cants, their use of preinterview materials, and convenience for faculty. Notable changes made to our process include half vs whole day interviewing, more structured interviews, greater access for applicants to faculty sharing their interests, and continued opportunity for virtual engagement with applicants beyond their interview day. We will maintain many of these practices beyond current circumstances.In the future, to some extent, the use of online platforms for recruitment, social media presence, and virtual interviewing will remain part of every program's selection process. When in-person interviewing resumes, there will be a need to level the field between those who choose in-person vs virtual meetings. Continuing the virtual interview option will serve to increase applicant access and knowledge of programs along with economizing the process for both applicants and programs. It is unknown if the costs savings for applicants from a virtual interview outweighs the disadvantage of not having the in-person experience of a program, institution, or city, particularly one located in a region the applicant has never visited. Once the pandemic is over, for programs, the value of interviews will only increase as use of class rank of students by medical schools continues to decrease and USMLE Step I converts to pass/fail-only reporting. Hopefully, our current environment will encourage further innovation and reform as suggested by others. 3 The selection of residents is an important step in the medical education continuum, particularly in neurology where there is and will be an ever-increasing demand by the public for our clinical skill and research discoveries. 4 Changes to the interview process will be informed by our postpandemic desire for inperson interaction, quest for equity and diversity, and the increasing demand for neurologists to the benefit of all stakeholders.