Applicant Preferences and Perspectives in the New Era of the Urology Residency Match.

Abstract

Objective: To assess urology residency applicants' preferences and perspectives regarding key issues in a new urology match era that includes both in-person and virtual interviews.

Methods: Applicants to our residency program from the 2024-2025 AUA match cycle were surveyed. Issues assessed included interview format preferences, costs, ability to judge "fit" with programs, and decisions made throughout the application cycle. When applicable, items were grouped by time point as pre-interview, day of interview, or post-interview.

Results: Response rate was 45% (75/166). Applicants attended 13 interviews on average, 7 in person and 6 virtual. Only 10% of invitations included a hybrid option, and just 9% offered any financial aid. Applicants strongly preferred in-person interviews (49.3%) or hybrid formats (40.0%) compared to virtual (10.7%). For judging fit, an even larger majority preferred in-person (76.0%) over virtual (4.0%), especially on the interview day itself. Applicants spent $4,994 total (applications: $1,913, interviews: $3,081), averaging $410 per in-person interview. Nearly all applicants felt the costs and travel time of in-person interviewing were worth it (91% and 95%, respectively). However, 19% of applicants had to decline one or more in-person interviews due to costs.

Conclusions: Urology applicants now largely favor in-person interviews over virtual, especially when judging "fit", and believe they are worth the increased costs and logistical challenges. However, financial constraints limited the access to interview opportunities for a substantial cohort. Future innovations in the urology match may explore broader implementation of hybrid interview formats as issues of applicant preferences and equity are balanced.