The number of resident positions in integrated plastic surgery residency is limited and highly sought after. Because of the intense competition for these positions, applicants are faced with the challenge of submitting multiple applications in the belief that doing so enhances their chances of successfully matching, often applying to the majority of plastic surgery programs across the United States.
Much of the initial screening of the numerous applicants is necessarily accomplished through standardized ranking systems, a subjective process that fails to incorporate a candidate’s entire application. Evaluation of desirability of residency programs is similarly subjective and difficult to rank. The Daneshgaran et al.,1 Doximity, and U.S. News & World Report ranking systems, which utilized faculty research productivity, research output, and name recognition as ranking qualifiers, were used in this study to evaluate programs and successful applicants.
Data from 1027 matched plastic surgery residents from 2016 through 2021 were collected. Chi-square analysis was performed to evaluate trends regarding home matching, regionality, and whether medical school prestige affected where successful applicants matched.
Consistent with previous reports from 2015 of internal matching in plastic surgery (19.6 percent),2 18.2 percent of residents matched at their home institution (Fig. 1). A significant number of applicants matched within their home program and their region as well (p < 0.0001). Hashmi et al.2 reported a bias among residency programs, specifically in the Northeast, for applicants from the same region in 2015 (57.7 percent). In contrast, the South demonstrated the largest regional bias (Fig. 1) from 2016 through 2021 (62.3 percent).
A significant number of students from top quartile medical schools matched at top quartile residency programs regardless of ranking system (p < 0.001). A total of 48.6 percent of all matched residents attended top quartile medical schools but comprised 57.8 to 81.4 percent of top quartile program matches annually (Table 1). Top applicants were less represented in the lower quartiles (40.6 percent).
Top Quartile Residency Positions Filled by Top Quartile Medical School Graduates
|Year||Daneshgaran et al.
|Positions||Top Quartile Graduates||Percent||Positions||Top Quartile Graduates||Percent|
p < 0.0001
p < 0.0001
These data suggest a selection bias based on school reputation, as medical students from top ranked medical schools comprised up to 80 percent of residents at top-ranked programs. This indicates a significant disadvantage for students applying from non–top-ranked medical schools. Schultz et al.3 has proposed this could be attributable to the belief that these students have increased academic potential compared with their peers. Other studies, however, demonstrated increased program director satisfaction when greater emphasis is placed on subjective rather than objective factors of applicants (i.e., medical school reputation).4,5
Data collection from program websites and social media accounts, which are incomplete and variable year to year, is one of the limitations of this study. Other confounders in the application process include research years and away rotations performed at specific programs. Further research is necessary to fully elucidate the effects of these factors.
Many factors are involved in the residency selection process, and it is in the best interest of applicants and residency programs to understand existing trends. This allows for applicants to focus their efforts on nearby programs when applying to residency positions. Integrated plastic surgery residency programs often select applicants from within their affiliated medical schools and geographic region. These data suggest that applicants from highly ranked medical schools are often more successful when applying to residency in plastic surgery, especially at top quartile plastic surgery programs.
The authors have no financial interests or conflicts of interest to report.
Viewpoints, pertaining to issues of general interest, are welcome, even if they are not related to items previously published. Viewpoints may present unique techniques, brief technology updates, technical notes, and so on. Viewpoints will be published on a space-available basis because they are typically less timesensitive than Letters and other types of articles. Please note the following criteria:
- Text—maximum of 500 words (not including references)
- References—maximum of five
- Authors—no more than five
- Figures/Tables—no more than two figures and/or one table
Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Viewpoints should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at www.editorialmanager.com/prs/. We strongly encourage authors to submit figures in color.
We reserve the right to edit Viewpoints to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content must be disclosed. Submission of a Viewpoint constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and assignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.
The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Viewpoints represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.