No abstract

No abstract

Background The residency match process for competitive specialties hinders programs' ability to holistically review applications. Objective A computer simulation model of the residency application process was created to test the hypotheses that (1) it is advantageous to medical students to apply to the maximum number of programs under the current system, and (2) including a medical student's residency program preferences at the beginning of the application process improves the efficiency of the system for applicants and programs as quantified by the number of interview invitations received. Methods The study was conducted in 2016 using 2014 Otolaryngology Match data. A computer model was created to perform simulations for multiple scenarios to test the hypotheses. Students were assigned scores representing easy and hard metrics and program preferences, simulating a mixture of individual student preference and general program popularity. Results We modeled a system of 99 otolaryngology residency programs with 292 residency spots and 460 student applicants. While it was individually advantageous for an applicant to apply to the maximum number of programs, this led to a poor result for the majority of students when all applicants undertook the strategy. The number of interview invitations improved for most applicants when preference was revealed. Conclusions Offering applicants an option to provide program preference improves the practical number of interview invitations. This enables programs to review applicants holistically-instead of using single parameters such as United States Medical Licensing Examination scores-which facilitates a selection of applicants who will be successful in residency.

Objectives To determine the proportion and relative advancement of women in leadership positions at high‐impact otolaryngology journals. Methods Nine clinical otolaryngology journals were selected based on high impact factor and subspecialty representation (journal impact factor, 2016: 1.16–2.95). The proportion of women editorial board members associate and/or section editors, and/or editor‐in‐chief was measured from 1997 to 2017. Comparisons were made to the proportion of women otolaryngology faculty at U.S. medical schools in 2017. Results From 1997 to 2017, female editorial board membership increased from 7.2% (range: 0.0%–12.8%) to 17.7% (range: 10.9%–38.9%) (P = 0.0001). In 2017, the proportion of female editorial board members was significantly less than the proportion of female academic otolaryngology faculty (17.7% vs. 27.7%, P = 0.0001), and there was threefold variation between journals. From 1997 to 2017, the proportion of female associate and/or section editors increased from 9.3% (range: 0.0–27.3) to 20.9% (range: 5.3% to 45.5%) (P = 0.09). In 2017, the proportion of female associate and/or section editors was not significantly different than the proportion of female associate or full professor academic otolaryngology faculty (20.9% vs. 19.5%, P = 0.73), but there was ninefold variation between journals. Conclusion Women were underrepresented on eight of nine otolaryngology editorial boards but appropriately represented at the associate and/or section editorship level. There was remarkable variation in representation at individual journals, which may provide future opportunities to examine best practices. Disparity exists in leadership at the most senior level of these high‐profile otolaryngology journals: none had women editor‐in‐chiefs. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:2031–2035, 2019