I dream of Gini: Quantifying inequality in otolaryngology residency interviews

Abstract

Objectives Otolaryngology applicants routinely decry conflicting interview dates because this limits the number of interviews that one can attend, despite being offered an interview. Conversely, applicants also perceive that a large number of interviews are offered to a minority of applicants. We sought to verify and quantify the inequality in distribution of interviews attended. Study Design Retrospective analysis of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) 2016 Charting Outcomes in the Match and Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) historic specialty data. Methods The Gini coefficient, a commonly used indicator of economic inequality, was calculated using data from the 2016 Charting Outcomes in the Match to estimate the distribution of interviews attended. This data was compared to nine other specialties, comprising a wide range of competitiveness and specialty size. Results 26% (110 of 416) of otolaryngology applicants accounted for half (1,721 of 3,426) of all possible interview positions. The Gini coefficient ranged from 0.43 to 0.84 across 10 specialties, with a higher coefficient indicating higher inequality. The Gini coefficient among otolaryngology applicants was 0.43, indicating lower inequality than most other specialties. When including only applicants who interviewed, the Gini coefficient was 0.23. Conclusion There is an unequal distribution of interview invitations, which likely reflects the reality of asymmetry in applicant competitiveness. Otolaryngology demonstrates the greatest equality in distribution, which may stem from a greater burden of hoarding. The specialty's perceived competitiveness mitigates factors such as cost and time, essentially encouraging more people to take as many interviews as they can. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:627–633, 2019

Otolaryngology Match 2020-21: Survey of Prospective Applicants in the Setting of COVID-19

“…It has also been reported that 26% of OTO-HNS applicants attended 50% of interviews, suggesting that OTO-HNS programs were vying for a smaller pool of upper echelon of candidates. 14 Without external constraints, the competition for top candidates is likely to intensify. This arrangement risks unfilled programs, unmatched applicants, and less-than-ideal matches as applicant preference is unable to be determined.…”

The Case for Capping Residency Interviews

“… 19 The consequence of application inflation that will be of crucial importance this application cycle is the growing awareness that a small percentage of applicants has been receiving a disproportionate percentage of interview offers. 20 , 21 In the era of virtual interviews, if these applicants choose to schedule all of their interview offers, there is a real potential for detrimental downstream effects to other applicants. This may also lead to a greater number of unfilled residency spots, with a larger number of programs and applicants required to enter into the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program.…”

Opportunities to Improve Radiation Oncology Medical Education in the Post-Pandemic Era

“…This may exacerbate an already appreciated issue regarding an ineffective distribution of interviews across applicants. 8 It will benefit both applicants and programs if strategies can be implemented that help ensure that interview slots are ultimately filled primarily by those applicants with a meaningful interest in a particular program. Per the 2018 National Residency Match Program "Charting Outcomes in the Match," 98% of US senior applicants from allopathic medical schools who contiguously ranked 11 or more programs successfully matched at a radiation oncology program.…”