706329 2017© The Author(s) 2010
OTOXXX10.1177/0194599817706329Otolaryngology–Head and Neck SurgerySchmalbach
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Editorial Otolaryngology– Head and Neck Surgery 2017, Vol. 156(6) 975 © American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2017 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599817706329 DOI: 10.1177/0194599817706329 http://otojournal.org
2017: The Year Otolaryngology Had to “Scramble” Cecelia E. Schmalbach, MD, MS1
M
atch Day—an exciting and equally anxiety-provoking day as medical students await their fate for the next 3 to 9 years. Many questions race through the students’ minds: Did the long hours in the library pay off? Did they strike that sweet balance of being enthusiastic and interested without coming across as overbearing and annoying during clinical rotations? Did they apply to enough programs? Did they choose wisely in their interview selections (after all, the interview season isn’t long enough to accommodate 58 applications)? On March 17, 2017, 291 medical students heard a “yes” to these questions when they learned that they received an otolaryngology residency training spot through the Electronic Residency Application Service. In total, 331 students (303 from the United States) applied for 305 otolaryngology training positions shared among 110 institutions.1 While future otolaryngologists were off celebrating, many among the otolaryngology graduate education community were left stunned after learning that 14 slots went unfilled in 10 programs. Did we as a field then go “unmatched”? Just 4 years prior, 493 students applied, leaving >1 in 3 applicants scrambling or seeking an alternative career field.2 The number of otolaryngology applicants has been on a steady decline since 2014, and it reached an all-time low this year. Given that our sister subspecialties, such as dermatology, urology, and orthopedics, are not experiencing this decline,3 we must take a critical look at our selection process and the message that we are sending to medical students. In this issue, Bowe et al define the academic criteria for otolaryngology applicants.3 With the ever-increasing Unites States Medical Licensing Examination scores and publications, it is not surprising that approximately 80% of third- and fourth-year medical students deem matching into otolaryngology as “impossible” or “nearly impossible.”4 The demanding scholastic achievements may deter well-rounded, unique, and talented students from applying to our field; however, this State of the Art Review failed to identify a strong correlation between these objective measures and residency performance. It would also be helpful to learn how many otolaryngology applicants are deferring medical school graduation to complete a dedicated year of research in the hopes of being more competitive in the match. The otolaryngology Electronic Residency Application Service application process is unique in that it requires an additional, personalized section for each program. Unfortunately, this paragraph is often trite and generic, which is not surprising given that each
applicant writes an average of 58 “unique” paragraphs.2 This year, a required telephone-based assessment was added, although limited information is available regarding the validity, utility, and results. While these extra steps may be well intended—that is, trying to decrease the number of applications and associated financial burden for students and trying to ensure that students are selected who will successfully complete an otolaryngology residency program—one can argue that we have done our field a disservice by adding extra work not required by other competitive subspecialties. In doing so, is our field of otolaryngology coming across as elitist? With a record low number of applicants and 14 unfilled slots, it may be time for otolaryngology to adjust how it defines and identifies quality in applicants. We also have an opportunity to make the application process more user-friendly by critically assessing the utility of additional paragraphs and telephone interviews. Cecelia E. Schmalbach, MD, MS Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA References 1. The Match: National Resident Matching Program. Press release: NRMP main residency match the largest match on record. http:// www.nrmp.org/press-release-2017-nrmp-main-residency-matchthe-largest-match-on-record/. Accessed March 29, 2017. 2. Association of American Medical Colleges. Preliminary data (2017). https://www.aamc.org/services/eras/stats/359278/stats.html. Accessed March 29, 2017. 3. Bowe SN, Schmalbach CE, Laury AM. The state of the otolaryngology match: a review of applicant trends, “impossible” qualifications, and implications. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156:985-990. 4. Kaplan AB, Riedy KN, Grundfast KM. Increasing competitiveness for an otolaryngology residence: where we are and concerns for the future. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;153:699-701. 1
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA Corresponding Author: Cecelia E. Schmalbach, MD, MS, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, 1120 W Michigan Street, Suite 200, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. Email: [email protected]
OTOXXX10.1177/0194599817706329Otolaryngology–Head and Neck SurgerySchmalbach
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Editorial Otolaryngology– Head and Neck Surgery 2017, Vol. 156(6) 975 © American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2017 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599817706329 DOI: 10.1177/0194599817706329 http://otojournal.org
2017: The Year Otolaryngology Had to “Scramble” Cecelia E. Schmalbach, MD, MS1
M
atch Day—an exciting and equally anxiety-provoking day as medical students await their fate for the next 3 to 9 years. Many questions race through the students’ minds: Did the long hours in the library pay off? Did they strike that sweet balance of being enthusiastic and interested without coming across as overbearing and annoying during clinical rotations? Did they apply to enough programs? Did they choose wisely in their interview selections (after all, the interview season isn’t long enough to accommodate 58 applications)? On March 17, 2017, 291 medical students heard a “yes” to these questions when they learned that they received an otolaryngology residency training spot through the Electronic Residency Application Service. In total, 331 students (303 from the United States) applied for 305 otolaryngology training positions shared among 110 institutions.1 While future otolaryngologists were off celebrating, many among the otolaryngology graduate education community were left stunned after learning that 14 slots went unfilled in 10 programs. Did we as a field then go “unmatched”? Just 4 years prior, 493 students applied, leaving >1 in 3 applicants scrambling or seeking an alternative career field.2 The number of otolaryngology applicants has been on a steady decline since 2014, and it reached an all-time low this year. Given that our sister subspecialties, such as dermatology, urology, and orthopedics, are not experiencing this decline,3 we must take a critical look at our selection process and the message that we are sending to medical students. In this issue, Bowe et al define the academic criteria for otolaryngology applicants.3 With the ever-increasing Unites States Medical Licensing Examination scores and publications, it is not surprising that approximately 80% of third- and fourth-year medical students deem matching into otolaryngology as “impossible” or “nearly impossible.”4 The demanding scholastic achievements may deter well-rounded, unique, and talented students from applying to our field; however, this State of the Art Review failed to identify a strong correlation between these objective measures and residency performance. It would also be helpful to learn how many otolaryngology applicants are deferring medical school graduation to complete a dedicated year of research in the hopes of being more competitive in the match. The otolaryngology Electronic Residency Application Service application process is unique in that it requires an additional, personalized section for each program. Unfortunately, this paragraph is often trite and generic, which is not surprising given that each
applicant writes an average of 58 “unique” paragraphs.2 This year, a required telephone-based assessment was added, although limited information is available regarding the validity, utility, and results. While these extra steps may be well intended—that is, trying to decrease the number of applications and associated financial burden for students and trying to ensure that students are selected who will successfully complete an otolaryngology residency program—one can argue that we have done our field a disservice by adding extra work not required by other competitive subspecialties. In doing so, is our field of otolaryngology coming across as elitist? With a record low number of applicants and 14 unfilled slots, it may be time for otolaryngology to adjust how it defines and identifies quality in applicants. We also have an opportunity to make the application process more user-friendly by critically assessing the utility of additional paragraphs and telephone interviews. Cecelia E. Schmalbach, MD, MS Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA References 1. The Match: National Resident Matching Program. Press release: NRMP main residency match the largest match on record. http:// www.nrmp.org/press-release-2017-nrmp-main-residency-matchthe-largest-match-on-record/. Accessed March 29, 2017. 2. Association of American Medical Colleges. Preliminary data (2017). https://www.aamc.org/services/eras/stats/359278/stats.html. Accessed March 29, 2017. 3. Bowe SN, Schmalbach CE, Laury AM. The state of the otolaryngology match: a review of applicant trends, “impossible” qualifications, and implications. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156:985-990. 4. Kaplan AB, Riedy KN, Grundfast KM. Increasing competitiveness for an otolaryngology residence: where we are and concerns for the future. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;153:699-701. 1
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA Corresponding Author: Cecelia E. Schmalbach, MD, MS, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, 1120 W Michigan Street, Suite 200, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. Email: [email protected]
