Evaluating Urology Residency Applications: What Matters Most and What Comes Next?

Mitchell M. Huang, Marisa M. Clifton

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


Purpose of Review: In light of the announcement that the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam will transition to pass/fail reporting, we reviewed recent literature on evaluating residency applicants with a focus on identifying objective measurements of applicant potential. Recent Findings: References from attending urologists, Step 1 scores, overall academic performance, and research publications are among the most important criteria used to assess applicants. There has been a substantial increase in the average number of applications submitted per applicant, with both applicants and residency directors indicating support for a cap on the number of applications that may be submitted. Additionally, there are increasing efforts to promote diversity with the goal of improving care and representation in urology. Despite progress in standardizing interview protocols, inappropriate questioning remains an issue. Summary: Opportunities to improve residency application include promoting diversity, enforcing prohibitions of illegal practices, limiting application numbers, and finding more transparent and equitable screening measures to replace Step 1.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number37
JournalCurrent urology reports
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1 2020


  • Medical education
  • Residency application
  • Urology match
  • Urology residency

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluating Urology Residency Applications: What Matters Most and What Comes Next?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this