Have We Come as Far as We Had Hoped? Discrimination in the Residency Interview

The primary objective was to use a pilot survey of fourth-year medical students at our institution to determine if female residency applicants were asked potentially illegal questions regarding family status and childbearing more frequently than male applicants. Secondary objectives included comparing the use of potentially illegal questions in surgical versus nonsurgical specialties and between community and academic residency programs.

A 20-item questionnaire was distributed to all fourth-year medical students at the University of Kansas School of Medicine. Data were analyzed in SPSS using descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariate analysis.

University of Kansas Health System, Tertiary Care Center.

Fourth-year medical students from the University of Kansas School of Medicine.

There were 57 survey respondents (51% male and 49% female). Female applicants were more likely to report being asked about their desire to have a family than male applicants (32% vs. 3%, respectively, p = 0.041). However, male and female students were equally likely to report being asked specifically if they had or intended to have children (p = 0.194). No significant differences were found in potentially illegal question-asking between surgical and nonsurgical specialties or between community-based and academic programs.

Although women now represent 47% of the applicant pool, gender discrimination in the residency interview has not been eradicated. Women are more likely to report potentially illegal questions regarding their desire to have a family on residency interviews than men. Community and academic programs appear to ask similar numbers and types of potentially illegal questions. Further study is warranted to determine if these findings apply to the entire applicant pool. Further education of interviewers is necessary regarding potentially illegal questions during the residency interview process.