Residency Roundup

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2023^1,2 on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions was met with a range of reactions across the country. Given the implications of this decision on the future makeup of higher education, the downstream effects on medical school admissions, and the possible further impact on graduate medical education programs, we sought to explore the potential impact of the landmark decision from the perspective of dermatology residency program directors and offer insights on this pivotal judgment.

Background on the SCOTUS Ruling

In June 2023, SCOTUS issued its formal decision on 2 court cases brought by the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill¹ and Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts)² that addressed college admissions practices dealing with the use of race as a selection criterion in the application process. The cases alleged that these universities had overly emphasized race in the admissions process and thus were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th Amendment.^1,2

The SCOTUS justices voted 6 to 3 in favor of the argument presented by the SFFA, determining that the use of race in the college admissions process essentially constituted a form of racial discrimination. The ruling was in contrast to a prior decision in 2003 that centered on law school admissions at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) in which SCOTUS previously had determined that race could be used as one factor amongst other criteria in the higher education selection process.³ In the 2023 decision siding with SFFA, SCOTUS did acknowledge that it was still acceptable for selection processes to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”²

Effect on Undergraduate Admissions

Prior to the 2023 ruling, several states had already passed independent laws against the use of affirmative action or race-based selection criteria in the admissions process at public colleges and universities.⁴ As a result, these institutions would already be conforming to the principles set forth in the SCOTUS ruling and major changes to their undergraduate admissions policies would not be expected; however, a considerable number of colleges and universities—particularly those considered highly selective with applicant acceptance rates that are well below the national average—reported the use of race as a factor in their admissions processes in standardized reporting surveys.⁵ For these institutions, it is no longer considered acceptable (based on the SCOTUS decision) to use race as a singular factor in admissions or to implement race-conscious decision-making—in which individuals are considered differently based solely on their race—as part of the undergraduate selection process.

In light of these rulings, many institutions have explicitly committed to upholding principles of diversity in their recruitment processes, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of diversity beyond strictly racial terms—including but not limited to socioeconomic diversity, religious diversity, or gender diversity—which is in compliance with the interpretation ruling by the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice.⁶ Additionally, select institutions have taken approaches to explicitly include questions on ways in which applicants have overcome obstacles or challenges, allowing an opportunity for individuals who have had such experiences related to race an opportunity to incorporate these elements into their applications. Finally, some institutions have taken a more limited approach, eliminating ways in which race is explicitly addressed in the application and focusing on race-neutral elements of the application in their approach to selection.⁷

Because the first college admission cycle since the 2023 SCOTUS ruling is still underway, we have yet to witness the full impact of this decision on the current undergraduate admissions landscape.

Effect on Medical School Admissions and Rotations

Although SCOTUS specifically examined the undergraduate admissions process, the ruling on race-conscious admissions also had a profound impact on graduate school admissions including medical school admission processes.^1,2,8,9 This is because the language of the majority opinion refers to “university programs” in its ruling, which also has been broadly interpreted to include graduate school programs. As with undergraduate admissions, it has been interpreted by national medical education organizations and institutions that medical schools also cannot consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a specific factor in the admissions process.^1,2,8,9

Lived individual experiences, including essays that speak to an applicant’s lived experiences and career aspirations related to race, still can be taken into account. In particular, holistic review still can be utilized to evaluate medical school candidates and may play a more integral role in the medical school admissions process now than in the past.^8,10,11 After the ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “today’s decision leaves intact holistic college admissions and recruitment efforts that seek to enroll diverse classes without using racial classifications.”¹

The ruling asserted that universities may define their mission as they see fit. As a result, the ruling did not affect medical school missions or strategic plans, including those that may aim to diversify the health care workforce.^8,10,11 The ruling also did not affect the ability to utilize pathway programs to encourage a career in medicine or recruitment relationships with diverse undergraduate or community-based organizations. Student interest groups also can be involved in the relationship-building or recruitment activities for medical schools.^8,10,11 Guidance from the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice noted that institutions may consider race in identifying prospective applicants through recruitment and outreach, “provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process, and provided that all students—whether part of a specifically targeted group or not—enjoy the same opportunity to apply and compete for admission.”¹²

In regard to pathways programs, slots cannot be reserved and preference cannot be given to applicants who participated in these programs if race was a factor in selecting participants.⁸ Similarly, medical school away electives related to diversity cannot be reserved for those of a specific race or ethnicity; however, these electives can utilize commitment to stated aims and missions of the rotation, such as a commitment to diversity within medicine, as a basis to selecting candidates.⁸

The ruling did not address how race or ethnicity is factored into financial aid or scholarship determination. There has been concern in higher education that the legal framework utilized in the SCOTUS decision could affect financial aid and scholarship decisions; therefore, many institutions are proceeding with caution in their approach.⁸

Effect on Residency Selection

Because the SCOTUS ruling references colleges and universities, not health care employers, it should not affect the residency selection process; however, there is variability in how health care institutions are interpreting the impact of the ruling on residency selection, with some taking a more prescriptive and cautious view on the matter. Additionally, with that said, residency selection is considered an employment practice covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,¹³ which already prohibits the consideration of race in hiring decisions.⁷ Under Title VII, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and it is “unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.” Title VII also states that employers cannot “make employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about a person’s abilities, traits, or performance because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.”¹³

Importantly, Title VII does not imply that employers need to abandon their diversity, equity, or inclusion initiatives, and it does not imply that employers must revoke their mission to improve diversity in the workforce. Title VII does not state that racial information cannot be available. It would be permissible to use racial data to assess recruitment trends, identify inequities, and create programs to eliminate barriers and decrease bias¹⁴; for example, if a program identified that, based on their current review system, students who are underrepresented in medicine were disproportionately screened out of the applicant pool or interview group, they may wish to revisit their review process to identify and eliminate possible biases. Programs also may wish to adopt educational programs for reviewers (eg, implicit bias training) or educational content on the potential for bias in commonly used review criteria, such as the US Medical Licensing Examination, clerkship grades, and the Medical Student Performance Evaluation.¹⁵ Reviewers can and should consider applications in an individualized and holistic manner in which experiences, traits, skills, and academic metrics are assessed together for compatibility with the values and mission of the training program.¹⁶

Future Directions for Dermatology

Beyond the SCOTUS ruling, there have been other shifts in the dermatology residency application process that have affected candidate review. Dermatology programs recently have adopted the use of preference signaling in residency applications. Preliminary data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the 2024 application cycle indicated that of the 81 programs analyzed, there was a nearly 0% chance of an applicant receiving an interview invitation from a program that they did not signal. The median signal-to-interview conversion rate for the 81 dermatology programs analyzed was 55% for gold signals and 15% for silver signals.¹⁷ It can be inferred from these data that programs are using preference signaling as important criteria for consideration of interview invitation. Programs may choose to focus most of their attention on the applicant pool who has signaled them. Because the number and type of signals available is equal among all applicants, we hope that this provides an equitable way for all applicants to garner holistic review from programs that interested them. In addition, there has been a 30% decrease in average applications submitted per dermatology applicant.¹⁸ With a substantial decline in applications to dermatology, we hope that reviewers are able to spend more time devoted to comprehensive holistic review.

Although signals are equitable for applicants, their distribution among programs may not be; for example, in a given year, a program might find that all their gold signals came from non–underrepresented in medicine students. We encourage programs to carefully review applicant data to ensure their recruitment process is not inadvertently discriminatory and is in alignment with their goals and mission.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2023^1,2 on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions was met with a range of reactions across the country. Given the implications of this decision on the future makeup of higher education, the downstream effects on medical school admissions, and the possible further impact on graduate medical education programs, we sought to explore the potential impact of the landmark decision from the perspective of dermatology residency program directors and offer insights on this pivotal judgment.

Background on the SCOTUS Ruling

In June 2023, SCOTUS issued its formal decision on 2 court cases brought by the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill¹ and Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts)² that addressed college admissions practices dealing with the use of race as a selection criterion in the application process. The cases alleged that these universities had overly emphasized race in the admissions process and thus were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th Amendment.^1,2

The SCOTUS justices voted 6 to 3 in favor of the argument presented by the SFFA, determining that the use of race in the college admissions process essentially constituted a form of racial discrimination. The ruling was in contrast to a prior decision in 2003 that centered on law school admissions at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) in which SCOTUS previously had determined that race could be used as one factor amongst other criteria in the higher education selection process.³ In the 2023 decision siding with SFFA, SCOTUS did acknowledge that it was still acceptable for selection processes to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”²

Effect on Undergraduate Admissions

Prior to the 2023 ruling, several states had already passed independent laws against the use of affirmative action or race-based selection criteria in the admissions process at public colleges and universities.⁴ As a result, these institutions would already be conforming to the principles set forth in the SCOTUS ruling and major changes to their undergraduate admissions policies would not be expected; however, a considerable number of colleges and universities—particularly those considered highly selective with applicant acceptance rates that are well below the national average—reported the use of race as a factor in their admissions processes in standardized reporting surveys.⁵ For these institutions, it is no longer considered acceptable (based on the SCOTUS decision) to use race as a singular factor in admissions or to implement race-conscious decision-making—in which individuals are considered differently based solely on their race—as part of the undergraduate selection process.

In light of these rulings, many institutions have explicitly committed to upholding principles of diversity in their recruitment processes, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of diversity beyond strictly racial terms—including but not limited to socioeconomic diversity, religious diversity, or gender diversity—which is in compliance with the interpretation ruling by the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice.⁶ Additionally, select institutions have taken approaches to explicitly include questions on ways in which applicants have overcome obstacles or challenges, allowing an opportunity for individuals who have had such experiences related to race an opportunity to incorporate these elements into their applications. Finally, some institutions have taken a more limited approach, eliminating ways in which race is explicitly addressed in the application and focusing on race-neutral elements of the application in their approach to selection.⁷

Because the first college admission cycle since the 2023 SCOTUS ruling is still underway, we have yet to witness the full impact of this decision on the current undergraduate admissions landscape.

Effect on Medical School Admissions and Rotations

Although SCOTUS specifically examined the undergraduate admissions process, the ruling on race-conscious admissions also had a profound impact on graduate school admissions including medical school admission processes.^1,2,8,9 This is because the language of the majority opinion refers to “university programs” in its ruling, which also has been broadly interpreted to include graduate school programs. As with undergraduate admissions, it has been interpreted by national medical education organizations and institutions that medical schools also cannot consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a specific factor in the admissions process.^1,2,8,9

Lived individual experiences, including essays that speak to an applicant’s lived experiences and career aspirations related to race, still can be taken into account. In particular, holistic review still can be utilized to evaluate medical school candidates and may play a more integral role in the medical school admissions process now than in the past.^8,10,11 After the ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “today’s decision leaves intact holistic college admissions and recruitment efforts that seek to enroll diverse classes without using racial classifications.”¹

The ruling asserted that universities may define their mission as they see fit. As a result, the ruling did not affect medical school missions or strategic plans, including those that may aim to diversify the health care workforce.^8,10,11 The ruling also did not affect the ability to utilize pathway programs to encourage a career in medicine or recruitment relationships with diverse undergraduate or community-based organizations. Student interest groups also can be involved in the relationship-building or recruitment activities for medical schools.^8,10,11 Guidance from the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice noted that institutions may consider race in identifying prospective applicants through recruitment and outreach, “provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process, and provided that all students—whether part of a specifically targeted group or not—enjoy the same opportunity to apply and compete for admission.”¹²

In regard to pathways programs, slots cannot be reserved and preference cannot be given to applicants who participated in these programs if race was a factor in selecting participants.⁸ Similarly, medical school away electives related to diversity cannot be reserved for those of a specific race or ethnicity; however, these electives can utilize commitment to stated aims and missions of the rotation, such as a commitment to diversity within medicine, as a basis to selecting candidates.⁸

The ruling did not address how race or ethnicity is factored into financial aid or scholarship determination. There has been concern in higher education that the legal framework utilized in the SCOTUS decision could affect financial aid and scholarship decisions; therefore, many institutions are proceeding with caution in their approach.⁸

Effect on Residency Selection

Because the SCOTUS ruling references colleges and universities, not health care employers, it should not affect the residency selection process; however, there is variability in how health care institutions are interpreting the impact of the ruling on residency selection, with some taking a more prescriptive and cautious view on the matter. Additionally, with that said, residency selection is considered an employment practice covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,¹³ which already prohibits the consideration of race in hiring decisions.⁷ Under Title VII, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and it is “unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.” Title VII also states that employers cannot “make employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about a person’s abilities, traits, or performance because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.”¹³

Importantly, Title VII does not imply that employers need to abandon their diversity, equity, or inclusion initiatives, and it does not imply that employers must revoke their mission to improve diversity in the workforce. Title VII does not state that racial information cannot be available. It would be permissible to use racial data to assess recruitment trends, identify inequities, and create programs to eliminate barriers and decrease bias¹⁴; for example, if a program identified that, based on their current review system, students who are underrepresented in medicine were disproportionately screened out of the applicant pool or interview group, they may wish to revisit their review process to identify and eliminate possible biases. Programs also may wish to adopt educational programs for reviewers (eg, implicit bias training) or educational content on the potential for bias in commonly used review criteria, such as the US Medical Licensing Examination, clerkship grades, and the Medical Student Performance Evaluation.¹⁵ Reviewers can and should consider applications in an individualized and holistic manner in which experiences, traits, skills, and academic metrics are assessed together for compatibility with the values and mission of the training program.¹⁶

Future Directions for Dermatology

Beyond the SCOTUS ruling, there have been other shifts in the dermatology residency application process that have affected candidate review. Dermatology programs recently have adopted the use of preference signaling in residency applications. Preliminary data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the 2024 application cycle indicated that of the 81 programs analyzed, there was a nearly 0% chance of an applicant receiving an interview invitation from a program that they did not signal. The median signal-to-interview conversion rate for the 81 dermatology programs analyzed was 55% for gold signals and 15% for silver signals.¹⁷ It can be inferred from these data that programs are using preference signaling as important criteria for consideration of interview invitation. Programs may choose to focus most of their attention on the applicant pool who has signaled them. Because the number and type of signals available is equal among all applicants, we hope that this provides an equitable way for all applicants to garner holistic review from programs that interested them. In addition, there has been a 30% decrease in average applications submitted per dermatology applicant.¹⁸ With a substantial decline in applications to dermatology, we hope that reviewers are able to spend more time devoted to comprehensive holistic review.

Although signals are equitable for applicants, their distribution among programs may not be; for example, in a given year, a program might find that all their gold signals came from non–underrepresented in medicine students. We encourage programs to carefully review applicant data to ensure their recruitment process is not inadvertently discriminatory and is in alignment with their goals and mission.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2023^1,2 on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions was met with a range of reactions across the country. Given the implications of this decision on the future makeup of higher education, the downstream effects on medical school admissions, and the possible further impact on graduate medical education programs, we sought to explore the potential impact of the landmark decision from the perspective of dermatology residency program directors and offer insights on this pivotal judgment.

Background on the SCOTUS Ruling

In June 2023, SCOTUS issued its formal decision on 2 court cases brought by the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill¹ and Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts)² that addressed college admissions practices dealing with the use of race as a selection criterion in the application process. The cases alleged that these universities had overly emphasized race in the admissions process and thus were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th Amendment.^1,2

The SCOTUS justices voted 6 to 3 in favor of the argument presented by the SFFA, determining that the use of race in the college admissions process essentially constituted a form of racial discrimination. The ruling was in contrast to a prior decision in 2003 that centered on law school admissions at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) in which SCOTUS previously had determined that race could be used as one factor amongst other criteria in the higher education selection process.³ In the 2023 decision siding with SFFA, SCOTUS did acknowledge that it was still acceptable for selection processes to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”²

Effect on Undergraduate Admissions

Prior to the 2023 ruling, several states had already passed independent laws against the use of affirmative action or race-based selection criteria in the admissions process at public colleges and universities.⁴ As a result, these institutions would already be conforming to the principles set forth in the SCOTUS ruling and major changes to their undergraduate admissions policies would not be expected; however, a considerable number of colleges and universities—particularly those considered highly selective with applicant acceptance rates that are well below the national average—reported the use of race as a factor in their admissions processes in standardized reporting surveys.⁵ For these institutions, it is no longer considered acceptable (based on the SCOTUS decision) to use race as a singular factor in admissions or to implement race-conscious decision-making—in which individuals are considered differently based solely on their race—as part of the undergraduate selection process.

In light of these rulings, many institutions have explicitly committed to upholding principles of diversity in their recruitment processes, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of diversity beyond strictly racial terms—including but not limited to socioeconomic diversity, religious diversity, or gender diversity—which is in compliance with the interpretation ruling by the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice.⁶ Additionally, select institutions have taken approaches to explicitly include questions on ways in which applicants have overcome obstacles or challenges, allowing an opportunity for individuals who have had such experiences related to race an opportunity to incorporate these elements into their applications. Finally, some institutions have taken a more limited approach, eliminating ways in which race is explicitly addressed in the application and focusing on race-neutral elements of the application in their approach to selection.⁷

Because the first college admission cycle since the 2023 SCOTUS ruling is still underway, we have yet to witness the full impact of this decision on the current undergraduate admissions landscape.

Effect on Medical School Admissions and Rotations

Although SCOTUS specifically examined the undergraduate admissions process, the ruling on race-conscious admissions also had a profound impact on graduate school admissions including medical school admission processes.^1,2,8,9 This is because the language of the majority opinion refers to “university programs” in its ruling, which also has been broadly interpreted to include graduate school programs. As with undergraduate admissions, it has been interpreted by national medical education organizations and institutions that medical schools also cannot consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a specific factor in the admissions process.^1,2,8,9

Lived individual experiences, including essays that speak to an applicant’s lived experiences and career aspirations related to race, still can be taken into account. In particular, holistic review still can be utilized to evaluate medical school candidates and may play a more integral role in the medical school admissions process now than in the past.^8,10,11 After the ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “today’s decision leaves intact holistic college admissions and recruitment efforts that seek to enroll diverse classes without using racial classifications.”¹

The ruling asserted that universities may define their mission as they see fit. As a result, the ruling did not affect medical school missions or strategic plans, including those that may aim to diversify the health care workforce.^8,10,11 The ruling also did not affect the ability to utilize pathway programs to encourage a career in medicine or recruitment relationships with diverse undergraduate or community-based organizations. Student interest groups also can be involved in the relationship-building or recruitment activities for medical schools.^8,10,11 Guidance from the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice noted that institutions may consider race in identifying prospective applicants through recruitment and outreach, “provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process, and provided that all students—whether part of a specifically targeted group or not—enjoy the same opportunity to apply and compete for admission.”¹²

In regard to pathways programs, slots cannot be reserved and preference cannot be given to applicants who participated in these programs if race was a factor in selecting participants.⁸ Similarly, medical school away electives related to diversity cannot be reserved for those of a specific race or ethnicity; however, these electives can utilize commitment to stated aims and missions of the rotation, such as a commitment to diversity within medicine, as a basis to selecting candidates.⁸

The ruling did not address how race or ethnicity is factored into financial aid or scholarship determination. There has been concern in higher education that the legal framework utilized in the SCOTUS decision could affect financial aid and scholarship decisions; therefore, many institutions are proceeding with caution in their approach.⁸

Effect on Residency Selection

Because the SCOTUS ruling references colleges and universities, not health care employers, it should not affect the residency selection process; however, there is variability in how health care institutions are interpreting the impact of the ruling on residency selection, with some taking a more prescriptive and cautious view on the matter. Additionally, with that said, residency selection is considered an employment practice covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,¹³ which already prohibits the consideration of race in hiring decisions.⁷ Under Title VII, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and it is “unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.” Title VII also states that employers cannot “make employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about a person’s abilities, traits, or performance because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.”¹³

Importantly, Title VII does not imply that employers need to abandon their diversity, equity, or inclusion initiatives, and it does not imply that employers must revoke their mission to improve diversity in the workforce. Title VII does not state that racial information cannot be available. It would be permissible to use racial data to assess recruitment trends, identify inequities, and create programs to eliminate barriers and decrease bias¹⁴; for example, if a program identified that, based on their current review system, students who are underrepresented in medicine were disproportionately screened out of the applicant pool or interview group, they may wish to revisit their review process to identify and eliminate possible biases. Programs also may wish to adopt educational programs for reviewers (eg, implicit bias training) or educational content on the potential for bias in commonly used review criteria, such as the US Medical Licensing Examination, clerkship grades, and the Medical Student Performance Evaluation.¹⁵ Reviewers can and should consider applications in an individualized and holistic manner in which experiences, traits, skills, and academic metrics are assessed together for compatibility with the values and mission of the training program.¹⁶

Future Directions for Dermatology

Beyond the SCOTUS ruling, there have been other shifts in the dermatology residency application process that have affected candidate review. Dermatology programs recently have adopted the use of preference signaling in residency applications. Preliminary data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the 2024 application cycle indicated that of the 81 programs analyzed, there was a nearly 0% chance of an applicant receiving an interview invitation from a program that they did not signal. The median signal-to-interview conversion rate for the 81 dermatology programs analyzed was 55% for gold signals and 15% for silver signals.¹⁷ It can be inferred from these data that programs are using preference signaling as important criteria for consideration of interview invitation. Programs may choose to focus most of their attention on the applicant pool who has signaled them. Because the number and type of signals available is equal among all applicants, we hope that this provides an equitable way for all applicants to garner holistic review from programs that interested them. In addition, there has been a 30% decrease in average applications submitted per dermatology applicant.¹⁸ With a substantial decline in applications to dermatology, we hope that reviewers are able to spend more time devoted to comprehensive holistic review.

Although signals are equitable for applicants, their distribution among programs may not be; for example, in a given year, a program might find that all their gold signals came from non–underrepresented in medicine students. We encourage programs to carefully review applicant data to ensure their recruitment process is not inadvertently discriminatory and is in alignment with their goals and mission.

According to Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) statistics, there were more than 1400 dermatology applicants in 2022, with an average of almost 560 applications received per program.^1,2 With the goal to expand the diversity of board-certified dermatologists, there is increasing emphasis on the holistic review of applications, forgoing filtering by discrete metrics such as AOA (American Osteopathic Association) membership and US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores.³ According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, holistic review focuses on an individual applicant’s experience and unique attributes in addition to their academic achievements.⁴ Recent strategies to enhance the residency recruitment process have included the introduction of standardized letters of recommendation, preference signaling, and supplemental applications.^5,6

Because it has become increasingly important to include applicant factors and achievements that extend beyond academics, the number of data points that are required for holistic review has expanded. If each application required 20 minutes to review, this would result in 166 total hours for complete holistic review of 500 applications. Tools that can facilitate holistic review of candidates and select applicants whose interests and career goals align with individual residency programs have the potential to optimize review. Artificial intelligence (AI) may aid in this process. This column highlights some of the published research on novel AI strategies that have the potential to impact dermatology residency recruitment.

Machine Learning to Screen Applicants

Artificial intelligence involves a machine-based system that can make decisions, predictions, and recommendations when provided a given set of human-defined objectives.⁷ Autonomous systems, machine learning (ML), and generative AI are examples of AI models.⁸ Machine learning has been explored to shorten and streamline the application review process and decrease bias. Because ML is a model in which the computer learns patterns based on large amounts of input data,⁹ it is possible that models could be developed and used in future cycles. Some studies found that applicants were discovered who traditionally would not have made it to the next stage of consideration based primarily on academic metrics.^10,11 Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ developed and validated an ML-based decision support tool for residency program directors to use for interview invitation decisions. The tool utilized 61 variables from ERAS data from more than 8000 applications in 3 prior application cycles at a single internal medicine residency program. An interview invitation was designated as the target outcome. Ultimately, the model would output a probability score for an interview invitation. The authors were able to tune the model to a 91% sensitivity and 85% specificity; for a pool of 2000 applicants and an invite rate of 15%, 1475 applicants would be screened out with a negative predictive value of 98% with maintenance of performance, even with removal of USMLE Step 1 examination scores. Their ML model was prospectively validated during an ongoing resident selection cycle, and when compared with human review, the AI model found an additional 20 applicants to invite for interviews. They concluded that this tool could potentially augment the human review process and reveal applicants who may have otherwise been overlooked.¹⁰

Rees and Ryder¹¹ utilized another ML screening approach with the target outcome of ranked and matriculated compared with ranked applicants based on ERAS data using 72 unique variables for more than 5000 applicants. Their model was able to identify ranked candidates from the overall applicant pool with high accuracy; identification of ranked applicants that matriculated at the program was more modest but better than random probability.¹¹Both the Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ and Rees and Ryder¹¹ models excluded some unstructured data components of the residency application, such as personal statements, medical student performance evaluation letters, transcripts, and letters of reference, that some may consider strongly in the holistic review process. Drum et al¹² explored the value of extraction of this type of data. They created a program to extract “snippets” of text that pertained to values of successful residents for their internal medicine–pediatrics residency program that they previously validated via a modified Delphi method, which then were annotated by expert reviewers. Natural language processing was used to train an ML algorithm (MLA) to classify snippets into 11 value categories. Four values had more than 66% agreement with human annotation: academic strength; leadership; communication; and justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Although this MLA has not reached high enough levels of agreement for all the predetermined success values, the authors hope to generate a model that could produce a quantitative score to use as an initial screening tool to select applicants for interview.¹² This type of analysis also could be incorporated into other MLAs for further refinement of the mentoring and application process.

Knapke et al¹³ evaluated the use of a natural language modeling platform to look for semantic patterns in medical school applications that could predict which students would be more likely to pursue family medicine residency, thus beginning the recruitment process even before residency application. This strategy could be particularly valuable for specialties for which there may be greater need in the workforce.

AI for Administrative Purposes

Artificial intelligence also has been used for nonapplication aspects of the residency recruitment process, such as interview scheduling. In the absence of coordinated interview release dates (as was implemented in dermatology starting in the 2020-2021 application cycle), a deluge of responses to schedule an interview comes flooding in as soon as invitations for interviewees are sent out, which can produce anxiety both for applicants and residency program staff as the schedule is sorted out and can create delays at both ends. Stephens et al¹⁴ utilized a computerized scheduling program for pediatric surgery fellowship applicants. It was used in 2016 to schedule 26 interviews, and it was found to reduce the average time to schedule an interview from 14.4 hours to 1.7 hours. It also reduced the number of email exchanges needed to finalize scheduling.¹⁴

Another aspect of residency recruitment that is amenable to AI is information gathering. Many would-be applicants turn to the internet and social media to learn about residency programs—their unique qualities, assets, and potential alignment of career goals.¹⁵ This exchange often is unidirectional, as the applicant clicks through the website searching for information. Yi et al¹⁶ explored the use of a chatbot, which mimics human conversation and exchange, on their institution’s pain fellowship website. Fellowship applicants could create specific prompts, such as “Show me faculty that trained at <applicant’s home program>,” and the chatbot would reply with the answer. The researchers sent a survey to all 258 applicants to the pain fellowship program that was completed by 48 applicants. Of these respondents, more than 70% (35/48) utilized the chatbot, and 84% (40/48) stated that they had found the information that was requested. The respondents overall found the chatbot to be a useful and positive experience.¹⁶

Specific Tools to Consider

There are some tools that are publicly available for programs and applicants to use that rely on AI.

In collaboration with ERAS and the Association of American Medical Colleges, Cortex powered by Thalamus (SJ MedConnect Inc)(https://thalamusgme.com/cortex-application-screening/) offers technology-assisted holistic review of residency and fellowship applications by utilizing natural language processing and optical character recognition to aggregate data from ERAS.

Tools also are being leveraged by applicants to help them find residency programs that fit their criteria, prepare for interviews, and complete portions of the application. Match A Resident (https://www.matcharesident.com/) is a resource for the international medical graduate community. As part of the service, the “Learn More with MARai” feature uses AI to generate information on residency programs to increase applicants’ confidence going into the interview process.¹⁷ Big Interview Medical (https://www.biginterviewmedical.com/ai-feedback), a paid interview preparation system developed by interview experts, utilizes AI to provide feedback to residents practicing for the interview process by measuring the amount of natural eye contact, language used, and pace of speech. A “Power Word” score is provided that incorporates aspects such as using filler words (“umm,” “uhh”). A Pace of Speech Tool provides rate of speaking feedback presuming that there is an ideal pace to decrease the impression that the applicant is nervous. Johnstone et al¹⁸ used ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/auth/login) to generate 2 personal statements for anesthesia residency applicants. Based on survey responses from 31 program directors, 22 rated the statements as good or excellent.¹⁸

Ethnical Concerns and Limitations of AI

The potential use of AI tools by residency applicants inevitably brings forth consideration of biases, ethics, and current limitations. These tools are highly dependent on the quality and quantity of data used for training and validation. Information considered valuable in the holistic review of applications includes unstructured data such as personal statements and letters of recommendation, and incorporating this information can be challenging in ML models, in contrast to discrete structured data such as grades, test scores, and awards. In addition, MLAs depend on large quantities of data to optimize performance.¹⁹ Depending on the size of the applicant pool and the amount of data available, this can present a limitation for smaller programs in developing ML tools for residency recruitment. Studies evaluating the use of AI in the residency application process often are from single institutions, and therefore generalizability is uncertain. The risk for latent bias—whereby a historical or pre-existing stereotype gets perpetuated through the system—must be considered, with the development of tools to detect and address this if found. Choosing which data to use to train the model can be tricky as well as choosing the outcome of interest. For these interventions to become more resilient, programs need to self-examine what defines their criteria for a successful match to their program to incorporate this data into their ML studies. The previously described models in this overview focused on outcomes such as whether an applicant was invited to interview, whether the applicant was ranked, and whether the applicant matriculated to their program.^10,11 For supervised ML models that rely on outcomes to develop a prediction, continued research as to what outcomes represent resident success (eg, passing board certification examinations, correlation with clinical performance) would be important. There also is the possibility of applicants restructuring their applications to align with goals of an AI-assisted search and using AI to generate part or all of their application. The use of ChatGPT and other AI tools in the preparation of personal statements and curriculum vitae may provide benefits such as improved efficiency and grammar support.²⁰ However, as use becomes more widespread, there is the potential increased similarity of personal statements and likely varied opinions on the use of such tools as writing aids.^21,22 Continued efforts to develop guidance on generative AI use cases is ongoing; an example is the launch of VALID AI (https://validai.health/), a collaboration among health systems, health plans, and AI research organizations and nonprofits.²³

Final Thoughts

Artificial intelligence tools may be a promising resource for residency and fellowship programs seeking to find meaningful ways to select applicants who are good matches for their training environment. Prioritizing the holistic review of applications has been promoted as a method to evaluate the applicant beyond their test scores and grades. The use of MLAs may streamline this review process, aid in scheduling interviews, and help discover trends in successful matriculants.

According to Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) statistics, there were more than 1400 dermatology applicants in 2022, with an average of almost 560 applications received per program.^1,2 With the goal to expand the diversity of board-certified dermatologists, there is increasing emphasis on the holistic review of applications, forgoing filtering by discrete metrics such as AOA (American Osteopathic Association) membership and US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores.³ According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, holistic review focuses on an individual applicant’s experience and unique attributes in addition to their academic achievements.⁴ Recent strategies to enhance the residency recruitment process have included the introduction of standardized letters of recommendation, preference signaling, and supplemental applications.^5,6

Because it has become increasingly important to include applicant factors and achievements that extend beyond academics, the number of data points that are required for holistic review has expanded. If each application required 20 minutes to review, this would result in 166 total hours for complete holistic review of 500 applications. Tools that can facilitate holistic review of candidates and select applicants whose interests and career goals align with individual residency programs have the potential to optimize review. Artificial intelligence (AI) may aid in this process. This column highlights some of the published research on novel AI strategies that have the potential to impact dermatology residency recruitment.

Machine Learning to Screen Applicants

Artificial intelligence involves a machine-based system that can make decisions, predictions, and recommendations when provided a given set of human-defined objectives.⁷ Autonomous systems, machine learning (ML), and generative AI are examples of AI models.⁸ Machine learning has been explored to shorten and streamline the application review process and decrease bias. Because ML is a model in which the computer learns patterns based on large amounts of input data,⁹ it is possible that models could be developed and used in future cycles. Some studies found that applicants were discovered who traditionally would not have made it to the next stage of consideration based primarily on academic metrics.^10,11 Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ developed and validated an ML-based decision support tool for residency program directors to use for interview invitation decisions. The tool utilized 61 variables from ERAS data from more than 8000 applications in 3 prior application cycles at a single internal medicine residency program. An interview invitation was designated as the target outcome. Ultimately, the model would output a probability score for an interview invitation. The authors were able to tune the model to a 91% sensitivity and 85% specificity; for a pool of 2000 applicants and an invite rate of 15%, 1475 applicants would be screened out with a negative predictive value of 98% with maintenance of performance, even with removal of USMLE Step 1 examination scores. Their ML model was prospectively validated during an ongoing resident selection cycle, and when compared with human review, the AI model found an additional 20 applicants to invite for interviews. They concluded that this tool could potentially augment the human review process and reveal applicants who may have otherwise been overlooked.¹⁰

Rees and Ryder¹¹ utilized another ML screening approach with the target outcome of ranked and matriculated compared with ranked applicants based on ERAS data using 72 unique variables for more than 5000 applicants. Their model was able to identify ranked candidates from the overall applicant pool with high accuracy; identification of ranked applicants that matriculated at the program was more modest but better than random probability.¹¹Both the Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ and Rees and Ryder¹¹ models excluded some unstructured data components of the residency application, such as personal statements, medical student performance evaluation letters, transcripts, and letters of reference, that some may consider strongly in the holistic review process. Drum et al¹² explored the value of extraction of this type of data. They created a program to extract “snippets” of text that pertained to values of successful residents for their internal medicine–pediatrics residency program that they previously validated via a modified Delphi method, which then were annotated by expert reviewers. Natural language processing was used to train an ML algorithm (MLA) to classify snippets into 11 value categories. Four values had more than 66% agreement with human annotation: academic strength; leadership; communication; and justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Although this MLA has not reached high enough levels of agreement for all the predetermined success values, the authors hope to generate a model that could produce a quantitative score to use as an initial screening tool to select applicants for interview.¹² This type of analysis also could be incorporated into other MLAs for further refinement of the mentoring and application process.

Knapke et al¹³ evaluated the use of a natural language modeling platform to look for semantic patterns in medical school applications that could predict which students would be more likely to pursue family medicine residency, thus beginning the recruitment process even before residency application. This strategy could be particularly valuable for specialties for which there may be greater need in the workforce.

AI for Administrative Purposes

Artificial intelligence also has been used for nonapplication aspects of the residency recruitment process, such as interview scheduling. In the absence of coordinated interview release dates (as was implemented in dermatology starting in the 2020-2021 application cycle), a deluge of responses to schedule an interview comes flooding in as soon as invitations for interviewees are sent out, which can produce anxiety both for applicants and residency program staff as the schedule is sorted out and can create delays at both ends. Stephens et al¹⁴ utilized a computerized scheduling program for pediatric surgery fellowship applicants. It was used in 2016 to schedule 26 interviews, and it was found to reduce the average time to schedule an interview from 14.4 hours to 1.7 hours. It also reduced the number of email exchanges needed to finalize scheduling.¹⁴

Another aspect of residency recruitment that is amenable to AI is information gathering. Many would-be applicants turn to the internet and social media to learn about residency programs—their unique qualities, assets, and potential alignment of career goals.¹⁵ This exchange often is unidirectional, as the applicant clicks through the website searching for information. Yi et al¹⁶ explored the use of a chatbot, which mimics human conversation and exchange, on their institution’s pain fellowship website. Fellowship applicants could create specific prompts, such as “Show me faculty that trained at <applicant’s home program>,” and the chatbot would reply with the answer. The researchers sent a survey to all 258 applicants to the pain fellowship program that was completed by 48 applicants. Of these respondents, more than 70% (35/48) utilized the chatbot, and 84% (40/48) stated that they had found the information that was requested. The respondents overall found the chatbot to be a useful and positive experience.¹⁶

Specific Tools to Consider

There are some tools that are publicly available for programs and applicants to use that rely on AI.

In collaboration with ERAS and the Association of American Medical Colleges, Cortex powered by Thalamus (SJ MedConnect Inc)(https://thalamusgme.com/cortex-application-screening/) offers technology-assisted holistic review of residency and fellowship applications by utilizing natural language processing and optical character recognition to aggregate data from ERAS.

Tools also are being leveraged by applicants to help them find residency programs that fit their criteria, prepare for interviews, and complete portions of the application. Match A Resident (https://www.matcharesident.com/) is a resource for the international medical graduate community. As part of the service, the “Learn More with MARai” feature uses AI to generate information on residency programs to increase applicants’ confidence going into the interview process.¹⁷ Big Interview Medical (https://www.biginterviewmedical.com/ai-feedback), a paid interview preparation system developed by interview experts, utilizes AI to provide feedback to residents practicing for the interview process by measuring the amount of natural eye contact, language used, and pace of speech. A “Power Word” score is provided that incorporates aspects such as using filler words (“umm,” “uhh”). A Pace of Speech Tool provides rate of speaking feedback presuming that there is an ideal pace to decrease the impression that the applicant is nervous. Johnstone et al¹⁸ used ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/auth/login) to generate 2 personal statements for anesthesia residency applicants. Based on survey responses from 31 program directors, 22 rated the statements as good or excellent.¹⁸

Ethnical Concerns and Limitations of AI

The potential use of AI tools by residency applicants inevitably brings forth consideration of biases, ethics, and current limitations. These tools are highly dependent on the quality and quantity of data used for training and validation. Information considered valuable in the holistic review of applications includes unstructured data such as personal statements and letters of recommendation, and incorporating this information can be challenging in ML models, in contrast to discrete structured data such as grades, test scores, and awards. In addition, MLAs depend on large quantities of data to optimize performance.¹⁹ Depending on the size of the applicant pool and the amount of data available, this can present a limitation for smaller programs in developing ML tools for residency recruitment. Studies evaluating the use of AI in the residency application process often are from single institutions, and therefore generalizability is uncertain. The risk for latent bias—whereby a historical or pre-existing stereotype gets perpetuated through the system—must be considered, with the development of tools to detect and address this if found. Choosing which data to use to train the model can be tricky as well as choosing the outcome of interest. For these interventions to become more resilient, programs need to self-examine what defines their criteria for a successful match to their program to incorporate this data into their ML studies. The previously described models in this overview focused on outcomes such as whether an applicant was invited to interview, whether the applicant was ranked, and whether the applicant matriculated to their program.^10,11 For supervised ML models that rely on outcomes to develop a prediction, continued research as to what outcomes represent resident success (eg, passing board certification examinations, correlation with clinical performance) would be important. There also is the possibility of applicants restructuring their applications to align with goals of an AI-assisted search and using AI to generate part or all of their application. The use of ChatGPT and other AI tools in the preparation of personal statements and curriculum vitae may provide benefits such as improved efficiency and grammar support.²⁰ However, as use becomes more widespread, there is the potential increased similarity of personal statements and likely varied opinions on the use of such tools as writing aids.^21,22 Continued efforts to develop guidance on generative AI use cases is ongoing; an example is the launch of VALID AI (https://validai.health/), a collaboration among health systems, health plans, and AI research organizations and nonprofits.²³

Final Thoughts

Artificial intelligence tools may be a promising resource for residency and fellowship programs seeking to find meaningful ways to select applicants who are good matches for their training environment. Prioritizing the holistic review of applications has been promoted as a method to evaluate the applicant beyond their test scores and grades. The use of MLAs may streamline this review process, aid in scheduling interviews, and help discover trends in successful matriculants.

According to Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) statistics, there were more than 1400 dermatology applicants in 2022, with an average of almost 560 applications received per program.^1,2 With the goal to expand the diversity of board-certified dermatologists, there is increasing emphasis on the holistic review of applications, forgoing filtering by discrete metrics such as AOA (American Osteopathic Association) membership and US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores.³ According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, holistic review focuses on an individual applicant’s experience and unique attributes in addition to their academic achievements.⁴ Recent strategies to enhance the residency recruitment process have included the introduction of standardized letters of recommendation, preference signaling, and supplemental applications.^5,6

Because it has become increasingly important to include applicant factors and achievements that extend beyond academics, the number of data points that are required for holistic review has expanded. If each application required 20 minutes to review, this would result in 166 total hours for complete holistic review of 500 applications. Tools that can facilitate holistic review of candidates and select applicants whose interests and career goals align with individual residency programs have the potential to optimize review. Artificial intelligence (AI) may aid in this process. This column highlights some of the published research on novel AI strategies that have the potential to impact dermatology residency recruitment.

Machine Learning to Screen Applicants

Artificial intelligence involves a machine-based system that can make decisions, predictions, and recommendations when provided a given set of human-defined objectives.⁷ Autonomous systems, machine learning (ML), and generative AI are examples of AI models.⁸ Machine learning has been explored to shorten and streamline the application review process and decrease bias. Because ML is a model in which the computer learns patterns based on large amounts of input data,⁹ it is possible that models could be developed and used in future cycles. Some studies found that applicants were discovered who traditionally would not have made it to the next stage of consideration based primarily on academic metrics.^10,11 Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ developed and validated an ML-based decision support tool for residency program directors to use for interview invitation decisions. The tool utilized 61 variables from ERAS data from more than 8000 applications in 3 prior application cycles at a single internal medicine residency program. An interview invitation was designated as the target outcome. Ultimately, the model would output a probability score for an interview invitation. The authors were able to tune the model to a 91% sensitivity and 85% specificity; for a pool of 2000 applicants and an invite rate of 15%, 1475 applicants would be screened out with a negative predictive value of 98% with maintenance of performance, even with removal of USMLE Step 1 examination scores. Their ML model was prospectively validated during an ongoing resident selection cycle, and when compared with human review, the AI model found an additional 20 applicants to invite for interviews. They concluded that this tool could potentially augment the human review process and reveal applicants who may have otherwise been overlooked.¹⁰

Rees and Ryder¹¹ utilized another ML screening approach with the target outcome of ranked and matriculated compared with ranked applicants based on ERAS data using 72 unique variables for more than 5000 applicants. Their model was able to identify ranked candidates from the overall applicant pool with high accuracy; identification of ranked applicants that matriculated at the program was more modest but better than random probability.¹¹Both the Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ and Rees and Ryder¹¹ models excluded some unstructured data components of the residency application, such as personal statements, medical student performance evaluation letters, transcripts, and letters of reference, that some may consider strongly in the holistic review process. Drum et al¹² explored the value of extraction of this type of data. They created a program to extract “snippets” of text that pertained to values of successful residents for their internal medicine–pediatrics residency program that they previously validated via a modified Delphi method, which then were annotated by expert reviewers. Natural language processing was used to train an ML algorithm (MLA) to classify snippets into 11 value categories. Four values had more than 66% agreement with human annotation: academic strength; leadership; communication; and justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Although this MLA has not reached high enough levels of agreement for all the predetermined success values, the authors hope to generate a model that could produce a quantitative score to use as an initial screening tool to select applicants for interview.¹² This type of analysis also could be incorporated into other MLAs for further refinement of the mentoring and application process.

Knapke et al¹³ evaluated the use of a natural language modeling platform to look for semantic patterns in medical school applications that could predict which students would be more likely to pursue family medicine residency, thus beginning the recruitment process even before residency application. This strategy could be particularly valuable for specialties for which there may be greater need in the workforce.

AI for Administrative Purposes

Artificial intelligence also has been used for nonapplication aspects of the residency recruitment process, such as interview scheduling. In the absence of coordinated interview release dates (as was implemented in dermatology starting in the 2020-2021 application cycle), a deluge of responses to schedule an interview comes flooding in as soon as invitations for interviewees are sent out, which can produce anxiety both for applicants and residency program staff as the schedule is sorted out and can create delays at both ends. Stephens et al¹⁴ utilized a computerized scheduling program for pediatric surgery fellowship applicants. It was used in 2016 to schedule 26 interviews, and it was found to reduce the average time to schedule an interview from 14.4 hours to 1.7 hours. It also reduced the number of email exchanges needed to finalize scheduling.¹⁴

Another aspect of residency recruitment that is amenable to AI is information gathering. Many would-be applicants turn to the internet and social media to learn about residency programs—their unique qualities, assets, and potential alignment of career goals.¹⁵ This exchange often is unidirectional, as the applicant clicks through the website searching for information. Yi et al¹⁶ explored the use of a chatbot, which mimics human conversation and exchange, on their institution’s pain fellowship website. Fellowship applicants could create specific prompts, such as “Show me faculty that trained at <applicant’s home program>,” and the chatbot would reply with the answer. The researchers sent a survey to all 258 applicants to the pain fellowship program that was completed by 48 applicants. Of these respondents, more than 70% (35/48) utilized the chatbot, and 84% (40/48) stated that they had found the information that was requested. The respondents overall found the chatbot to be a useful and positive experience.¹⁶

Specific Tools to Consider

There are some tools that are publicly available for programs and applicants to use that rely on AI.

In collaboration with ERAS and the Association of American Medical Colleges, Cortex powered by Thalamus (SJ MedConnect Inc)(https://thalamusgme.com/cortex-application-screening/) offers technology-assisted holistic review of residency and fellowship applications by utilizing natural language processing and optical character recognition to aggregate data from ERAS.

Tools also are being leveraged by applicants to help them find residency programs that fit their criteria, prepare for interviews, and complete portions of the application. Match A Resident (https://www.matcharesident.com/) is a resource for the international medical graduate community. As part of the service, the “Learn More with MARai” feature uses AI to generate information on residency programs to increase applicants’ confidence going into the interview process.¹⁷ Big Interview Medical (https://www.biginterviewmedical.com/ai-feedback), a paid interview preparation system developed by interview experts, utilizes AI to provide feedback to residents practicing for the interview process by measuring the amount of natural eye contact, language used, and pace of speech. A “Power Word” score is provided that incorporates aspects such as using filler words (“umm,” “uhh”). A Pace of Speech Tool provides rate of speaking feedback presuming that there is an ideal pace to decrease the impression that the applicant is nervous. Johnstone et al¹⁸ used ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/auth/login) to generate 2 personal statements for anesthesia residency applicants. Based on survey responses from 31 program directors, 22 rated the statements as good or excellent.¹⁸

Ethnical Concerns and Limitations of AI

The potential use of AI tools by residency applicants inevitably brings forth consideration of biases, ethics, and current limitations. These tools are highly dependent on the quality and quantity of data used for training and validation. Information considered valuable in the holistic review of applications includes unstructured data such as personal statements and letters of recommendation, and incorporating this information can be challenging in ML models, in contrast to discrete structured data such as grades, test scores, and awards. In addition, MLAs depend on large quantities of data to optimize performance.¹⁹ Depending on the size of the applicant pool and the amount of data available, this can present a limitation for smaller programs in developing ML tools for residency recruitment. Studies evaluating the use of AI in the residency application process often are from single institutions, and therefore generalizability is uncertain. The risk for latent bias—whereby a historical or pre-existing stereotype gets perpetuated through the system—must be considered, with the development of tools to detect and address this if found. Choosing which data to use to train the model can be tricky as well as choosing the outcome of interest. For these interventions to become more resilient, programs need to self-examine what defines their criteria for a successful match to their program to incorporate this data into their ML studies. The previously described models in this overview focused on outcomes such as whether an applicant was invited to interview, whether the applicant was ranked, and whether the applicant matriculated to their program.^10,11 For supervised ML models that rely on outcomes to develop a prediction, continued research as to what outcomes represent resident success (eg, passing board certification examinations, correlation with clinical performance) would be important. There also is the possibility of applicants restructuring their applications to align with goals of an AI-assisted search and using AI to generate part or all of their application. The use of ChatGPT and other AI tools in the preparation of personal statements and curriculum vitae may provide benefits such as improved efficiency and grammar support.²⁰ However, as use becomes more widespread, there is the potential increased similarity of personal statements and likely varied opinions on the use of such tools as writing aids.^21,22 Continued efforts to develop guidance on generative AI use cases is ongoing; an example is the launch of VALID AI (https://validai.health/), a collaboration among health systems, health plans, and AI research organizations and nonprofits.²³

Final Thoughts

Artificial intelligence tools may be a promising resource for residency and fellowship programs seeking to find meaningful ways to select applicants who are good matches for their training environment. Prioritizing the holistic review of applications has been promoted as a method to evaluate the applicant beyond their test scores and grades. The use of MLAs may streamline this review process, aid in scheduling interviews, and help discover trends in successful matriculants.

Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.¹

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.² This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.

A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.^2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.

We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.

Methods

Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ² tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.

Results

Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).² One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.

Comment

The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.² The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.⁴

The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.³ Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.⁵ Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.

During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.⁶ Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.

This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.

Conclusion

Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.

Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.¹

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.² This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.

A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.^2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.

We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.

Methods

Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ² tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.

Results

Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).² One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.

Comment

The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.² The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.⁴

The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.³ Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.⁵ Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.

During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.⁶ Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.

This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.

Conclusion

Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.

Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.¹

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.² This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.

A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.^2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.

We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.

Methods

Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ² tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.

Results

Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).² One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.

Comment

The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.² The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.⁴

The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.³ Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.⁵ Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.

During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.⁶ Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.

This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.

Conclusion

Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.

Medical students often perform away rotations (also called visiting electives) to gain exposure to educational experiences in a particular specialty, learn about a program, and show interest in a certain program. Away rotations also allow applicants to meet and form relationships with mentors and faculty outside of their home institution. For residency programs, away rotations provide an opportunity for a holistic review of applicants by allowing program directors to get to know potential residency applicants and assess their performance in the clinical environment and among the program’s team. In a National Resident Matching Program survey, program directors (n=17) reported that prior knowledge of an applicant is an important factor in selecting applicants to interview (82.4%) and rank (58.8%).¹

In this article, we discuss the importance of away rotations in dermatology and provide an overview of the Organization of Program Director Associations (OPDA) and Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) guidelines for away rotations.

Importance of the Away Rotation in the Match

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, 86.7% of dermatology applicants (N=345) completed one or more away rotations (mean, 2.7) in 2020.² Winterton et al³ reported that 47% of dermatology applicants (N=45) matched at a program where they completed an away rotation. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of applicants matching to their home program was reported as 26.7% (N=641), which jumped to 40.3% (N=231) in the 2020-2021 cycle.⁴ Given that the majority of dermatology applicants reportedly match either at their home program or at programs where they completed an away rotation, the benefits of away rotations are high, particularly in a competitive specialty such as dermatology and particularly for applicants without a dermatology program at their home institution. However, it must be acknowledged that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, as away rotations have not necessarily been shown to increase applicants’ chances of matching for the most competitive specialties.⁵

OPDA Guidelines for Away Rotations

In 2021, the Coalition of Physician Accountability’s Undergraduate Medical Education-Graduate Medical Education Review Committee recommended creating a workgroup to explore the function and value of away rotations for medical students, programs, and institutions, with a particular focus on issues of equity (eg, accessibility, assessment, opportunity) for underrepresented in medicine students and those with financial disadvantages.⁶ The OPDA workgroup evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of away rotations across specialties. The disadvantages included that away rotations may decrease resources to students at their own institution, particularly if faculty time and energy are funneled/dedicated to away rotators instead of internal rotators, and may impart bias into the recruitment process. Additionally, there is a consideration of equity given the considerable cost and time commitment of travel and housing for students at another institution. In 2022, the estimated cost of an away rotation in dermatology ranged from $1390 to $5500 per rotation.⁷ Visiting scholarships may be available at some institutions but typically are reserved for underrepresented in medicine students.⁸ Virtual rotations offered at some programs offset the cost-prohibitiveness of an in-person away rotation; however, they are not universally offered and may be limited in allowing for meaningful interactions between students and program faculty and residents.

The OPDA away rotation workgroup recommended that (1) each specialty publish guidelines regarding the necessity and number of recommended away rotations; (2) specialties publish explicit language regarding the use of program preference signals to programs where students rotated; (3) programs be transparent about the purpose and value of an away rotation, including explicitly stating whether a formal interview is guaranteed; and (4) the Association of American Medical Colleges create a repository of these specialty-specific recommendations.⁹

APD Guidelines for Away Rotations

In response to the OPDA recommendations, the APD Residency Program Directors Section developed dermatology-specific guidelines for away rotations and established guidelines in other specialties.¹⁰ The APD recommends completing up to 2 away rotations, or 3 for those without a home program, if desired. This number was chosen in acknowledgment of the importance of external program experiences, along with the recognition of the financial and time restrictions associated with away rotations as well as the limited number of spots for rotating students. Away rotations are not mandatory. The APD guidelines explain the purpose and value of an away rotation while also noting that these rotations do not necessarily guarantee a formal interview and recommending that programs be transparent about their policies on interview invitations, which may vary.¹⁰

Final Thoughts

Publishing specialty-specific guidelines on away rotations is one step toward streamlining the process as well as increasing transparency on the importance of these external program experiences in the application process and residency match. Ideally, away rotations provide a valuable educational experience in which students and program directors get to know each other in a mutually beneficial manner; however, away rotations are not required for securing an interview or matching at a program, and there also are recognized disadvantages to away rotations, particularly with regard to equity, that we must continue to weigh as a specialty. The APD will continue its collaborative work to evaluate our application processes to support a sustainable and equitable system.

Medical students often perform away rotations (also called visiting electives) to gain exposure to educational experiences in a particular specialty, learn about a program, and show interest in a certain program. Away rotations also allow applicants to meet and form relationships with mentors and faculty outside of their home institution. For residency programs, away rotations provide an opportunity for a holistic review of applicants by allowing program directors to get to know potential residency applicants and assess their performance in the clinical environment and among the program’s team. In a National Resident Matching Program survey, program directors (n=17) reported that prior knowledge of an applicant is an important factor in selecting applicants to interview (82.4%) and rank (58.8%).¹

In this article, we discuss the importance of away rotations in dermatology and provide an overview of the Organization of Program Director Associations (OPDA) and Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) guidelines for away rotations.

Importance of the Away Rotation in the Match

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, 86.7% of dermatology applicants (N=345) completed one or more away rotations (mean, 2.7) in 2020.² Winterton et al³ reported that 47% of dermatology applicants (N=45) matched at a program where they completed an away rotation. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of applicants matching to their home program was reported as 26.7% (N=641), which jumped to 40.3% (N=231) in the 2020-2021 cycle.⁴ Given that the majority of dermatology applicants reportedly match either at their home program or at programs where they completed an away rotation, the benefits of away rotations are high, particularly in a competitive specialty such as dermatology and particularly for applicants without a dermatology program at their home institution. However, it must be acknowledged that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, as away rotations have not necessarily been shown to increase applicants’ chances of matching for the most competitive specialties.⁵

OPDA Guidelines for Away Rotations

In 2021, the Coalition of Physician Accountability’s Undergraduate Medical Education-Graduate Medical Education Review Committee recommended creating a workgroup to explore the function and value of away rotations for medical students, programs, and institutions, with a particular focus on issues of equity (eg, accessibility, assessment, opportunity) for underrepresented in medicine students and those with financial disadvantages.⁶ The OPDA workgroup evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of away rotations across specialties. The disadvantages included that away rotations may decrease resources to students at their own institution, particularly if faculty time and energy are funneled/dedicated to away rotators instead of internal rotators, and may impart bias into the recruitment process. Additionally, there is a consideration of equity given the considerable cost and time commitment of travel and housing for students at another institution. In 2022, the estimated cost of an away rotation in dermatology ranged from $1390 to $5500 per rotation.⁷ Visiting scholarships may be available at some institutions but typically are reserved for underrepresented in medicine students.⁸ Virtual rotations offered at some programs offset the cost-prohibitiveness of an in-person away rotation; however, they are not universally offered and may be limited in allowing for meaningful interactions between students and program faculty and residents.

The OPDA away rotation workgroup recommended that (1) each specialty publish guidelines regarding the necessity and number of recommended away rotations; (2) specialties publish explicit language regarding the use of program preference signals to programs where students rotated; (3) programs be transparent about the purpose and value of an away rotation, including explicitly stating whether a formal interview is guaranteed; and (4) the Association of American Medical Colleges create a repository of these specialty-specific recommendations.⁹

APD Guidelines for Away Rotations

In response to the OPDA recommendations, the APD Residency Program Directors Section developed dermatology-specific guidelines for away rotations and established guidelines in other specialties.¹⁰ The APD recommends completing up to 2 away rotations, or 3 for those without a home program, if desired. This number was chosen in acknowledgment of the importance of external program experiences, along with the recognition of the financial and time restrictions associated with away rotations as well as the limited number of spots for rotating students. Away rotations are not mandatory. The APD guidelines explain the purpose and value of an away rotation while also noting that these rotations do not necessarily guarantee a formal interview and recommending that programs be transparent about their policies on interview invitations, which may vary.¹⁰

Final Thoughts

Publishing specialty-specific guidelines on away rotations is one step toward streamlining the process as well as increasing transparency on the importance of these external program experiences in the application process and residency match. Ideally, away rotations provide a valuable educational experience in which students and program directors get to know each other in a mutually beneficial manner; however, away rotations are not required for securing an interview or matching at a program, and there also are recognized disadvantages to away rotations, particularly with regard to equity, that we must continue to weigh as a specialty. The APD will continue its collaborative work to evaluate our application processes to support a sustainable and equitable system.

Medical students often perform away rotations (also called visiting electives) to gain exposure to educational experiences in a particular specialty, learn about a program, and show interest in a certain program. Away rotations also allow applicants to meet and form relationships with mentors and faculty outside of their home institution. For residency programs, away rotations provide an opportunity for a holistic review of applicants by allowing program directors to get to know potential residency applicants and assess their performance in the clinical environment and among the program’s team. In a National Resident Matching Program survey, program directors (n=17) reported that prior knowledge of an applicant is an important factor in selecting applicants to interview (82.4%) and rank (58.8%).¹

In this article, we discuss the importance of away rotations in dermatology and provide an overview of the Organization of Program Director Associations (OPDA) and Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) guidelines for away rotations.

Importance of the Away Rotation in the Match

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, 86.7% of dermatology applicants (N=345) completed one or more away rotations (mean, 2.7) in 2020.² Winterton et al³ reported that 47% of dermatology applicants (N=45) matched at a program where they completed an away rotation. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of applicants matching to their home program was reported as 26.7% (N=641), which jumped to 40.3% (N=231) in the 2020-2021 cycle.⁴ Given that the majority of dermatology applicants reportedly match either at their home program or at programs where they completed an away rotation, the benefits of away rotations are high, particularly in a competitive specialty such as dermatology and particularly for applicants without a dermatology program at their home institution. However, it must be acknowledged that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, as away rotations have not necessarily been shown to increase applicants’ chances of matching for the most competitive specialties.⁵

OPDA Guidelines for Away Rotations

In 2021, the Coalition of Physician Accountability’s Undergraduate Medical Education-Graduate Medical Education Review Committee recommended creating a workgroup to explore the function and value of away rotations for medical students, programs, and institutions, with a particular focus on issues of equity (eg, accessibility, assessment, opportunity) for underrepresented in medicine students and those with financial disadvantages.⁶ The OPDA workgroup evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of away rotations across specialties. The disadvantages included that away rotations may decrease resources to students at their own institution, particularly if faculty time and energy are funneled/dedicated to away rotators instead of internal rotators, and may impart bias into the recruitment process. Additionally, there is a consideration of equity given the considerable cost and time commitment of travel and housing for students at another institution. In 2022, the estimated cost of an away rotation in dermatology ranged from $1390 to $5500 per rotation.⁷ Visiting scholarships may be available at some institutions but typically are reserved for underrepresented in medicine students.⁸ Virtual rotations offered at some programs offset the cost-prohibitiveness of an in-person away rotation; however, they are not universally offered and may be limited in allowing for meaningful interactions between students and program faculty and residents.

The OPDA away rotation workgroup recommended that (1) each specialty publish guidelines regarding the necessity and number of recommended away rotations; (2) specialties publish explicit language regarding the use of program preference signals to programs where students rotated; (3) programs be transparent about the purpose and value of an away rotation, including explicitly stating whether a formal interview is guaranteed; and (4) the Association of American Medical Colleges create a repository of these specialty-specific recommendations.⁹

APD Guidelines for Away Rotations

In response to the OPDA recommendations, the APD Residency Program Directors Section developed dermatology-specific guidelines for away rotations and established guidelines in other specialties.¹⁰ The APD recommends completing up to 2 away rotations, or 3 for those without a home program, if desired. This number was chosen in acknowledgment of the importance of external program experiences, along with the recognition of the financial and time restrictions associated with away rotations as well as the limited number of spots for rotating students. Away rotations are not mandatory. The APD guidelines explain the purpose and value of an away rotation while also noting that these rotations do not necessarily guarantee a formal interview and recommending that programs be transparent about their policies on interview invitations, which may vary.¹⁰

Final Thoughts

Publishing specialty-specific guidelines on away rotations is one step toward streamlining the process as well as increasing transparency on the importance of these external program experiences in the application process and residency match. Ideally, away rotations provide a valuable educational experience in which students and program directors get to know each other in a mutually beneficial manner; however, away rotations are not required for securing an interview or matching at a program, and there also are recognized disadvantages to away rotations, particularly with regard to equity, that we must continue to weigh as a specialty. The APD will continue its collaborative work to evaluate our application processes to support a sustainable and equitable system.

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

Dermatology is one of the least diverse medical specialties with only 3% of dermatologists being Black and 4% Latinx.¹ Leading dermatology organizations have called for specialty-wide efforts to improve diversity, with a particular focus on the resident selection process.^2,3 Medical students who are underrepresented in medicine (UIM)(ie, those who identify as Black, Latinx, Native American, or Pacific Islander) face many potential barriers in applying to dermatology programs, including financial limitations, lack of support and mentorship, and less exposure to the specialty.^1,2,4 The COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges in the residency application process with limitations on clinical, research, and volunteer experiences; decreased opportunities for in-person mentorship and away rotations; and a shift to virtual recruitment. Although there has been increased emphasis on recruiting diverse candidates to dermatology, the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated existing barriers for UIM applicants.

We surveyed dermatology residency program directors (PDs) and applicants to evaluate how UIM students approach and fare in the dermatology residency application process as well as the effects of COVID-19 on the most recent application cycle. Herein, we report the results of our surveys with a focus on racial differences in the application process.

Methods

We administered 2 anonymous online surveys—one to 115 PDs through the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) email listserve and another to applicants who participated in the 2020-2021 dermatology residency application cycle through the Dermatology Interest Group Association (DIGA) listserve. The surveys were distributed from March 29 through May 23, 2021. There was no way to determine the number of dermatology applicants on the DIGA listserve. The surveys were reviewed and approved by the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, California) institutional review board (approval #UP-21-00118).

Participants were not required to answer every survey question; response rates varied by question. Survey responses with less than 10% completion were excluded from analysis. Data were collected, analyzed, and stored using Qualtrics, a secure online survey platform. The test of equal or given proportions in R studio was used to determine statistically significant differences between variables (P<.05 indicated statistical significance).

Results

The PD survey received 79 complete responses (83.5% complete responses, 73.8% response rate) and the applicant survey received 232 complete responses (83.6% complete responses).

Applicant Characteristics—Applicant characteristics are provided in the eTable; 13.2% and 8.4% of participants were Black and Latinx (including those who identify as Hispanic/Latino), respectively. Only 0.8% of respondents identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native and were excluded from the analysis due to the limited sample size. Those who identified as White, Asian, multiple races, or other and those who preferred not to answer were considered non-UIM participants.

Differences in family background were observed in our cohort, with UIM candidates more likely to have experienced disadvantages, defined as being the first in their family to attend college/graduate school, growing up in a rural area, being a first-generation immigrant, or qualifying as low income. Underrepresented in medicine applicants also were less likely to have a dermatology program at their medical school (both Black and Latinx) and to have been elected to honor societies such as Alpha Omega Alpha and the Gold Humanism Honor Society (Black only).

Underrepresented in medicine applicants were more likely to complete a research gap year (eTable). Most applicants who took research years did so to improve their chances of matching, regardless of their race/ethnicity. For those who did not complete a research year, Black applicants (46.7%) were more likely to base that decision on financial limitations compared to non-UIMs (18.6%, P<.0001). Interestingly, in the PD survey, only 4.5% of respondents considered completion of a research year extremely or very important when compiling rank lists.

Application Process and Match Outcomes—The Table highlights differences in how UIM applicants approached the application process. Black but not Latinx applicants were less likely to be first-time applicants to dermatology compared to non-UIM applicants. Black applicants (8.3%) were significantly less likely to apply to more than 100 programs compared to non-UIM applicants (29.5%, P=.0002). Underrepresented in medicine applicants received greater numbers of interviews despite applying to fewer programs overall.

There also were differences in how UIM candidates approached their rank lists, with Black and Latinx applicants prioritizing diversity of patient populations and program faculty as well as program missions and values (Figure).

In our cohort, UIM candidates were more likely than non-UIM to match, and Black applicants were most likely to match at one of their top 3 choices (Table). In the PD survey, 77.6% of PDs considered contribution to diversity an important factor when compiling their rank lists.

Comment

Applicant Background—Dermatology is a competitive specialty with a challenging application process² that has been further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study elucidated how the 2020-2021 application cycle affected UIM dermatology applicants. Prior studies have found that UIM medical students were more likely to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds; financial constraints pose a major barrier for UIM and low-income students interested in dermatology.^4-6 We found this to be true in our cohort, as Black and Latinx applicants were significantly more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds (P<.000008 and P=.006, respectively). Additionally, we found that Black applicants were more likely than any other group to indicate financial concerns as their primary reason for not taking a research gap year. 

Although most applicants who completed a research year did so to increase their chances of matching, a higher percentage of UIMs took research years compared to non-UIM applicants. This finding could indicate greater anxiety about matching among UIM applicants vs their non-UIM counterparts. Black students have faced discrimination in clinical grading,⁷ have perceived racial discrimination in residency interviews,^8,9 and have shown to be less likely to be elected to medical school honor societies.¹⁰ We found that UIM applicants were more likely to pursue a research year compared to other applicants,¹¹ possibly because they felt additional pressure to enhance their applications or because UIM candidates were less likely to have a home dermatology program. Expansion of mentorship programs, visiting student electives, and grants for UIMs may alleviate the need for these candidates to complete a research year and reduce disparities in the application process.

Factors Influencing Rank Lists for Applicants—In our cohort, UIMs were significantly more likely to rank diversity of patients (P<.0001 for Black applicants and P=.04 for Latinx applicants) and faculty (P<.001 for Black applicants and P<.001 for Latinx applicants) as important factors in choosing a residency program. Historically, dermatology has been disproportionately White in its physician workforce and patient population.^1,12 Students with lower incomes or who identify as minorities cite the lack of diversity in dermatology as a considerable barrier to pursuing a career in the specialty.^4,5 Service learning, pipeline programs aimed at early exposure to dermatology, and increased access to care for diverse patient populations are important measures to improve diversity in the dermatology workforce.^13-15 Residency programs should consider how to incorporate these aspects into didactic and clinical curricula to better recruit diverse candidates to the field.

Equity in the Application Process—We found that Black applicants were more likely than non-UIM applicants to be reapplicants to dermatology; however, Black applicants in our study also were more likely to receive more interview invites, match into dermatology, and match into one of their top 3 programs. These findings are interesting, particularly given concerns about equity in the application process. It is possible that Black applicants who overcome barriers to applying to dermatology ultimately are more successful applicants. Recently, there has been an increased focus in the field on diversifying dermatology, which was further intensified last year.^2,3 Indicative of this shift, our PD survey showed that most programs reported that applicants’ contributions to diversity were important factors in the application process. Additionally, an emphasis by PDs on a holistic review of applications coupled with direct advocacy for increased representation may have contributed to the increased match rates for UIM applicants reported in our survey.

Latinx Applicants—Our study showed differences in how Latinx candidates fared in the application process; although Latinx applicants were more likely than their non-Latinx counterparts to match into dermatology, they were less likely than non-Latinx applicants to match into one of their top 3 programs. Given that Latinx encompasses ethnicity, not race, there may be a difference in how intentional focus on and advocacy for increasing diversity in dermatology affected different UIM applicant groups. Both race and ethnicity are social constructs rather than scientific categorizations; thus, it is difficult in survey studies such as ours to capture the intersectionality present across and between groups. Lastly, it is possible that the respondents to our applicant survey are not representative of the full cohort of UIM applicants.

Study Limitations—A major limitation of our study was that we did not have a method of reaching all dermatology applicants. Although our study shows promising results suggestive of increased diversity in the last application cycle, release of the National Resident Matching Program results from 2020-2021 with racially stratified data will be imperative to assess equity in the match process for all specialties and to confirm the generalizability of our results.

Dermatology is one of the least diverse medical specialties with only 3% of dermatologists being Black and 4% Latinx.¹ Leading dermatology organizations have called for specialty-wide efforts to improve diversity, with a particular focus on the resident selection process.^2,3 Medical students who are underrepresented in medicine (UIM)(ie, those who identify as Black, Latinx, Native American, or Pacific Islander) face many potential barriers in applying to dermatology programs, including financial limitations, lack of support and mentorship, and less exposure to the specialty.^1,2,4 The COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges in the residency application process with limitations on clinical, research, and volunteer experiences; decreased opportunities for in-person mentorship and away rotations; and a shift to virtual recruitment. Although there has been increased emphasis on recruiting diverse candidates to dermatology, the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated existing barriers for UIM applicants.

We surveyed dermatology residency program directors (PDs) and applicants to evaluate how UIM students approach and fare in the dermatology residency application process as well as the effects of COVID-19 on the most recent application cycle. Herein, we report the results of our surveys with a focus on racial differences in the application process.

Methods

We administered 2 anonymous online surveys—one to 115 PDs through the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) email listserve and another to applicants who participated in the 2020-2021 dermatology residency application cycle through the Dermatology Interest Group Association (DIGA) listserve. The surveys were distributed from March 29 through May 23, 2021. There was no way to determine the number of dermatology applicants on the DIGA listserve. The surveys were reviewed and approved by the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, California) institutional review board (approval #UP-21-00118).

Participants were not required to answer every survey question; response rates varied by question. Survey responses with less than 10% completion were excluded from analysis. Data were collected, analyzed, and stored using Qualtrics, a secure online survey platform. The test of equal or given proportions in R studio was used to determine statistically significant differences between variables (P<.05 indicated statistical significance).

Results

The PD survey received 79 complete responses (83.5% complete responses, 73.8% response rate) and the applicant survey received 232 complete responses (83.6% complete responses).

Applicant Characteristics—Applicant characteristics are provided in the eTable; 13.2% and 8.4% of participants were Black and Latinx (including those who identify as Hispanic/Latino), respectively. Only 0.8% of respondents identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native and were excluded from the analysis due to the limited sample size. Those who identified as White, Asian, multiple races, or other and those who preferred not to answer were considered non-UIM participants.

Differences in family background were observed in our cohort, with UIM candidates more likely to have experienced disadvantages, defined as being the first in their family to attend college/graduate school, growing up in a rural area, being a first-generation immigrant, or qualifying as low income. Underrepresented in medicine applicants also were less likely to have a dermatology program at their medical school (both Black and Latinx) and to have been elected to honor societies such as Alpha Omega Alpha and the Gold Humanism Honor Society (Black only).

Underrepresented in medicine applicants were more likely to complete a research gap year (eTable). Most applicants who took research years did so to improve their chances of matching, regardless of their race/ethnicity. For those who did not complete a research year, Black applicants (46.7%) were more likely to base that decision on financial limitations compared to non-UIMs (18.6%, P<.0001). Interestingly, in the PD survey, only 4.5% of respondents considered completion of a research year extremely or very important when compiling rank lists.

Application Process and Match Outcomes—The Table highlights differences in how UIM applicants approached the application process. Black but not Latinx applicants were less likely to be first-time applicants to dermatology compared to non-UIM applicants. Black applicants (8.3%) were significantly less likely to apply to more than 100 programs compared to non-UIM applicants (29.5%, P=.0002). Underrepresented in medicine applicants received greater numbers of interviews despite applying to fewer programs overall.

There also were differences in how UIM candidates approached their rank lists, with Black and Latinx applicants prioritizing diversity of patient populations and program faculty as well as program missions and values (Figure).

In our cohort, UIM candidates were more likely than non-UIM to match, and Black applicants were most likely to match at one of their top 3 choices (Table). In the PD survey, 77.6% of PDs considered contribution to diversity an important factor when compiling their rank lists.

Comment

Applicant Background—Dermatology is a competitive specialty with a challenging application process² that has been further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study elucidated how the 2020-2021 application cycle affected UIM dermatology applicants. Prior studies have found that UIM medical students were more likely to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds; financial constraints pose a major barrier for UIM and low-income students interested in dermatology.^4-6 We found this to be true in our cohort, as Black and Latinx applicants were significantly more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds (P<.000008 and P=.006, respectively). Additionally, we found that Black applicants were more likely than any other group to indicate financial concerns as their primary reason for not taking a research gap year. 

Although most applicants who completed a research year did so to increase their chances of matching, a higher percentage of UIMs took research years compared to non-UIM applicants. This finding could indicate greater anxiety about matching among UIM applicants vs their non-UIM counterparts. Black students have faced discrimination in clinical grading,⁷ have perceived racial discrimination in residency interviews,^8,9 and have shown to be less likely to be elected to medical school honor societies.¹⁰ We found that UIM applicants were more likely to pursue a research year compared to other applicants,¹¹ possibly because they felt additional pressure to enhance their applications or because UIM candidates were less likely to have a home dermatology program. Expansion of mentorship programs, visiting student electives, and grants for UIMs may alleviate the need for these candidates to complete a research year and reduce disparities in the application process.

Factors Influencing Rank Lists for Applicants—In our cohort, UIMs were significantly more likely to rank diversity of patients (P<.0001 for Black applicants and P=.04 for Latinx applicants) and faculty (P<.001 for Black applicants and P<.001 for Latinx applicants) as important factors in choosing a residency program. Historically, dermatology has been disproportionately White in its physician workforce and patient population.^1,12 Students with lower incomes or who identify as minorities cite the lack of diversity in dermatology as a considerable barrier to pursuing a career in the specialty.^4,5 Service learning, pipeline programs aimed at early exposure to dermatology, and increased access to care for diverse patient populations are important measures to improve diversity in the dermatology workforce.^13-15 Residency programs should consider how to incorporate these aspects into didactic and clinical curricula to better recruit diverse candidates to the field.

Equity in the Application Process—We found that Black applicants were more likely than non-UIM applicants to be reapplicants to dermatology; however, Black applicants in our study also were more likely to receive more interview invites, match into dermatology, and match into one of their top 3 programs. These findings are interesting, particularly given concerns about equity in the application process. It is possible that Black applicants who overcome barriers to applying to dermatology ultimately are more successful applicants. Recently, there has been an increased focus in the field on diversifying dermatology, which was further intensified last year.^2,3 Indicative of this shift, our PD survey showed that most programs reported that applicants’ contributions to diversity were important factors in the application process. Additionally, an emphasis by PDs on a holistic review of applications coupled with direct advocacy for increased representation may have contributed to the increased match rates for UIM applicants reported in our survey.

Latinx Applicants—Our study showed differences in how Latinx candidates fared in the application process; although Latinx applicants were more likely than their non-Latinx counterparts to match into dermatology, they were less likely than non-Latinx applicants to match into one of their top 3 programs. Given that Latinx encompasses ethnicity, not race, there may be a difference in how intentional focus on and advocacy for increasing diversity in dermatology affected different UIM applicant groups. Both race and ethnicity are social constructs rather than scientific categorizations; thus, it is difficult in survey studies such as ours to capture the intersectionality present across and between groups. Lastly, it is possible that the respondents to our applicant survey are not representative of the full cohort of UIM applicants.

Study Limitations—A major limitation of our study was that we did not have a method of reaching all dermatology applicants. Although our study shows promising results suggestive of increased diversity in the last application cycle, release of the National Resident Matching Program results from 2020-2021 with racially stratified data will be imperative to assess equity in the match process for all specialties and to confirm the generalizability of our results.

Dermatology is one of the least diverse medical specialties with only 3% of dermatologists being Black and 4% Latinx.¹ Leading dermatology organizations have called for specialty-wide efforts to improve diversity, with a particular focus on the resident selection process.^2,3 Medical students who are underrepresented in medicine (UIM)(ie, those who identify as Black, Latinx, Native American, or Pacific Islander) face many potential barriers in applying to dermatology programs, including financial limitations, lack of support and mentorship, and less exposure to the specialty.^1,2,4 The COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges in the residency application process with limitations on clinical, research, and volunteer experiences; decreased opportunities for in-person mentorship and away rotations; and a shift to virtual recruitment. Although there has been increased emphasis on recruiting diverse candidates to dermatology, the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated existing barriers for UIM applicants.

We surveyed dermatology residency program directors (PDs) and applicants to evaluate how UIM students approach and fare in the dermatology residency application process as well as the effects of COVID-19 on the most recent application cycle. Herein, we report the results of our surveys with a focus on racial differences in the application process.

Methods

We administered 2 anonymous online surveys—one to 115 PDs through the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) email listserve and another to applicants who participated in the 2020-2021 dermatology residency application cycle through the Dermatology Interest Group Association (DIGA) listserve. The surveys were distributed from March 29 through May 23, 2021. There was no way to determine the number of dermatology applicants on the DIGA listserve. The surveys were reviewed and approved by the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, California) institutional review board (approval #UP-21-00118).

Participants were not required to answer every survey question; response rates varied by question. Survey responses with less than 10% completion were excluded from analysis. Data were collected, analyzed, and stored using Qualtrics, a secure online survey platform. The test of equal or given proportions in R studio was used to determine statistically significant differences between variables (P<.05 indicated statistical significance).

Results

The PD survey received 79 complete responses (83.5% complete responses, 73.8% response rate) and the applicant survey received 232 complete responses (83.6% complete responses).

Applicant Characteristics—Applicant characteristics are provided in the eTable; 13.2% and 8.4% of participants were Black and Latinx (including those who identify as Hispanic/Latino), respectively. Only 0.8% of respondents identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native and were excluded from the analysis due to the limited sample size. Those who identified as White, Asian, multiple races, or other and those who preferred not to answer were considered non-UIM participants.

Differences in family background were observed in our cohort, with UIM candidates more likely to have experienced disadvantages, defined as being the first in their family to attend college/graduate school, growing up in a rural area, being a first-generation immigrant, or qualifying as low income. Underrepresented in medicine applicants also were less likely to have a dermatology program at their medical school (both Black and Latinx) and to have been elected to honor societies such as Alpha Omega Alpha and the Gold Humanism Honor Society (Black only).

Underrepresented in medicine applicants were more likely to complete a research gap year (eTable). Most applicants who took research years did so to improve their chances of matching, regardless of their race/ethnicity. For those who did not complete a research year, Black applicants (46.7%) were more likely to base that decision on financial limitations compared to non-UIMs (18.6%, P<.0001). Interestingly, in the PD survey, only 4.5% of respondents considered completion of a research year extremely or very important when compiling rank lists.

Application Process and Match Outcomes—The Table highlights differences in how UIM applicants approached the application process. Black but not Latinx applicants were less likely to be first-time applicants to dermatology compared to non-UIM applicants. Black applicants (8.3%) were significantly less likely to apply to more than 100 programs compared to non-UIM applicants (29.5%, P=.0002). Underrepresented in medicine applicants received greater numbers of interviews despite applying to fewer programs overall.

There also were differences in how UIM candidates approached their rank lists, with Black and Latinx applicants prioritizing diversity of patient populations and program faculty as well as program missions and values (Figure).

In our cohort, UIM candidates were more likely than non-UIM to match, and Black applicants were most likely to match at one of their top 3 choices (Table). In the PD survey, 77.6% of PDs considered contribution to diversity an important factor when compiling their rank lists.

Comment

Applicant Background—Dermatology is a competitive specialty with a challenging application process² that has been further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study elucidated how the 2020-2021 application cycle affected UIM dermatology applicants. Prior studies have found that UIM medical students were more likely to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds; financial constraints pose a major barrier for UIM and low-income students interested in dermatology.^4-6 We found this to be true in our cohort, as Black and Latinx applicants were significantly more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds (P<.000008 and P=.006, respectively). Additionally, we found that Black applicants were more likely than any other group to indicate financial concerns as their primary reason for not taking a research gap year. 

Although most applicants who completed a research year did so to increase their chances of matching, a higher percentage of UIMs took research years compared to non-UIM applicants. This finding could indicate greater anxiety about matching among UIM applicants vs their non-UIM counterparts. Black students have faced discrimination in clinical grading,⁷ have perceived racial discrimination in residency interviews,^8,9 and have shown to be less likely to be elected to medical school honor societies.¹⁰ We found that UIM applicants were more likely to pursue a research year compared to other applicants,¹¹ possibly because they felt additional pressure to enhance their applications or because UIM candidates were less likely to have a home dermatology program. Expansion of mentorship programs, visiting student electives, and grants for UIMs may alleviate the need for these candidates to complete a research year and reduce disparities in the application process.

Factors Influencing Rank Lists for Applicants—In our cohort, UIMs were significantly more likely to rank diversity of patients (P<.0001 for Black applicants and P=.04 for Latinx applicants) and faculty (P<.001 for Black applicants and P<.001 for Latinx applicants) as important factors in choosing a residency program. Historically, dermatology has been disproportionately White in its physician workforce and patient population.^1,12 Students with lower incomes or who identify as minorities cite the lack of diversity in dermatology as a considerable barrier to pursuing a career in the specialty.^4,5 Service learning, pipeline programs aimed at early exposure to dermatology, and increased access to care for diverse patient populations are important measures to improve diversity in the dermatology workforce.^13-15 Residency programs should consider how to incorporate these aspects into didactic and clinical curricula to better recruit diverse candidates to the field.

Equity in the Application Process—We found that Black applicants were more likely than non-UIM applicants to be reapplicants to dermatology; however, Black applicants in our study also were more likely to receive more interview invites, match into dermatology, and match into one of their top 3 programs. These findings are interesting, particularly given concerns about equity in the application process. It is possible that Black applicants who overcome barriers to applying to dermatology ultimately are more successful applicants. Recently, there has been an increased focus in the field on diversifying dermatology, which was further intensified last year.^2,3 Indicative of this shift, our PD survey showed that most programs reported that applicants’ contributions to diversity were important factors in the application process. Additionally, an emphasis by PDs on a holistic review of applications coupled with direct advocacy for increased representation may have contributed to the increased match rates for UIM applicants reported in our survey.

Latinx Applicants—Our study showed differences in how Latinx candidates fared in the application process; although Latinx applicants were more likely than their non-Latinx counterparts to match into dermatology, they were less likely than non-Latinx applicants to match into one of their top 3 programs. Given that Latinx encompasses ethnicity, not race, there may be a difference in how intentional focus on and advocacy for increasing diversity in dermatology affected different UIM applicant groups. Both race and ethnicity are social constructs rather than scientific categorizations; thus, it is difficult in survey studies such as ours to capture the intersectionality present across and between groups. Lastly, it is possible that the respondents to our applicant survey are not representative of the full cohort of UIM applicants.

Study Limitations—A major limitation of our study was that we did not have a method of reaching all dermatology applicants. Although our study shows promising results suggestive of increased diversity in the last application cycle, release of the National Resident Matching Program results from 2020-2021 with racially stratified data will be imperative to assess equity in the match process for all specialties and to confirm the generalizability of our results.

In the 2021-2022 residency application cycle, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) piloted a supplemental application to accompany the standard residency application submitted via the AAMC’s Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS).¹ Dermatology was 1 of 3 specialties to participate in the pilot alongside internal medicine and general surgery. The goal was to develop a tool that could align applicants with programs that best matched their career goals as well as program and geographic preferences. The Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section was an early advocate for the supplemental application, and members of our leadership were involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the pilot supplemental application.

Participating in the supplemental application was optional for both applicants and programs. The supplemental application included a Past Experiences section, which allowed applicants to highlight their 5 most meaningful research, work, and/or volunteer experiences and to describe a challenging life event that might not otherwise be included with their application. The geographic preferences section permitted applicants to select up to 3 regions of interest as well as to indicate an urban vs rural preference. Lastly, a preference-signaling section allowed dermatology applicants to send signals to up to 3 programs of particular interest.

With the close of another application cycle, applicants and programs will begin preparing for the 2022-2023 recruitment season. In this column, we present dermatology-specific data regarding the supplemental application, highlight tentative changes for the upcoming application cycle, and offer tips for applicants and programs as we approach year 2 of the supplemental application.

Results of Supplemental Application Evaluation Surveys

During the 2021-2022 recruitment season, 93% (950/1019) of dermatology applicants submitted the supplemental application, and 87% (117/135) of dermatology residency programs participated in the pilot.² Surveys conducted by the AAMC between October 2021 and January 2022 showed that a large majority of dermatology programs used supplemental application data during initial application review when deciding who to interview. Eighty-three percent (40/48) of program directors felt that preference signals in particular helped them identify applicants they would have otherwise overlooked. Fifty-seven percent (4288/7516) of applicants across all specialties that participated in the pilot felt that preference signals would help them be noticed by their preferred programs.² Preference signals were not evenly distributed among dermatology programs. Programs received an average of 23 signals, with a range of 2 to 87 (AAMC, unpublished data, February 2022).

Additional questions remain to be answered: How does the number of signals received affect application review? How often do geographic and program signals convert to interview offers and matches? Regardless, enthusiasm among dermatology programs for the supplemental application remains. In a recent survey of Association of Professors of Dermatology program directors, all 43 respondents planned to participate in the supplemental application again in the upcoming year (Ilana Rosman, MD; unpublished data; February 2022). The pilot will be expanded to include at least 12 other specialties.¹As many who reviewed residency applications in 2021-2022 will attest, there was difficulty accessing the supplemental application data because it was not integrated into the Program Directors’ Work Station, the ERAS platform for programs to access applications, which will be remedied for the 2022-2023 iteration. Other tentative changes include modifications to the past experiences sections and timeline of the application.²

Utilizing the Supplemental Application: Recommendations to Applicants

Format of the Application—Applicants should familiarize themselves with the format of the supplemental application in advance and give themselves sufficient time to complete the application. In general, 3 to 4 hours of focused work should be enough time. Applicants should proofread for grammar and spelling before submitting.

Past Experiences—The past experiences section is intended to provide a focused snapshot of an applicant’s most meaningful activities and unique path to residency. Applicants should answer honestly based on their interests. If a student’s focus has been on volunteerism, the bulk of their 5 experiences listed may be related to service. Similarly, a student who has focused on research may preferentially highlight those experiences. In place of the long list of research, volunteer, and work experiences in the traditional ERAS application, applicants can highlight those activities in which they have been most invested. Applicants are encouraged to reflect on all genres of activities at any stage of their careers, even those not medical in nature, including work experience, military service, college athletics, or sustained musical or artistic achievement. Applicants should explain why each experience is meaningful rather than simply describing the activity.

Applicants also have the option to share a notable challenge they have overcome. It is not expected that each applicant will complete this question; in general, applicants who have not faced notable personal or professional obstacles should avoid answering. Additionally, if these challenges have been discussed in other areas of the application—for example, in the personal statement or medical student performance evaluation—it is not necessary to restate them here, though applicants can choose to do so. Examples of topics a student might discuss include being a first-generation college or medical student, growing up in poverty, facing notable personal or family health challenges, or having limited educational opportunities. It is important to share how this experience impacted an applicant’s journey to dermatology residency.

Geographic Preferences—The geographic preferences section can be difficult for applicants to navigate, as it may involve balancing a desire to attend a residency program in a particular region vs a greater desire to simply match in dermatology. In the past, programs may have made assumptions about geographic preferences based on an applicant’s birthplace, hometown, or medical school. In the supplemental application, applicants have the opportunity to directly reveal their preferences. We encourage applicants to be candid. Selecting a geographic region will not necessarily exclude applicants from consideration at other programs. For some applicants, program qualities may be more important than geography, or there may be no regional preferences. Those applicants can choose “no geographic preference.” There is considerable variability in how programs use geographic preferences. For this reason, it is in the best interest of applicants to simply respond honestly.

Preference Signaling—Preference signaling allows applicants to signal up to 3 preferred programs. Dermatology program directors agree that applicants should not signal their home program or programs at which they did in-person away rotations, as those programs would already be aware of the applicant’s interest. Although a signal increases the chances that the application will be reviewed holistically, it does not guarantee an interview offer. Programs may differentially utilize signals depending on multiple factors, including the number of signals received. We encourage applicants to discuss preference signaling strategies with advisors and focus on signaling programs in which they have genuine interest.

Recommendations to Selection Committees and Program Directors

The intent of the supplemental application is to provide a more meaningful picture of applicants and their experiences and preferences, with the goal of optimizing applicant-program fit. Programs should explicitly define for themselves the applicant characteristics and experiences they prioritize as well as their program goals. The supplemental application offers the potential to streamline holistic application review based on these elements. The short essay answers in the past experiences section permit reviewers to quickly scan for important experiences that align with the program’s recruitment goals. Importantly, reviewers should not penalize applicants who have not completed the question regarding other impactful life experiences, as not all applicants will have relevant information to share.

Some programs may find the geographic preferences section more valuable than others. Multiple factors affect how much weight will be given to geographic preferences, including program location and other characteristics that affect the desirability of the program to applicants. The competitiveness of the field, relatively low match rate, and limited number of programs may lead to less emphasis on geographic preferences in dermatology compared to other specialties. The purpose of this section is not to exclude applicants but to give programs more information that may help with alignment.

Anecdotally, many dermatology program directors were most interested in the preference signaling section of the supplemental application. Programs should consider signals to be evidence of strong preliminary interest. Programs may utilize signals differently depending on many factors such as the overall competitiveness of the program, program location, and the total number of signals the program receives. We recommend that programs holistically review all applications accompanied by a signal. Programs that utilize a points system may choose to award a certain number of points for a signal to their program. A signal might have a higher value at a program that receives only a few signals; conversely, a program that receives a large number of signals might not place tremendous value on the signal but may use it as a tiebreaker between similarly qualified applicants. Preference signaling is solely a tool for application review; because applicants’ preferences may change after the interview process, signals should not be utilized during ranking.

Next Steps

For program directors who have excitedly awaited residency application reform, the supplemental ERAS application is an important first step. Ultimately, we hope the supplemental application supplants much of the current residency application, serving as an efficient high-yield tool for holistically evaluating applicants’ academic and service records, accomplishments, and training preferences. Arriving at a new application will undoubtedly take time and discussion among the various stakeholders. Please continue to complete surveys from the AAMC, as feedback is the best method for refining the tool to serve its intended purpose.

Optimization of the application content is only one component of the reforms needed to improve the application process. Even with a revamped application tool, holistic review is challenging when programs are inundated with an ever-increasing number of applications. As such, we encourage stakeholders to simultaneously consider other potential reforms, such as caps on the number of applications, to allow programs and applicants the best opportunity for a mutually successful match.

In the 2021-2022 residency application cycle, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) piloted a supplemental application to accompany the standard residency application submitted via the AAMC’s Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS).¹ Dermatology was 1 of 3 specialties to participate in the pilot alongside internal medicine and general surgery. The goal was to develop a tool that could align applicants with programs that best matched their career goals as well as program and geographic preferences. The Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section was an early advocate for the supplemental application, and members of our leadership were involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the pilot supplemental application.

Participating in the supplemental application was optional for both applicants and programs. The supplemental application included a Past Experiences section, which allowed applicants to highlight their 5 most meaningful research, work, and/or volunteer experiences and to describe a challenging life event that might not otherwise be included with their application. The geographic preferences section permitted applicants to select up to 3 regions of interest as well as to indicate an urban vs rural preference. Lastly, a preference-signaling section allowed dermatology applicants to send signals to up to 3 programs of particular interest.

With the close of another application cycle, applicants and programs will begin preparing for the 2022-2023 recruitment season. In this column, we present dermatology-specific data regarding the supplemental application, highlight tentative changes for the upcoming application cycle, and offer tips for applicants and programs as we approach year 2 of the supplemental application.

Results of Supplemental Application Evaluation Surveys

During the 2021-2022 recruitment season, 93% (950/1019) of dermatology applicants submitted the supplemental application, and 87% (117/135) of dermatology residency programs participated in the pilot.² Surveys conducted by the AAMC between October 2021 and January 2022 showed that a large majority of dermatology programs used supplemental application data during initial application review when deciding who to interview. Eighty-three percent (40/48) of program directors felt that preference signals in particular helped them identify applicants they would have otherwise overlooked. Fifty-seven percent (4288/7516) of applicants across all specialties that participated in the pilot felt that preference signals would help them be noticed by their preferred programs.² Preference signals were not evenly distributed among dermatology programs. Programs received an average of 23 signals, with a range of 2 to 87 (AAMC, unpublished data, February 2022).

Additional questions remain to be answered: How does the number of signals received affect application review? How often do geographic and program signals convert to interview offers and matches? Regardless, enthusiasm among dermatology programs for the supplemental application remains. In a recent survey of Association of Professors of Dermatology program directors, all 43 respondents planned to participate in the supplemental application again in the upcoming year (Ilana Rosman, MD; unpublished data; February 2022). The pilot will be expanded to include at least 12 other specialties.¹As many who reviewed residency applications in 2021-2022 will attest, there was difficulty accessing the supplemental application data because it was not integrated into the Program Directors’ Work Station, the ERAS platform for programs to access applications, which will be remedied for the 2022-2023 iteration. Other tentative changes include modifications to the past experiences sections and timeline of the application.²

Utilizing the Supplemental Application: Recommendations to Applicants

Format of the Application—Applicants should familiarize themselves with the format of the supplemental application in advance and give themselves sufficient time to complete the application. In general, 3 to 4 hours of focused work should be enough time. Applicants should proofread for grammar and spelling before submitting.

Past Experiences—The past experiences section is intended to provide a focused snapshot of an applicant’s most meaningful activities and unique path to residency. Applicants should answer honestly based on their interests. If a student’s focus has been on volunteerism, the bulk of their 5 experiences listed may be related to service. Similarly, a student who has focused on research may preferentially highlight those experiences. In place of the long list of research, volunteer, and work experiences in the traditional ERAS application, applicants can highlight those activities in which they have been most invested. Applicants are encouraged to reflect on all genres of activities at any stage of their careers, even those not medical in nature, including work experience, military service, college athletics, or sustained musical or artistic achievement. Applicants should explain why each experience is meaningful rather than simply describing the activity.

Applicants also have the option to share a notable challenge they have overcome. It is not expected that each applicant will complete this question; in general, applicants who have not faced notable personal or professional obstacles should avoid answering. Additionally, if these challenges have been discussed in other areas of the application—for example, in the personal statement or medical student performance evaluation—it is not necessary to restate them here, though applicants can choose to do so. Examples of topics a student might discuss include being a first-generation college or medical student, growing up in poverty, facing notable personal or family health challenges, or having limited educational opportunities. It is important to share how this experience impacted an applicant’s journey to dermatology residency.

Geographic Preferences—The geographic preferences section can be difficult for applicants to navigate, as it may involve balancing a desire to attend a residency program in a particular region vs a greater desire to simply match in dermatology. In the past, programs may have made assumptions about geographic preferences based on an applicant’s birthplace, hometown, or medical school. In the supplemental application, applicants have the opportunity to directly reveal their preferences. We encourage applicants to be candid. Selecting a geographic region will not necessarily exclude applicants from consideration at other programs. For some applicants, program qualities may be more important than geography, or there may be no regional preferences. Those applicants can choose “no geographic preference.” There is considerable variability in how programs use geographic preferences. For this reason, it is in the best interest of applicants to simply respond honestly.

Preference Signaling—Preference signaling allows applicants to signal up to 3 preferred programs. Dermatology program directors agree that applicants should not signal their home program or programs at which they did in-person away rotations, as those programs would already be aware of the applicant’s interest. Although a signal increases the chances that the application will be reviewed holistically, it does not guarantee an interview offer. Programs may differentially utilize signals depending on multiple factors, including the number of signals received. We encourage applicants to discuss preference signaling strategies with advisors and focus on signaling programs in which they have genuine interest.

Recommendations to Selection Committees and Program Directors

The intent of the supplemental application is to provide a more meaningful picture of applicants and their experiences and preferences, with the goal of optimizing applicant-program fit. Programs should explicitly define for themselves the applicant characteristics and experiences they prioritize as well as their program goals. The supplemental application offers the potential to streamline holistic application review based on these elements. The short essay answers in the past experiences section permit reviewers to quickly scan for important experiences that align with the program’s recruitment goals. Importantly, reviewers should not penalize applicants who have not completed the question regarding other impactful life experiences, as not all applicants will have relevant information to share.

Some programs may find the geographic preferences section more valuable than others. Multiple factors affect how much weight will be given to geographic preferences, including program location and other characteristics that affect the desirability of the program to applicants. The competitiveness of the field, relatively low match rate, and limited number of programs may lead to less emphasis on geographic preferences in dermatology compared to other specialties. The purpose of this section is not to exclude applicants but to give programs more information that may help with alignment.

Anecdotally, many dermatology program directors were most interested in the preference signaling section of the supplemental application. Programs should consider signals to be evidence of strong preliminary interest. Programs may utilize signals differently depending on many factors such as the overall competitiveness of the program, program location, and the total number of signals the program receives. We recommend that programs holistically review all applications accompanied by a signal. Programs that utilize a points system may choose to award a certain number of points for a signal to their program. A signal might have a higher value at a program that receives only a few signals; conversely, a program that receives a large number of signals might not place tremendous value on the signal but may use it as a tiebreaker between similarly qualified applicants. Preference signaling is solely a tool for application review; because applicants’ preferences may change after the interview process, signals should not be utilized during ranking.

Next Steps

For program directors who have excitedly awaited residency application reform, the supplemental ERAS application is an important first step. Ultimately, we hope the supplemental application supplants much of the current residency application, serving as an efficient high-yield tool for holistically evaluating applicants’ academic and service records, accomplishments, and training preferences. Arriving at a new application will undoubtedly take time and discussion among the various stakeholders. Please continue to complete surveys from the AAMC, as feedback is the best method for refining the tool to serve its intended purpose.

Optimization of the application content is only one component of the reforms needed to improve the application process. Even with a revamped application tool, holistic review is challenging when programs are inundated with an ever-increasing number of applications. As such, we encourage stakeholders to simultaneously consider other potential reforms, such as caps on the number of applications, to allow programs and applicants the best opportunity for a mutually successful match.

In the 2021-2022 residency application cycle, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) piloted a supplemental application to accompany the standard residency application submitted via the AAMC’s Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS).¹ Dermatology was 1 of 3 specialties to participate in the pilot alongside internal medicine and general surgery. The goal was to develop a tool that could align applicants with programs that best matched their career goals as well as program and geographic preferences. The Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section was an early advocate for the supplemental application, and members of our leadership were involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the pilot supplemental application.

Participating in the supplemental application was optional for both applicants and programs. The supplemental application included a Past Experiences section, which allowed applicants to highlight their 5 most meaningful research, work, and/or volunteer experiences and to describe a challenging life event that might not otherwise be included with their application. The geographic preferences section permitted applicants to select up to 3 regions of interest as well as to indicate an urban vs rural preference. Lastly, a preference-signaling section allowed dermatology applicants to send signals to up to 3 programs of particular interest.

With the close of another application cycle, applicants and programs will begin preparing for the 2022-2023 recruitment season. In this column, we present dermatology-specific data regarding the supplemental application, highlight tentative changes for the upcoming application cycle, and offer tips for applicants and programs as we approach year 2 of the supplemental application.

Results of Supplemental Application Evaluation Surveys

During the 2021-2022 recruitment season, 93% (950/1019) of dermatology applicants submitted the supplemental application, and 87% (117/135) of dermatology residency programs participated in the pilot.² Surveys conducted by the AAMC between October 2021 and January 2022 showed that a large majority of dermatology programs used supplemental application data during initial application review when deciding who to interview. Eighty-three percent (40/48) of program directors felt that preference signals in particular helped them identify applicants they would have otherwise overlooked. Fifty-seven percent (4288/7516) of applicants across all specialties that participated in the pilot felt that preference signals would help them be noticed by their preferred programs.² Preference signals were not evenly distributed among dermatology programs. Programs received an average of 23 signals, with a range of 2 to 87 (AAMC, unpublished data, February 2022).

Additional questions remain to be answered: How does the number of signals received affect application review? How often do geographic and program signals convert to interview offers and matches? Regardless, enthusiasm among dermatology programs for the supplemental application remains. In a recent survey of Association of Professors of Dermatology program directors, all 43 respondents planned to participate in the supplemental application again in the upcoming year (Ilana Rosman, MD; unpublished data; February 2022). The pilot will be expanded to include at least 12 other specialties.¹As many who reviewed residency applications in 2021-2022 will attest, there was difficulty accessing the supplemental application data because it was not integrated into the Program Directors’ Work Station, the ERAS platform for programs to access applications, which will be remedied for the 2022-2023 iteration. Other tentative changes include modifications to the past experiences sections and timeline of the application.²

Utilizing the Supplemental Application: Recommendations to Applicants

Format of the Application—Applicants should familiarize themselves with the format of the supplemental application in advance and give themselves sufficient time to complete the application. In general, 3 to 4 hours of focused work should be enough time. Applicants should proofread for grammar and spelling before submitting.

Past Experiences—The past experiences section is intended to provide a focused snapshot of an applicant’s most meaningful activities and unique path to residency. Applicants should answer honestly based on their interests. If a student’s focus has been on volunteerism, the bulk of their 5 experiences listed may be related to service. Similarly, a student who has focused on research may preferentially highlight those experiences. In place of the long list of research, volunteer, and work experiences in the traditional ERAS application, applicants can highlight those activities in which they have been most invested. Applicants are encouraged to reflect on all genres of activities at any stage of their careers, even those not medical in nature, including work experience, military service, college athletics, or sustained musical or artistic achievement. Applicants should explain why each experience is meaningful rather than simply describing the activity.

Applicants also have the option to share a notable challenge they have overcome. It is not expected that each applicant will complete this question; in general, applicants who have not faced notable personal or professional obstacles should avoid answering. Additionally, if these challenges have been discussed in other areas of the application—for example, in the personal statement or medical student performance evaluation—it is not necessary to restate them here, though applicants can choose to do so. Examples of topics a student might discuss include being a first-generation college or medical student, growing up in poverty, facing notable personal or family health challenges, or having limited educational opportunities. It is important to share how this experience impacted an applicant’s journey to dermatology residency.

Geographic Preferences—The geographic preferences section can be difficult for applicants to navigate, as it may involve balancing a desire to attend a residency program in a particular region vs a greater desire to simply match in dermatology. In the past, programs may have made assumptions about geographic preferences based on an applicant’s birthplace, hometown, or medical school. In the supplemental application, applicants have the opportunity to directly reveal their preferences. We encourage applicants to be candid. Selecting a geographic region will not necessarily exclude applicants from consideration at other programs. For some applicants, program qualities may be more important than geography, or there may be no regional preferences. Those applicants can choose “no geographic preference.” There is considerable variability in how programs use geographic preferences. For this reason, it is in the best interest of applicants to simply respond honestly.

Preference Signaling—Preference signaling allows applicants to signal up to 3 preferred programs. Dermatology program directors agree that applicants should not signal their home program or programs at which they did in-person away rotations, as those programs would already be aware of the applicant’s interest. Although a signal increases the chances that the application will be reviewed holistically, it does not guarantee an interview offer. Programs may differentially utilize signals depending on multiple factors, including the number of signals received. We encourage applicants to discuss preference signaling strategies with advisors and focus on signaling programs in which they have genuine interest.

Recommendations to Selection Committees and Program Directors

The intent of the supplemental application is to provide a more meaningful picture of applicants and their experiences and preferences, with the goal of optimizing applicant-program fit. Programs should explicitly define for themselves the applicant characteristics and experiences they prioritize as well as their program goals. The supplemental application offers the potential to streamline holistic application review based on these elements. The short essay answers in the past experiences section permit reviewers to quickly scan for important experiences that align with the program’s recruitment goals. Importantly, reviewers should not penalize applicants who have not completed the question regarding other impactful life experiences, as not all applicants will have relevant information to share.

Some programs may find the geographic preferences section more valuable than others. Multiple factors affect how much weight will be given to geographic preferences, including program location and other characteristics that affect the desirability of the program to applicants. The competitiveness of the field, relatively low match rate, and limited number of programs may lead to less emphasis on geographic preferences in dermatology compared to other specialties. The purpose of this section is not to exclude applicants but to give programs more information that may help with alignment.

Anecdotally, many dermatology program directors were most interested in the preference signaling section of the supplemental application. Programs should consider signals to be evidence of strong preliminary interest. Programs may utilize signals differently depending on many factors such as the overall competitiveness of the program, program location, and the total number of signals the program receives. We recommend that programs holistically review all applications accompanied by a signal. Programs that utilize a points system may choose to award a certain number of points for a signal to their program. A signal might have a higher value at a program that receives only a few signals; conversely, a program that receives a large number of signals might not place tremendous value on the signal but may use it as a tiebreaker between similarly qualified applicants. Preference signaling is solely a tool for application review; because applicants’ preferences may change after the interview process, signals should not be utilized during ranking.

Next Steps

For program directors who have excitedly awaited residency application reform, the supplemental ERAS application is an important first step. Ultimately, we hope the supplemental application supplants much of the current residency application, serving as an efficient high-yield tool for holistically evaluating applicants’ academic and service records, accomplishments, and training preferences. Arriving at a new application will undoubtedly take time and discussion among the various stakeholders. Please continue to complete surveys from the AAMC, as feedback is the best method for refining the tool to serve its intended purpose.

Optimization of the application content is only one component of the reforms needed to improve the application process. Even with a revamped application tool, holistic review is challenging when programs are inundated with an ever-increasing number of applications. As such, we encourage stakeholders to simultaneously consider other potential reforms, such as caps on the number of applications, to allow programs and applicants the best opportunity for a mutually successful match.

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).