Patel SR, Bates JN, Mayer WA, et al. Association of residents’ medical school reputation and urology residency program ranking. Urol Pract. 2022;9(6):598-602.

Study Need and Importance

The Urology Residency Match process is a highly competitive application process that evaluates coursework performance, standardized examination scores, research productivity, quality of letter of recommendations, and participation in away rotations. With recent changes to medical school grading metrics, lack of in-person interviews, and examination scorings, less objective metrics are available to stratify patients. In this study, we aim to characterize the association of urology residents’ medical school and urology residency program rankings.

What We Found

A total of 2,306 successfully matched residents were identified from 2016 to 2022. We found that there was positive association between urology program and medical school ranking (see Figure). Within each urology program tier over the last 7 years, there was no significant change over time in the proportions of urology residents by medical school rankings despite the changes in the application process and pandemic.

Limitations

Since other application elements were not available, we could not control for away rotation participation, letters of recommendation, United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, Alpha Omega Alpha status, clinical performance, and research productivity. Rankings for urology programs and medical schools are not standardized nor comprehensive, which generates inherent bias into stratifying top-tier programs. Furthermore, the US News and World Reports and Doximity rankings are dynamic and annually change based on evaluation of programs, survey responses, research productivity, grant funding, and board passing rates, which could impact the tier classification each year.

Interpretation for Trainees

With recent changes in medical schooling training, less objective metrics are available for urology programs during the application review process, which will likely create a shift towards increased priority of other metrics. However, we have not found that there has been an increased emphasis on medical school ranking over the past 7 years. Instead, there has been a consistent representation of trainees from top ranked medical schools in top urology programs, and conversely, a consistent representation of trainees from low ranked medical school in low ranked urology programs. We urge programs and directors to emphasize the holistic review process of applications to select “successful” candidates for the urology match.