Back to 2025 Abstracts

---

Virtual versus In-person Interviews: Applicant and Program Director Attitudes during the 2025 Urology Match
Ellen M. Cahill, MD, Aleksandra Golos, BS, Olamide Olawoyin, MD, Ankur U. Choksi, MD, Piruz Motamedinia, MD, Joshua Sterling, MD, MSc, Marianne Casilla-Lennon, MD.
Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Urology, New Haven, CT, USA.

Introduction: Urology residency interview were conducted virtually during and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 2025 match cycle, programs could choose to conduct in-person, virtual, or hybrid interviews. Our aim was to determine the applicant and program perspectives of interview format.
Methods: Two anonymous, web-based surveys– one for applicants and one for program directors (PDs) – were distributed by email to assess interview formats and associated attitudes.
Results: A total of 251 applicants and 53 PDs responded to the surveys. Applicant and PD demographics are detailed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Applicants attended a median of 13 interviews, half of which were in-person. Sub-interns overwhelmingly had virtual or on-rotation interviews. Over 70% of applicants believed choosing a virtual interview resulted in a disadvantage when given a choice (hybrid). 80% of applicants and 57% of PDs preferred in-person interviews. In open-ended responses, applicants noted that in-person interviews provided a better sense of a program’s location and culture. Applicants and PDs alike reported a negative opinion of a hybrid format.
Conclusions: Overall, applicants and PDs prefer in-person interviews. Despite the added cost and travel burden, applicants valued in-person interviews to better assess the program. Our findings suggest that applicants and PDs believe interviews should be held in one standardized format.
Table 1. Applicant Survey Responses (N=251)

	Variable		Median (IQR) / n (%)
	Gender
	Male		133 (53.0%)
	Female		109 (43.4%)
	Non-binary		3 (1.2%)
	Prefer not to say		6 (2.4%)
	Race
	Asian		52 (20.7%)
	Caucasian/White		151 (60.2%)
	Native American/Pacific Islander		1 (0.4%)
	African American/Black		17 (6.8%)
	Other		8 (3.2%)
	Prefer not to say		22 (8.8%)
	Hispanic/Latino		28 (11.2%)
	Region
	New England		17 (6.8%)
	Mid-Atlantic		48 (19.1%)
	Midwest		59 (23.5%)
	South		73 (29.1%)
	West		30 (12.0%)
	Non-US		19 (7.6%)
	Unknown		5 (2.0%)
	Number of Away Rotations		2 (2,3)
	Number of Programs Applied To		46 (35.5, 62.5)
	Number of Interview Offers		14.5 (9, 19)
	Number of Interviews Attended		13 (8, 16)
	Number of Programs Ranked		13 (8, 16)
	Matched (yes)		214 (85.3%)
	Number matched on rank list		2 (1, 4)
	Interview Formats
	In person		6 (3, 9)
	Virtual		6 (4, 8)
	Hybrid		1 (0, 1)
	Had at least 1 Hybrid Interview		147 (58.6%)
	Chose Virtual Option		46 (31.3%)
	Reasons for Choosing Virtual Option
	Convenience		24 (52.2%)
	Cost		26 (56.5%)
	Scheduling conflict		28 (60.9%)
	Do you feel that choosing the virtual option for a hybrid interview puts you at a disadvantage?
	Yes		183 (72.9%)
	No		68 (27.1%)
	Amount of Money Spent on Interview Process
	≤ $1,000		38 (15.1%)
	$1,001 - $5,000		150 (59.8%)
	$5,001 - $10,000		52 (20.7%)
	≥ $10,000		3 (1.2%)
	Took out additional loans for interviews		55 (29.1%)
	Number of Interviews Providing Stipend		1 (0, 2)
	Did stipend make a meaningful impact on total expenses?
	Yes		158 (62.9%)
	No		93 (37.1%)
	Did stipend make you more likely to interview at a program?
	Yes		131 (52.2%)
	No		120 (47.8%)
	Interview Format Preference
	In person		201 (80.1%)
	Virtual		39 (15.5%)

Table 2. Program Director Survey Responses (N=53)

	Variable		Median (IQR) / n (%)
	AUA Section
	New England		8 (15.1%)
	Mid-Atlantic		5 (9.4%)
	New York		1 (1.9%)
	Northeastern		5 (9.4%)
	North Central		10 (18.9%)
	Southeastern		10 (18.9%)
	South Central		5 (9.4%)
	Western		9 (17.0%)
	Interviews Offered		40 (35.25, 47.5)
	Interview Format Utilized
	In person		15 (28.3%)
	Virtual		27 (50.9%)
	Hybrid		10 (18.9%)
	For hybrid interviews, were applicants given a choice?
	Yes		2 (20.0%)
	No		7 (70.0%)
	How were sub-interns interviewed?
	In person during subI		13 (24.5%)
	In person during interviews		4 (7.5%)
	Virtual		33 (62.3%)
	Applicant choice		1 (1.9%)
	Stipend provided		10 (18.9%)
	Stipend Type
	Stipend to be used in any manner		4 (40.0%)
	Food stipend		2 (20.0%)
	Hotel/lodging		7 (70.0%)
	Flight		3 (30.0%)
	Stipend Amount		$250 ($100, $300)
	Do you think interview stipends should be allowed?
	Yes		15 (28.3%)
	No		34 (64.2%)
	Interview Format Preference
	In person		30 (56.6%)
	Virtual		19 (35.8%)
	What interview format do you plan to use next year?
	In person		21 (39.6%)
	Virtual		19 (35.8%)
	Hybrid		8 (15.1%)
	Should there be a standard interview format across programs?
	Yes		26 (49.1%)
	No		23 (43.4%)
	Do you allow second look visits?
	Yes		6 (11.3%)
	No		42 (79.2%)
	Should second look visits be allowed?
	Yes		19 (35.8%)
	No		28 (52.8%)
	Matched Applicants
	Matched home applicant		20 (37.7%)
	Matched sub-intern		37 (69.8%)
	Matched applicant who signaled		45 (84.9%)
	Matched applicant who did not send signal		4 (7.5%)
	Matched via SOAP/scramble		2 (3.8%)

---

Back to 2025 Abstracts