Keywords
ophthalmology - residency - interview - program director - selection criteria
Ophthalmology residency positions are highly competitive. In the past decade, the
average number of applications submitted per applicant has risen from 52 in 2010 to
80 in 2021.[1] This application process also remains extremely costly to applicants, with the application
cycle estimated to cost more than $6,000 for applicants who successfully match.[2] Information asymmetry about prioritized factors most influential in residency selection
may contribute to stress in the application process, particularly for applicants without
access to mentors who can advise.
Surveys of program directors from several other medical specialties have been conducted
to better elucidate the most important residency selection criteria used by residency
programs; however, there remains limited data on selection criteria in ophthalmology
residency programs.[3]
[4] Previous studies in ophthalmology have revealed several factors that have been associated
with successfully matching into an ophthalmology residency program, some of which
include attending an allopathic rather than osteopathic medical school, achieving
a high United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score, and receiving
letters of recommendation from experts in the field.[5] However, the relative importance of selection criteria from a variety of categories
including academic performance or curriculum vitae [CV]), research productivity, letters
of recommendation, and personal factors remains unclear. In addition, changes to score
reporting for the USMLE Step 1 exam and (for many medical schools) to the clerkship
grading system may impact the importance of other selection criteria used to evaluate
ophthalmology residency applicants going forward.[6]
[7]
[8] Greater data and transparency on the most important criteria identified by residency
program directors for interview selection decisions may be of value to ophthalmology
residency applicants in planning and preparing their applications.
The goal of our study is to survey ophthalmology residency program directors to identify
the current state of interview selection decisions—the factors currently considered
most important in determining whether to extend an interview invitation to residency
applicants. Results may be useful to ophthalmology residency applicants, residency
programs, and program directors, and provide insight to the factors prioritized for
selecting the next generation of ophthalmologists.
Methods
The study was approved by the Stanford University School of Medicine Institutional
Review Board. An anonymous Web-based questionnaire containing six questions was developed
by the study authors to identify factors deemed important by ophthalmology residency
program directors when selecting applicants for residency interviews. Questions 1
to 3 were free response questions that inquired about the following program details:
(1) the number of residency positions available at each program, (2) the number of
applicants each program interviews annually, and (3) the number of applicants each
program ranks annually. Question 4 had six parts (A–F) and asked survey respondents
to rank the importance of various selection criteria on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not
important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = important, 5 = very
important). Selection criteria were grouped into six categories: academic performance
and CV, research/publications, letters of recommendation, personal factors, leadership
and community service, and awards/honors. Selection criteria were derived from prior
published surveys of both residency and fellowship program directors inquiring about
the importance of various selection factors.[3]
[4]
[9] Question 5 was a multiple-choice question asking program directors to indicate which
category contained the factors deemed most useful when deciding to offer an interview
invitation, and question 6 was a multiple-choice question asking program directors
to indicate their single most important selection factor used when deciding to offer
an interview invitation. The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1.
We used FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database) and the
Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO) Web site to obtain a
list of all ophthalmology residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council
for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).[10]
[11] The AUPO contact list as well and residency program Web sites were used to obtain
program director contact information. If the program director email was not available
on the AUPO contact list or the program Web site, the program coordinator was contacted
in an effort to acquire program director contact information. If, after contacting
the program coordinator, searching the program director's affiliated departmental
Web site, and searching for publications that may contain information about the program
director's email address, the program director's email address was still unknown,
then the program coordinator contact listed on the FREIDA database was sent the survey
with instructions to forward the survey to the residency program director. Overall,
program directors for 124 ophthalmology residency programs were individually contacted
with a request to complete the study survey. Initial emails were sent on August 18,
2021, and two additional reminder emails were sent to program directors 3 weeks after
the initial email and 6 weeks after the initial email, respectively (September 8,
2021 and September 29, 2021).
All statistical analyses were performed using RStudio version 2021.09.0 (RStudio,
Boston, MA). Counts and percentages were calculated for questions 1 to 3. For question
4, a weighted score was calculated for each applicant criterion using the following
scale: 1 point for a score of “not important,” 2 points for a score of “slightly important,”
3 points for a score of “moderately important,” 4 points for a score of “important,”
and 5 points for a score of “very important.” Total scores were summed across all
programs for each criterion, in order to identify which were deemed most important
by program directors. This scoring system is consistent with previous surveys of residency
and fellowship programs examining the importance of various residency and fellowship
selection criteria.[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Counts and percentages were also provided for questions 5 and 6.
Results
Residency Program Characteristics and Response Rate
The overall response rate was 56.5% (70/124). Responding program directors took, on
average, 6 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Programs who responded to the survey
offered a mean of 4.2 residency positions per year, interviewed 47 applicants per
year, and ranked 45 applicants per year, on average. However, there was wide variation
in class size, number of interviews, and number of ranked applicants per year. A complete
summary of program characteristics can be found in [Table 1].
Table 1
Responses to questions 1 to 3
|
Response
|
# Programs
|
Percent programs
|
|
Q1: How many residency positions are available at your program per year?
|
|
|
|
2
|
6
|
8.6
|
|
3
|
13
|
18.6
|
|
4
|
30
|
42.9
|
|
5
|
11
|
15.7
|
|
6
|
7
|
10.0
|
|
7
|
2
|
2.9
|
|
8
|
1
|
1.4
|
|
Q2: Approximately how many applicants do you interview each year?
|
|
|
|
< or = 25
|
7
|
10.0
|
|
26–50
|
29
|
41.4
|
|
51–75
|
21
|
30.0
|
|
76+
|
13
|
18.6
|
|
Q3: Approximately how many applicants do you rank each year?
|
|
|
|
< or = 25
|
7
|
10.0
|
|
26–50
|
35
|
50.0
|
|
51–75
|
23
|
32.9
|
|
76+
|
5
|
7.1
|
Relative Importance of Residency Applicant Interview Selection Criteria
When summing program director scores for each of the 23 selection criteria included
in our study, the factor with the highest aggregate score was core clinical clerkship
grades (290 points), followed by letters of recommendation (284 points), USMLE Step
1 score (282 points), and written comments about clinical rotation performance (264
points). The selection criteria with the lowest aggregate scores included number of
ophthalmology electives (146 points), applicant's medical school (204 points), performance
in preclinical courses (206 points), and familiarity with the applicant's letter writers
(208 points). The average and aggregate score for each of the 23 selection criteria
included in the study can be observed in [Table 2].
Table 2
Average score, aggregate score, and rank of 23 residency selection criteria
|
Category
|
Criteria
|
Mean importance score (1–5)
|
Aggregate score
|
Rank
|
|
Academic performance and Curriculum Vitae (CV)
|
Applicant's medical school
|
2.91
|
204
|
22
|
|
USMLE Step 2 CK score
|
3.11
|
218
|
18
|
|
Class rank
|
3.63
|
254
|
7
|
|
Written comments about clinical rotation performance
|
3.77
|
264
|
4
|
|
Core clinical clerkship grades
|
4.26
|
298
|
1
|
|
USMLE Step 1 score
|
4.03
|
282
|
3
|
|
Number of ophthalmology electives
|
2.09
|
146
|
23
|
|
Grade in ophthalmology clerkship
|
3.46
|
242
|
10
|
|
Performance in preclinical courses
|
2.94
|
206
|
21
|
|
Research/Publications
|
Research experience in ophthalmology
|
3.31
|
232
|
12
|
|
Research experience (not specific to ophthalmology)
|
3.14
|
220
|
17
|
|
Publications in ophthalmology
|
3.20
|
224
|
15
|
|
Publications (not specific to ophthalmology)
|
3.23
|
226
|
14
|
|
Letters of recommendation
|
Letters of recommendation
|
4.06
|
284
|
2
|
|
Dean's letter (MSPE)
|
3.63
|
254
|
7
|
|
Familiarity with applicant's letter writers
|
2.97
|
208
|
20
|
|
Personal factors
|
Rotations at your department
|
3.06
|
214
|
19
|
|
Personal statement
|
3.31
|
232
|
12
|
|
Geographic ties to residency program
|
3.14
|
220
|
17
|
|
Leadership/Community service
|
Leadership roles
|
3.65
|
256
|
5
|
|
Community service
|
3.53
|
247
|
9
|
|
Awards/Honors
|
Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society
|
3.56
|
249
|
8
|
|
Gold Humanism Honor Society
|
3.26
|
228
|
13
|
Abbreviations: CK, Clinical Knowledge; MSPE, Medical Student Performance Evaluation;
USMLE, United States Medical Licensing Examination.
When asked which category is most useful for interview invitation decisions, the majority
of program directors (50/70, 71.4%) selected academic performance/CV. The distribution
of categories selected as most useful by program directors can be observed in [Fig. 1].
Fig. 1 Category with the most important residency selection criteria according to residency
program directors.
When asked to identify the single most important criterion for interview selection,
the most frequent answer provided by program directors was core clinical clerkship
grades (18/70, 25.7%). The distribution of the most important selection criteria provided
by program directors can be observed in [Fig. 2]. Several program directors (12/70, 17.1%) selected “other” for this question and
answered the question with a free-text response. Free-text responses included: “evidence
of significant contribution in some endeavor and caring attitude towards others (kindness)”;
“we do a holistic review”; “supplemental statement”; “no single factor…It is a combination
of things”; “…we like our applicants to come and spend time with us…I want to get
to know an applicant - I could care less about board scores, letter of recommendation,
class rank.” The word “holistic” was referenced in 4 of 12 responses and two responses
indicated that no single factor was the most important.
Fig. 2 Single most important selection criteria according to residency program directors.
Anticipating upcoming changes to USMLE Step 1 exam score reporting (from numerical
scores to pass/fail), program directors who identified “USMLE Step 1 score” as the
single most important selection criterion were queried for their most important selection
criterion after Step 1 scores are reported pass/fail beginning January 2022. Among
these program directors, the majority (67%, 6/9) indicated that the USMLE Step 2 Clinical
Knowledge (CK) score would become their most important selection criteria. Two program
directors indicated that letters of recommendation will become their most important
selection criteria and one program director indicated that publications in ophthalmology
will become their most important selection criteria.
Discussion
The ophthalmology residency match remains extremely competitive, and the number of
applications submitted per applicant has nearly doubled over the past decade.[1] In this study, we surveyed ophthalmology residency program directors in order to
determine which factors are most important in deciding which applicants to offer an
interview invitation. Our results indicate core clinical clerkship grades, letters
of recommendation, and USMLE Step 1 scores as the top aggregate selection criteria
deemed important by ophthalmology residency program directors (as of 2021). Core clinical
clerkship grades were the most commonly identified single most important factor, followed
by USMLE Step 1 score and rotations at the program director's department. Overall,
program directors indicated that selection criteria within the academic performance/CV
category were more important than selection criteria based on research/publications,
letters of recommendation, personal factors, leadership and community service, and/or
awards/honors categories. With a competitive residency match process, there is strong
interest among applicants to understand the application process, the number of positions
available, and the selection criteria deemed important by residency program directors.
The results of our study are informative for program directors and residency applicants.
Interestingly, only 3 of the 23 residency selection criteria evaluated by residency
program directors averaged a score greater (better) than 4, indicating a rating of
between “important” and “very important” on the Likert scale: core clinical clerkship
grades, letters of recommendation, and USMLE Step 1 score. These results largely align
with a recent survey of more than 1,200 program directors from nonophthalmology residency
programs, where USMLE Step 1 score (cited by 90% of program directors), letters of
recommendation (84%), and grades in required clerkships (69%) were three of the top
seven factors for interview selection decisions.[16] However, despite their importance to programs' selection decisions, both USMLE scores
and grades in required clerkships are undergoing substantial changes.
Medical student clerkship grades are evolving at many medical schools throughout the
country, with renewed attention on bias in grades and impact on students' mental health,
among other factors.[7]
[17]
[18]
[19] Several medical schools have altered their evaluation criteria from a tiered system
(such as “honors/pass/fail”) to a binary pass/fail system. Previous studies indicate
that changing to a pass/fail grading system has many benefits, including improving
student perceptions of clerkship grading and enhancing students' engagement in learning,
intrinsic motivation, and well-being.[7]
[8] However, faculty concerns about larger system consequences involving the residency
match as a result of the change to purely pass/fail clerkships have also been noted.[18] It is important for medical school applicants interested in ophthalmology to recognize
the importance of core clinical clerkships grades, and if medical schools continue
to transition to pass/fail grading of clerkships, the importance of other residency
selection criteria will likely increase still further, due to the inherently competitive
nature of residency selection.
It was announced in February 2020 that USMLE Step 1 would transition from a numerical
score to binary pass/fail reporting beginning in January 2022.[20] A recent survey assessing ophthalmology residency program directors' perspective
regarding the impact of pass/fail USMLE Step 1 scoring on the residency application
process revealed that only 10% of program directors felt that the change would be
beneficial, with approximately 93% indicating that the change would make it more difficult
to objectively compare applicants.[6] In that survey, program directors also anticipated increased emphasis on Step 2
CK scores for applicant selection. Our study results align with this. Among the 12.9%
of program directors in our study (9/70) who selected USMLE Step 1 score as the single
most important selection criteria, 66.7% (6/9) indicated that USMLE Step 2 scores
will be their new most important selection criteria, since these will remain a numerical
score rather than pass/fail for now.
This suggests that the change to pass/fail USMLE Step 1 scoring will not reduce the
demand for and interest in standardized, objective assessment tools for residency
applicant assessment. Rather, the pressure for applicants may simply shift from the
USMLE Step 1 exam to the USMLE Step 2 exam in the short term, which has not traditionally
been taken by applicants until later in their medical school careers after some clinical
clerkships have been completed (and in some cases deferred until after the residency
match). In addition, the Step 2 exam is subject to many of the same bias and disadvantaging
factors as the USMLE Step 1 exam.[6]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
A potential shift in standardized test performance emphasis from USMLE Step 1 to USMLE
Step 2 thus may have important implications for the medical school curriculum. Some
programs may require USMLE Step 2 exam scores be submitted with residency applications
going forward, which may lead students to seek adjustment to clerkship schedules and
possible restructuring of the clinical curriculum. Medical schools that adapt their
curriculum to allow for enhanced dedicated study for the USMLE Step 2 exam may achieve
higher Step 2 scores among their students, and potentially better match outcomes (e.g.,
more students in their top-choice programs)—desired by medical schools as objective
“success” metrics.
Letters of recommendation also received one of the highest aggregate importance scores
out of the 23 selection criteria evaluated in our study. It may be beneficial for
medical students interested in ophthalmology to identify experienced faculty mentors
as early as possible during their medical school training, not only for targeted advice
and guidance, but also from a practical standpoint to provide students with ample
opportunity to interact with faculty mentors and ideally earn a strong letter of recommendation.
Previous research indicates that letters of support for residency applicants are often
drafted with information that requires “decoding” by the reader of the letter.[25]
[26]
[27] For example, a recent survey of anesthesiology residency program directors revealed
that the majority of program directors look for specific keywords in letters of recommendation
such as “top X% of students.”[27] Furthermore, letters of recommendation are subject to bias, and differences in letters
of recommendation when comparing letter writers' academic rank (such as associate
professors, full professors, and Chairs) have been observed.[28] Medical students interested in ophthalmology may benefit from ensuring that their
letter writers are aware of best practices and tacit expectations for letter writing,
which could influence candidate's chances of being considered for an interview, and
letter writers may benefit from training to mitigate implicit bias, for example.
The results of our survey also provide insight about the effects of visiting or away
rotations on receiving an interview invitation. Interestingly, the aggregate score
of “rotations at your department” was relatively low in our survey (average 3.06,
total score 214 points), making this selection criteria the 19th most important of
the 23 criteria evaluated in our study. However, when program directors were asked
their single most important selection criteria, “rotations in your department” was
the 3rd most commonly cited selection criteria, ranked as the top criterion by 8.6%
of program directors, eclipsed only by “core clinical clerkship grades” and “USMLE
Step 1 score.” A recent survey of ophthalmology residency program directors revealed
that most program directors recommend fourth-year medical students complete away rotations
at other institutions, especially those for which they are strongly interested.[29] The survey also revealed that more than 80% of program directors indicated a visiting
student is more likely to be offered an interview compared with another equally qualified
applicant. However, far fewer program directors (only 35%) were more likely to rank
an interviewee higher on their rank list if he or she had completed an away rotation
at their institution.[29] These findings, in conjunction with the mixed evidence regarding the importance
of away rotations revealed in our study, indicate that for some program directors,
away rotations may serve an extremely important role in the residency selection process;
however, for others, away rotations appear far less important. Given that completing
away rotations is expensive for medical students, costing an average of $1,000 to
$2,000 per away rotation, decision-making for whether to do away rotations and specific
program selection may be considered on an individual basis.[29]
Our survey results also reveal that leadership and community service play an important
role in the residency selection process. The selection criteria “Leadership roles”
earned an aggregate score of 256 points, ranking as the 5th most important selection
criteria, while “Community service” earned an aggregate score of 247 points, ranking
as the 9th most important selection criteria. Increased emphasis on leadership and
community service by residency program directors aligns with the ACGME guidelines
emphasizing that “residency programs must understand the social determinants of health
of the populations they serve and incorporate them in the design and implementation
of the program curriculum, with the ultimate goal of addressing these needs and health
disparities.”[30] Applicants who have demonstrated leadership and a commitment to community service
during medical school are likely better equipped to address health disparities of
the local community at the residency level and beyond. In recent years, many medical
educators have called for a more holistic review of residency applicants, and emphasizing
leadership and community service rather than simply using academic performance metrics
such as the USMLE Step 1 exam would align with these goals.[31]
[32]
[33] When program directors were asked about their most important residency selection
criteria, the written responses for the program directors who checked the “Other”
box also reflect a more holistic review of residency applicants. For example, one
program director stated that they looked for “evidence of significant contribution
in some endeavor and caring attitude towards others (kindness)” while another said
that “we engage in a holistic review…there is not one specific factor” and yet another
stated that “I want to get to know an applicant… I could care less about board scores…”
One-third of write-in responses specifically mentioned the word “holistic.”
Our survey results also provide insight into the importance of geographic location
in the ophthalmology residency match. Geographic analyses of match outcomes in many
specialties, including ophthalmology, suggest that geographic location may play an
important role in determining match outcomes, with the plastic surgery match, orthopaedic
surgery match, and otolaryngology match all revealing regional trends in match outcomes,
for example.[34]
[35]
[36]
[37] Program directors who responded to our survey ranked “Geographic ties to the residency
program” as the 16th most important selection criteria out of 23, with an average
score of 3.14 on the 5-point Likert scale, suggesting that program directors believe
geographic location is not as important to residency selection as other criteria examined
in this study.
There are several limitations to our study. First, not all program director email
addresses were identified, resulting in study authors contacting program coordinators
rather than program directors for many programs included in the study, which could
have contributed to the 56.5% (70/124) response rate observed. The results of our
study only reflect the 70 program directors who responded to the survey, which constitute
just over half of all ophthalmology residency programs in the United States, and it
is possible that there may be systematic differences between this group and nonresponder
programs. Study results may have differed with a greater response rate. However, our
response rate of 56.5% compares favorably with those of other program director surveys
in the literature related to the topic of residency/fellowship selection criteria,
which range from 46 to 58%.[3]
[4]
[9] Next, although we identified 23 selection criteria for program directors to evaluate,
there could be other criteria used by program directors in determining whether or
not to extend and interview invitation to an applicant that were not captured or nuance
that is incompletely captured by our study. However, we did enable write-in responses
to learn other important factors and considerations not specifically queried. Furthermore,
while program directors were surveyed in this study, decisions regarding residency
applicants are often made by a committee comprised of more than just the program director.
Our findings demonstrate the views of program directors but may not necessarily reflect
the views of other members of committees that are tasked with ranking applicants.
Additionally, program director responses may have been affected by prevailing views.
For example, recognizing that it has become unfashionable to use USMLE Step 1 and
other traditional metrics in selection, actual weight assigned to these metrics in
decision-making may be greater than reported. Finally, while our conclusions regarding
residency selection criteria provide insight on what program directors collectively
value, it should be noted that each program and individual program director may have
different priorities among the selection criteria examined in this study. Different
programs may emphasize selection criteria that are anticipated to best align with
their program's vision and goals.
In conclusion, our study provides insights on the importance of several residency
selection criteria used by ophthalmology residency programs for residency applicant
interview selection decisions. Our results indicate that core clinical clerkship grades,
letters of recommendation, and USMLE Step 1 scores are the three most important selection
criteria according to more than half of all ophthalmology residency program directors
as of 2021. With impending scoring changes for the USMLE Step 1 exam and evolving
medical school curriculums and clerkship grading systems, the relative importance
of other residency selection criteria examined in this study will likely increase.
This is an area warranting future study.
Ophthalmology Residency Program Director Survey
Ophthalmology Residency Program Director Survey
Start of Block: Default Question Block
Q1 How many residency positions are available at your program per year?
________________________________________________________________
Q2 Approximately how many applicants do you interview each year?
________________________________________________________________
Q3 Approximately how many applicants do you rank each year?
________________________________________________________________
Q4A Rate the importance of the following academic performance and CV factors when selecting an applicant for an interview:
|
Not Important
|
Slightly Important
|
Moderately Important
|
Important
|
Very Important
|
|
Applicant's medical school
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
USMLE Step 2 CK Score
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Class rank
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Written comments about clinical rotation performance
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Core clinical clerkship grades
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
USMLE Step 1 Score
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Number of ophthalmology electives
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Grade in ophthalmology clerkship
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Performance in preclinical courses
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
Q4B Rate the importance of the following research/publications factors when selecting an applicant for an interview:
|
Not Important
|
Slightly Important
|
Moderately Important
|
Important
|
Very Important
|
|
Research experience in ophthalmology
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Research experience (not specific to ophthalmology)
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Publications in ophthalmology
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Publications (not specific to ophthalmology)
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
Q4C Rate the importance of the following letters of recommendation factors when selecting an applicant for an interview:
|
Not Important
|
Slightly Important
|
Moderately Important
|
Important
|
Very Important
|
|
Letters of recommendation
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Dean's Letter (MSPE)
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Familiarity with applicant's letter writers
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
Q4D Rate the importance of the following personal factors when selecting an applicant for an interview:
|
Not Important
|
Slightly Important
|
Moderately Important
|
Important
|
Very Important
|
|
Rotations at your department
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Personal statement
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Geographic ties to residency program (personal ties or medical school in similar geographic
area)
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
Q4E Rate the importance of the following leadership and community service factors when selecting an applicant for an interview:
|
Not Important
|
Slightly Important
|
Moderately Important
|
Important
|
Very Important
|
|
Leadership roles
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Community service
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
Q4F Rate the importance of the following awards/honors factors when selecting an applicant for an interview:
|
Not Important
|
Slightly Important
|
Moderately Important
|
Important
|
Very Important
|
|
Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
|
Gold Humanism Honor Society
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
Q5 Of the categories listed below, which category contains the factors that are most
useful when deciding to offer an interview invitation?
-
Academic Performance and CV
-
Research/Publications
-
Letters of Recommendation
-
Personal Factors
-
Leadership and Community Service
-
Awards/Honors
Q6 Of the factors listed below (or a write-in of your choice), what is the single
most important factor used when deciding to offer an interview invitation?
-
Applicant's medical school
-
USMLE Step 2 CK Score
-
Class rank
-
Written comments about clinical rotation performance
-
Core clinical clerkship grades
-
USMLE Step 1 Score
-
Number of ophthalmology electives
-
Grade in ophthalmology clerkship
-
Performance in preclinical courses
-
Research experience in ophthalmology
-
Research experience (not specific to ophthalmology)
-
Publications in ophthalmology
-
Publications (not specific to ophthalmology)
-
Letters of recommendation
-
Dean's Letter (MSPE)
-
Familiarity with applicant's letter writers
-
Rotations at your department
-
Personal statement
-
Geographic ties to residency program (personal ties or medical school in similar geographic
area)
-
Leadership roles
-
Community service
-
Alpha Omega Alpha honor society
-
Gold Humanism Honor Society
-
Other ________________________________________________
Q7 In the absence of a numerical USMLE Step 1 score (transition to Pass/Fail scoring),
what would be the single most important factor used when deciding to offer an interview
invitation?
-
Applicant's medical school
-
USMLE Step 2 CK Score
-
Class rank
-
Written comments about clinical rotation performance
-
Core clinical clerkship grades
-
Number of ophthalmology electives
-
Grade in ophthalmology clerkship
-
Performance in preclinical courses
-
Research experience in ophthalmology
-
Research experience (not specific to ophthalmology)
-
Publications in ophthalmology
-
Publications (not specific to ophthalmology)
-
Letters of recommendation
-
Dean's Letter (MSPE)
-
Familiarity with applicant's letter writers
-
Rotations at your department
-
Personal statement
-
Geographic ties to residency program (personal ties or medical school in similar geographic
area)
-
Leadership roles
-
Community service
-
Alpha Omega Alpha honor society
-
Gold Humanism Honor Society
-
Other ________________________________________________
End of Block: Default Question Block
