Challenges Facing Program Directors in the Urology Match

Evaluating Urology Residency Applications: What Matters Most and What Comes Next?

“…However, the MSPE is often limited in its utility, as most letters do not compare the performance of students against their classmates and institutions may differ in how they choose to describe applicants [21,22]. One survey of urology program directors found that the majority considered the MSPE to be of little to no importance in assessing applicants [22]. Fig.…”

“…However, interviews also present challenges for both the institution and the applicant. Because of the rising number of applications that programs receive, urology training programs often find it difficult to decide how to distribute interviews and may do so on the basis of flawed metrics such as applicants' perceived interest in the program [22]. Additionally, the interview process is financially burdensome on medical students, with several studies citing that applicants pay an average cost of $5000-7000 per interview cycle and $500 per program interview [29,30].…”

“…Additionally, interview expenses have increased and are compounded by the cost of away rotations, which are becoming an increasingly important component of assessing candidates. Greater awareness of the financial burden of matching into urology has led many to call for a limit to the number of applications that medical students are allowed to submit, a proposition favored by both programs and applicants [22,29,45,46]. In addition to limiting the number of applications that can be submitted, there is a need for greater transparency among residency programs.…”

“…One of the tools that might help better contextualize grades and transcripts is the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) or Dean’s letter, a document that is meant to summarize a student’s academic performance throughout medical school. However, the MSPE is often limited in its utility, as most letters do not compare the performance of students against their classmates and institutions may differ in how they choose to describe applicants [ 21 , 22 ]. One survey of urology program directors found that the majority considered the MSPE to be of little to no importance in assessing applicants [ 22 ].…”

“…Recent literature has demonstrated that Step 1 has played an important role in the selection of urology residents. Higher Step 1 scores are associated with successfully matching into urology residency, with over 80% of programs using a Step 1 cutoff to assign interviews [ 17 , 22 ]. Program directors consider it to be the second most important factor in assessing candidates, below only urology letters of recommendation [ 18 ••].…”