- Joined
- Dec 28, 2010
- Messages
- 4,957
- Reaction score
- 5,980
The plastic surgery paper shows some data that indicates the importance of aways. The quoted is good to know:I mean, it's in the data...
Away Rotations and Matching in Integrated Plastic Surgery... : Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
tic surgery program directors and all applicants in the 2015 National Residency Matching Program. Results: Forty-two program directors and 149 applicants (64 percent and 70 percent response rate, respectively) completed the survey. Applicants reported 13.7 weeks spent on plastic surgery...journals.lww.com
“Program directors (integrated plastics) ranked a strong away rotation performance as the most important residency selection criterion. Twenty-seven percent of postgraduate year–1 positions were filled by an away rotatorm and an additional 17 percent were filled by a home medical student.”
Look at the NRMP surveys though. For most fields I looked at (IM, Derm, Ortho, ENT, plastics) audition rotations were in the 60-80% percent cited range always lower than board scores and interview day performance. I think these NRMP surveys need to be taken with a grain of salt as percent cited differs from importance IMO.
If you suspect a trend (small surgical fields appreciate the away more) you’ll find it if you look for it as you can see Ortho/Plastics value (60-80%) the away more than IM (50%)
Another example of this is visa status holds a 30% citing for IM...yeah tell that to IMGs...
Overall what I said still holds true which is that I think in real life the away/elective data is more important than these NRMP surveys make it out to be. Perhaps to gauge its relative importance, you can subtract the percent citing for all programs/average (first table) from what your field cites the importance of always as.
Last edited: