Urology Residency Applicant Selection: Program Directors' New Criteria

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of the recent changes to the urology residency application process on the criteria utilized by residency program directors (PDs) for interview invitations and their perspectives concerning these changes. METHODS One hundred thirty-seven urology residency PDs were invited to participate in an anonymous survey to explore interview selection criteria and the impact of the increase in preference signals (PS) per applicant. RESULTS Fifty-eight PDs (42.8%) completed the survey. The highest-ranked criteria were letters of recommendation (LoR) and successful sub-internship (sub-I) at the PD's institution, without statistically significant differences between these 2. Gender, ethnicity, and medical school prestige were the lowest rated criteria, without significant differences between these 3. Compared to before the increase in the number of PS per applicant, 80.7% of PDs reported that not receiving a PS from an applicant this cycle would more negatively impact the chances of offering an interview to that applicant. Moreover, 12.2% stated they would not interview any applicants who did not send a PS. Finally, 62.1% of PDs believed recent changes worsened the process. CONCLUSION Recent changes impacted PDs applicant evaluation, with the highest ranked criteria being LoRs and sub-I. Paradoxically, the increase in the number of PS per applicant has increased their importance as applicants are much less likely to receive interview offers from programs they have not signaled. Lastly, most PDs believe changes have worsened the evaluation process. UROLOGY 187: 33-37, 2024. (c) 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.