S. C. Daly1, R. A. Jacobson1, J. L. Schmidt1, B. P. Fleming1, A. Krupin1, M. B. Luu1, M. C. Anderson1, J. A. Myers1 1Rush University Medical Center,Chicago, IL, USA
Introduction:
The interview process for medical students places significant financial stress on a group already facing mounting debt. Undergraduate students applying to medical school have ample access to resources that guide application decisions. For example, many medical schools publish matriculating students’ median MCAT scores and GPA, which is used as an informal guide to gauge students’ individual competitiveness for admission. No such resource currently exists for medical students interviewing for residency positions. Our aim was to develop a specialty and site-specific tool that medical students could reference when applying for residency positions. We hypothesize that this tool could help prospective residents make informed decisions on where to seek interviews based on their individual competitiveness. If our hypothesis is proven correct, this information could lead to both time and cost savings for future residency applicants.
Methods:
This is a retrospective review of all matriculating medical students (n=1,125) from a single, large medical school between 2008-2014. Data analyzed included age, sex, number of interviews granted, number of interviews completed, match site, clerkship grades, USMLE Step 1 scores, USMLE Step 2 scores, GPA and completion of away rotations. Data were first grouped by specialty and then by specific program site. Median values and ranges were calculated for data points contributing to an individual’s competitiveness at a specific program within a specific specialty.
Results:
For individual programs within each specialty we determined the median and the range USMLE step 1 scores, USMLE step 2 scores and medical school GPA for matriculating students. In addition, we enhanced our competitive student profile by quantifying the number of students accepted who received honors, high pass, or pass in the corresponding clinical clerkship. The numbers of interviews granted and completed were included, as well as the number of students completing away rotations. This profile was established for over 250 sites in over 20 specialties. The results of this effort have been made available to our current medical students.
Conclusion:
Current and future students going through the application process can use this novel tool as a guide to assess their competitiveness for being granted an interview and eventual matriculation into target programs. Used effectively, our data may produce cost savings and improve interview efficiency for medical students. Ongoing analysis includes identification of data points that are most predictive of interview invitation and/or matriculation, and students’ perceptions of the tool. Further development plans include Match outcome analysis over the years to come, when students at our institution are given access to our compiled data prior to residency application. Future implementation of this tool on a social media platform could improve outcomes for applicants on a national scale.