Back to all available

An innovative approach to preparing medical students for residency application season

science-and-medical-education
mental-health

Abstract

Introduction:

The residency application process has become increasingly complex, with constant updates to the Electronic Residency Application Service (MyERAS), the introduction of the Residency Common Application Service (RCAS), and changes to specialty-specific processes like the Urology and Plastic Surgery Matches. Even advisors struggle to provide consistent guidance, leaving students overwhelmed by program signaling, application customization, and other challenges. To address this, we developed and integrated into our curriculum a Residency Application Bootcamp, providing students with a standardized, structured approach to confidently navigate this high-stakes and ever-evolving process.

Methods:

We integrated a Residency Application Bootcamp into a two-week Intersessions course at the end of core clerkships. The workshop began with a two-hour didactic covering essential application topics, followed by one day of interactive breakout sessions. Students rotated through interactive breakout sessions led by Student Affairs Deans, focusing on key application components such as personal statements, CVs, noteworthy characteristics (NWCs), and an overview of residency application platforms. This structured format emphasized personalized guidance and iterative feedback to prepare students for residency applications.

Results:

Two hundred forty-two students participated in three iterations of the workshop. Groups of 21-22 students rotated through the interactive breakout sessions. Students felt it was “the best part of Intersessions,” “super helpful,” and made other positive comments. Averaging the three years’ scores together, the breakout sessions scored 4.27 out of 5. In addition, Student Affairs Deans who led the session felt it was an effective way to gain more personal exposure to students, provide individualized advising, and plant the seeds for upcoming MSPE meetings. Student Affairs Deans also reported that NWCs showed significant improvement from last year after this session.


Conclusions:

The Residency Application Bootcamp was successfully implemented at our institution. The flexible format of this workshop allows for improvement and incorporation of student feedback. Further innovation and research should be pursued to better support our students during this critical phase of medical school.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].