure OB-4 Obstetrics and Gynecology
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
16.9
11.4 10.2
26.9
11.1
8.1 0.7 6.6
25.9
0.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
12.5
72.4
9.3 1.2 8.1
47.3
6.2 5.4 0.9 5.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 78
Orthopaedic Surgery
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 79
Figure ORS-1
Orthopaedic Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
70%
66%
56%
56%
57%
46%
49%
39%
38%
40%
36%
27%
35%
46%
56%
47%
49%
44%
49%
43%
37%
30%
41%
30%
39%
33%
36%
20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=508)
Independent Applicants (n=70)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 80
Figure ORS-1
(continued)
Orthopaedic Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
37%
32%
35%
29%
32%
44%
18%
23%
15%
14%
14%
9%
30%
29%
34%
27%
34%
43%
23%
26%
20%
19%
16%
20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 81
Orthopaedic Surgery
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure ORS-2
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.1
3.9
4.3
3.7
3.4
3.6
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.4
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.6
4.1
3.8
3.4
3.9
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.3
3.4
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 82
Figure ORS-2
(continued)
Orthopaedic Surgery
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.2
3.4
3.2
2.9
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.6
3.1
2.6
2.2
3.0
3.3
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.8
3.1
3.5
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.3
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.3
2.2
3.3
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.3
1.7
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 83
Figure ORS-3
Orthopaedic Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
82%
96%
93%
57%
12%
39%
81%
98%
74%
36%
31%
53%
23%
12%
3%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 84
Figure ORS-4 Orthopaedic Surgery
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
16.7
11.6 11.5
60.7
8.5 7 0.5 7.2
50.7
0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
10.8
68.1
8.4 0.5 9.3
66.2
6.5 5.5 1 5.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 85
Otolaryngology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 86
Figure OTO-1
Otolaryngology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
74%
59%
62%
55%
59%
48%
49%
42%
28%
38%
47%
29%
36%
56%
60%
60%
53%
47%
47%
47%
33%
33%
47%
20%
40%
33%
33%
47%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=217)
Independent Applicants (n=15)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 87
Figure OTO-1
(continued)
Otolaryngology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
30%
26%
31%
11%
34%
32%
20%
17%
14%
9%
14%
14%
40%
20%
40%
13%
40%
67%
13%
20%
13%
13%
13%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 88
Otolaryngology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure OTO-2
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.6
3.6
4.1
3.5
4.0
3.8
3.2
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.4
3.9
3.3
3.7
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.9
3.3
3.2
2.7
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.0
3.4
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 89
Figure OTO-2
(continued)
Otolaryngology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.1
3.7
3.2
3.0
3.3
3.1
3.5
2.1
2.9
2.4
2.6
3.5
2.8
1.9
2.1
1.5
2.1
1.8
2.1
2.3
3.8
3.4
2.9
3.3
2.5
2.9
2.3
2.1
2.1
1.7
2.8
3.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.7
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 90
Figure OTO-3
Otolaryngology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
71%
97%
94%
51%
12%
44%
93%
87%
75%
33%
27%
85%
23%
7%
4%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 91
Figure OTO-4 Otolaryngology
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
18.2
12.5 12.2
56.7
10.9 9 0.2 8.1
48.9
0.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
39.1
4.4 3.6 0.3 3.6
23.4
5
2.4 2.4 0.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 92
Pathology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 93
Figure PTH-1
Pathology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
84%
75%
66%
65%
57%
48%
43%
51%
38%
34%
48%
55%
16%
51%
71%
56%
62%
55%
51%
43%
36%
35%
42%
29%
44%
44%
27%
20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=209)
Independent Applicants (n=168)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 94
Figure PTH-1
(continued)
Pathology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
44%
33%
23%
16%
18%
29%
12%
28%
7%
8%
18%
7%
35%
25%
33%
26%
29%
26%
27%
26%
29%
17%
12%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 95
Pathology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure PTH-2
4.3
3.8
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.8
4.2
2.5
3.6
3.6
3.0
3.8
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.5
3.8
4.1
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.8
2.9
3.6
3.0
3.3
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 96
Figure PTH-2
(continued)
Pathology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.4
2.5
3.5
3.9
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.3
2.6
3.0
2.1
3.2
2.4
1.7
1.9
2.1
1.8
1.7
1.9
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.6
3.0
2.9
3.3
3.1
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.1
1.7
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 97
Figure PTH-3
Pathology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
44%
97%
88%
40%
6%
48%
80%
87%
80%
36%
28%
48%
10%
1%
2%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 98
Figure PTH-4 Pathology
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
13.2
9.1 7.7
30.3
6.3 5.9 0.6 5.3
17.7
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
76.5
8.5 7.0 0.5 6.5
52.8
4.3 4.3 4.9
0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 99
Pediatrics
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 100
Figure PD-1
Pediatrics
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
84%
78%
73%
61%
62%
64%
44%
51%
38%
43%
32%
42%
42%
59%
70%
58%
60%
53%
46%
51%
46%
37%
49%
40%
40%
42%
45%
16%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=1,222)
Independent Applicants (n=601)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 101
Figure PD-1
(continued)
Pediatrics
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
39%
42%
33%
25%
19%
35%
32%
29%
21%
13%
28%
8%
35%
38%
44%
40%
35%
31%
29%
32%
27%
19%
9%
14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 102
Pediatrics
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure PD-2
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.0
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.6
3.4
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.7
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 103
Figure PD-2
(continued)
Pediatrics
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.5
2.7
3.6
3.2
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.0
3.2
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.2
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.7
2.1
2.6
3.0
2.6
2.7
2.4
2.1
1.8
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 104
Figure PD-3
Pediatrics
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
42%
95%
91%
45%
6%
30%
65%
88%
81%
33%
19%
46%
11%
6%
2%
1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 105
Figure PD-4 Pediatrics
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
14.3
9.9 8.6
27.6
13.3
8.4
6.9
0.5
18.5
0.3
0
10
20
30
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
10.1
87
7.7 0.8 6.7
44.0
4.9
4.1 3.8 0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 106
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 107
Figure PM-1
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
75%
63%
49%
55%
49%
44%
43%
40%
31%
33%
32%
40%
28%
36%
70%
57%
50%
50%
48%
45%
44%
35%
54%
38%
32%
41%
41%
11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=134)
Independent Applicants (n=133)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 108
Figure PM-1
(continued)
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
34%
34%
25%
22%
33%
39%
26%
26%
22%
15%
16%
7%
35%
39%
38%
25%
46%
37%
22%
32%
19%
20%
5%
11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 109
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure PM-2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.5
3.9
4.0
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.5
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.1
3.9
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.9
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.6
4.0
3.5
3.6
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 110
Figure PM-2
(continued)
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.6
3.8
3.4
3.6
3.2
3.4
3.2
3.2
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.0
3.4
3.9
3.1
3.6
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.3
1.9
2.8
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.3
1.6
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 111
Figure PM-3
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
46%
95%
92%
49%
22%
32%
61%
96%
90%
36%
18%
55%
15%
2%
6%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 112
Figure PM-4 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
17.8
12.6 11.3
34.9
14.2
9.8
0.5 7.3
26.3
0.8
0
10
20
30
40
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
18.1
44.4
13.7 12.8
0.7
66.8
8.3 6.8 0.6 6.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 113
Plastic Surgery
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 114
Figure PS-1
Plastic Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
74%
59%
54%
56%
51%
41%
31%
35%
29%
35%
45%
32%
34%
48%
80%
53%
73%
67%
60%
53%
40%
53%
47%
33%
47%
53%
33%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=91)
Independent Applicants (n=15)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 115
Figure PS-1
(continued)
Plastic Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
27%
23%
26%
19%
32%
38%
20%
13%
10%
9%
20%
7%
27%
27%
40%
13%
60%
47%
7%
7%
13%
7%
13%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 116
Plastic Surgery
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure PS-2
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.5
3.6
4.1
3.6
4.2
3.9
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.9
4.1
3.6
3.8
3.7
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.3
3.5
4.3
3.3
4.5
3.2
3.1
2.9
3.5
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 117
Figure PS-2
(continued)
Plastic Surgery
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.1
3.7
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.5
1.9
2.9
2.5
2.5
3.3
2.9
2.4
2.0
1.6
2.4
1.8
2.2
2.6
3.6
2.9
3.8
3.0
2.6
3.3
2.3
2.7
2.3
2.1
2.0
3.3
2.1
1.5
1.7
2.2
1.7
1.7
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 118
Figure PS-3
Plastic Surgery
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
55%
96%
89%
56%
48%
23%
60%
93%
85%
38%
38%
33%
8%
8%
1%
6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 119
Figure PS-4 Plastic Surgery
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
22.8
14.5 13.9
55.2
17.4
13.1 12.3
0.1
48.8
0.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
55.1
6.8 6.3 0.5 5.3
68.0
6.8 6 0.4 5.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 120
Psychiatry
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 121
Figure P-1
Psychiatry
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
80%
76%
61%
51%
59%
41%
40%
47%
34%
34%
34%
40%
28%
51%
70%
56%
61%
48%
48%
42%
41%
35%
53%
37%
48%
46%
40%
14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=355)
Independent Applicants (n=386)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 122
Figure P-1
(continued)
Psychiatry
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
40%
40%
33%
21%
12%
27%
33%
29%
20%
27%
22%
7%
39%
44%
49%
35%
28%
33%
33%
36%
31%
32%
11%
16%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 123
Psychiatry
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure P-2
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.6
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.9
4.2
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.6
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.9
4.0
3.7
3.9
4.0
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.9
3.4
3.8
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 124
Figure P-2
(continued)
Psychiatry
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
3.7
2.0
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.0
3.4
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.0
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.4
1.8
2.9
2.0
3.2
2.8
3.0
3.4
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.7
1.9
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.3
2.6
1.7
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 125
Figure P-3
Psychiatry
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
51%
93%
85%
41%
35%
74%
86%
79%
32%
21%
47%
11%
5%
3%
2%
6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 126
Figure P-4 Psychiatry
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
13.5
8.6 7.4
21.2
10
7.8
9.6
0.8
17.0
0
0
10
20
30
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
9.5
80.4
7.5 0.9 6.9
55.2
3.3 3.1 0.3 3.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 127
Radiation Oncology
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 128
Figure RO-1
Radiation Oncology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
81%
60%
72%
25%
56%
42%
54%
46%
43%
36%
60%
14%
35%
52%
60%
50%
60%
10%
50%
50%
20%
10%
30%
30%
30%
30%
0%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=114)
Independent Applicants (n=10)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 129
Figure RO-1
(continued)
Radiation Oncology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
34%
24%
32%
9%
36%
33%
18%
14%
12%
9%
12%
12%
30%
20%
10%
20%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 130
Radiation Oncology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure RO-2
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.4
4.1
3.8
4.3
3.5
2.2
3.5
3.9
3.8
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.6
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.8
3.8
3.0
4.4
3.0
3.0
2.6
3.5
2.9
3.0
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 131
Figure RO-2
(continued)
Radiation Oncology
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
2.9
3.5
3.7
2.1
3.1
3.0
4.1
2.6
2.9
2.3
2.4
3.4
3.0
1.7
2.1
1.7
2.0
1.6
1.8
3.0
3.2
2.3
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.7
2.0
3.1
2.9
2.3
2.9
2.8
2.7
1.7
2.1
1.6
2.0
2.0
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 132
Figure RO-3
Radiation Oncology
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
69%
97%
92%
56%
26%
35%
70%
100%
80%
40%
0%
30%
10%
2%
10%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 133
Figure RO-4 Radiation Oncology
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
15.6
12.5 11.9
55.8
9.8 8.8 0.2 8.1
45.4
0.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
20.5
53.3
12.5 12.0
0.0
44.0
7.9 6.5 1.1 5.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 134
Transitional Year
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 135
Figure TR-1
Transitional Year
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
59%
66%
37%
32%
42%
34%
39%
32%
30%
42%
25%
12%
29%
32%
62%
58%
54%
46%
42%
42%
46%
27%
46%
42%
46%
31%
42%
23%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Academic reputation of program
Geographic location of the residency
Residency in an academic setting
Preparation for fellowship training
Breadth of training
Size of the program
Advice from current resident in the program
Consideration of my significant other
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from peers
Research opportunities
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Advice from medical school faculty
U.S. Seniors (n=115)
Independent Applicants (n=26)
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on percentage
of all applicants who use the factor for interview selection.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 136
Figure TR-1
(continued)
Transitional Year
Percentage of Applicants Citing Each Factor in Interview Selection
by Applicant Type
30%
49%
30%
21%
29%
26%
23%
30%
15%
10%
11%
6%
50%
38%
38%
42%
42%
38%
46%
35%
38%
31%
19%
23%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost of living in the area
On-call schedule/work hours
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
Residency in a community-based setting
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of institution
staff
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
Program was flagged with Match violation by the
NRMP
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 137
Transitional Year
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
Figure TR-2
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.5
4.3
3.9
4.1
3.9
3.2
3.7
3.7
3.1
3.5
2.8
3.5
3.3
3.7
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.3
3.8
3.9
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.6
4.2
3.7
3.9
3.1
3.9
3.7
3.3
3.4
1 2 3 4 5
How well you would fit into the residency program
Quality of clinical training
Positive interview experience
Geographic location of the residency
House staff morale
Quality of faculty
Quality of residents
Faculty commitment to resident education
Academic reputation of program
Breadth of training
Quality of the hospital facility
Residency in an academic setting
Feeling of being wanted/recruited
Preparation for fellowship training
Amount of resident management responsibility for
patient care
Amount of conference/didactic teaching
Advice from current resident in the program
Level of faculty supervision in patient care
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
Note: Items are presented in descending order based on mean ratings of all applicants.
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 138
Figure TR-2
(continued)
Transitional Year
Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Ranking Programs
by Applicant Type
*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
4.2
3.0
3.1
2.2
2.9
3.0
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.3
1.7
2.3
1.7
1.8
2.8
3.8
2.5
2.7
2.7
3.3
3.3
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.6
2.9
2.7
2.2
2.4
2.0
2.2
1 2 3 4 5
On-call schedule/work hours
Opportunities to perform specific procedures
Consideration of my significant other
Future fellowship opportunities in the area
Size of the program
Cost of living in the area
Research opportunities
Other post-interview contact with the program
Advice from peers
Salary/benefits
Cultural/racial-ethnic diversity of geographic
location
Advice from medical school faculty
Prior educational experience at the
program/hospital
Residency in a community-based setting
Cultural/racial-ethnic/gender diversity of staff
Positive 2nd interview/visit
Program was flagged with Match violation
Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities
Advice from dean
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 139
Figure TR-3
Transitional Year
Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies
by Applicant Type
59%
95%
94%
55%
15%
34%
72%
84%
83%
52%
30%
38%
22%
10%
11%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I ranked all programs at which I interviewed
I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend
I ranked a mix of both competitive and less competitive
programs
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in my firstchoice
specialty as a "safety net"
I ranked one or more undesirable program(s) in an
alternative specialty as a "safety net"
I did not rank any "safety net" programs and am
prepared to scramble if I do not match
I ranked one or more programs where I applied but did
not interview
My significant other and I were eligible to participate as a
couple but chose not to do so
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 140
Figure TR-4 Transitional Year
Average Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked
By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*
U.S. Allopathic Seniors
12.5
8.4 7.8
33.8
13.5
8.9 7.5
0.1
21.1
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs).
Independent Applicants
4.5 4.0 0.3 4.0
67.0
89
4 3.8 7
0.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Applications
submitted
Interviews granted Interviews
attended
Second
interviews/visits
Programs ranked
Matched Did Not Matched
NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2008 141

[上一篇] [下一篇] [发表评论] [写信问候] [收藏] [举报] 
 
暂无评论
 
用户名: 密码:
发表评论
评论:
[返回顶部] [刷新]  [给USMedEdu写信]  [美国医学教育博客首页] [博客首页] [BBS 未名空间站]
 
Site Map - Contact Us - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

版权所有BBS 未名空间站(mitbbs.com) since 1996