J Cutan Pathol 2016: 43: 411–417 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

doi: 10.1111/cup.12676 Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

John Wiley & Sons. Printed in Singapore
Journal of
Cutaneous Pathology

Characterization of dermatopathology
fellowship applicants: a 5-year single
institution experience
Background: Although much data have been documented on the Elizabeth E. Uhlenhake1 ,
characteristics of medical school applicants for dermatology and Bruce R. Smoller3 ,
pathology residency programs in the United States and select Hillary R. Elwood2 , Sara C.
medical and surgical fellowship applicants through the National Shalin1 and Jerad M. Gardner1
Residency Matching Program, little is known about the 1
dermatopathology applicant demographics. Departments of Pathology and Dermatology,
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences,
Methods: We examined a 5-year pool of dermatopathology Little Rock, AR, USA,
2
fellowship applicants from a single institution (University of Department of Pathology, University of New
Arkansas for Medical Sciences) and compiled background profile Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque,
NM, USA, and
data of the applicants to characterize an ‘average 3
Department of Pathology, University of
dermatopathology fellow’ applicant. Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
Results: A total of 229 applicants over a 5-year period were
included in the assessment. The majority were of pathology
background with medical school and residency training based in
the southern United States. One-third of the applicants had
original research publications, case reports or had given an oral
or poster presentation in the field of dermatopathology.
Conclusions: Knowledge regarding the average applicant
statistics for a dermatopathology fellowship will allow prospective
applicants to evaluate their own applications for strengths and
weaknesses. This will also provide institutions information
regarding anticipated statistics for a competitive applicant pool.

Jerad M. Gardner, MD,

Keywords: ACGME, applicant statistics, dermatopathology University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences,
fellowship, fellowship match, graduate medical education 4301 West Markham Street, #517, Little Rock, AR
72205, USA
Uhlenhake EE, Smoller BR, Elwood HR, Shalin SC, Gardner JM. Tel: +501 526 4539
Characterization of dermatopathology fellowship applicants: a Fax: +501 526 4647
Twitter: @JMGardnerMD
5-year single institution experience. e-mail: JMGardnerMD@gmail.com
J Cutan Pathol 2016; 43: 411–417. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd Accepted for publication February 6, 2016

More and more residents are seeking
post-residency fellowship training, increas-
ingly so in the field of pathology but also in
dermatology.1,2 Dermatopathology is a unique
field where both specialties converge into
one fellowship opportunity, contributing to its
increasingly competitive nature. The applica-
tion process for dermatopathology fellowship
lacks uniformity among programs, as various
programs employ a variety of application forms,
timetables and deadlines, and is currently
without a match program.3 For the residency
programs and select medical and surgical fel-
lowships that use the National Residency Match
Program (NRMP), the NRMP reports on the
numbers of applicants per position offered,

411
Uhlenhake et al.
matched applicants by applicant type, number
of positions both available and filled and pro-
grams offering positions by state and specialty.4,5
As the field of dermatopathology does not par-
ticipate in this or other matching programs,
there are no uniform data or statistics published
regarding applicant demographic information
within our subspecialty.
The lack of detailed information leads to
confusion regarding the average applicant
demographics for dermatopathology fellowship.
Better understanding of typical applicant fea-
tures may help future fellowship applicants rec-
ognize the strengths and weaknesses of their own
applications and assess their competitiveness.
This study evaluates and summarizes some of
these applicant characteristics through an assess-
ment of demographic information from a 5-year
applicant pool from a single dermatopathol-
ogy fellowship program in the mid-southern
United States that offers one fellowship position
annually.
Methods
The University of Arkansas for Medical Sci-
ences (UAMS) dermatopathology fellowship
application files from a 5-year period (for fel-
lowship beginning July 2010–July 2014) were
reviewed and compiled by a single author
(EEU) looking at strict applicant criteria. The
following data were extracted from applications
(if provided): residency training background,
gender, medical school, residency program,
additional fellowships (previous or planned
subsequent), external electives outside the
applicant’s home institution, electives at UAMS
for external (non-UAMS) applicants, alpha
omega alpha honor medical society (AOA)
membership, united states medical licens-
ing examination (USMLE) scores, letters of
recommendation from inside vs. outside the
applicant’s program and from dermatopathol-
ogists vs. non-dermatopathologists, published
original research projects (peer-reviewed publi-
cations other than case reports), published case
reports, oral and poster presentations and book
chapters both overall and specifically related
to the field of dermatopathology. Projects that
were ‘in press’ and accepted for publication
were included; however, submitted projects and
‘works in progress’ were excluded from the
dataset. The applicant’s file included all items
he/she submitted for consideration including
applicant curriculum vitae (CV), letters of rec-
ommendation, College of American Pathologists
412
(CAP) Standardized application and personal
statement. Our program requires that applicants
submit a CV, a personal statement and three let-
ters of recommendation. We do not require
a formal application form or USMLE score
reports, although many applicants submit these
voluntarily. Thus, not all data points could be
evaluated for all applicants.
From the extracted data, percentages were
calculated for each characteristic. In addition,
mean, median and range values were calcu-
lated for number of research publications, case
reports, poster presentations, oral presentations
and book chapters. Mean and median values
were calculated based only on those applicants
reporting at least one of the specific characteris-
tics being examined. In other words, applicants
with zero case reports were excluded when cal-
culating the mean and median number of case
reports.
Results
A total of 229 applicants over a 5-year period
were included in the assessment, which equates
to an average of 45.8 applications per year per
position. Table 1 summarizes the composite
data collected from all applicants. The majority
were of pathology background with medical
school and residency training based in the
southern United States. Dermatopathology pub-
lications and research were primarily in the
form of poster presentations, original research
projects, case reports and oral presentations
with a minority of book chapters. The average
applicant had the following in regards to pre-
sentations/publications: 3.1 original published
research articles (mean 3.1 dermatopathology
related), 2.4 published case reports (mean 2.2
dermatopathology related), 2.3 oral presen-
tations (mean 2.2 dermatopathology related)
and 4.3 poster presentations (mean 3.9 der-
matopathology related). A total of 43.7% of
applicants had performed an external/away
dermatopathology elective rotation outside of
their home institution. Approximately one-third
of applicants submitted USMLE Step exam
scores with their application; mean scores were
228 (Step 1), 237 (Step 2 CK) and 215 (Step
3). A total of 89.5% of applicants had letters of
recommendation (mean: 2.8 letters) originating
from the applicant’s home program, with 85.2%
of applicants including at least 1 (mean: 1.8)
letter from a practicing dermatopathologist.
Table 2 outlines the applicant demographics
by year.
 Characterization of dermatopathology fellowship applicants

Table 1. Composite 5-year applicant characteristic data (2010–2014)

All applicants (n = 229) Accepted applicants*(n = 5)

Pathology trained 205/229 = 89.5% 4/5 = 80%

Dermatology trained 24/229 = 10.5% 1/5 = 20%
Female 103/229 = 45.0% 4/5 = 80%
Male 126/229 = 55.0% 1/5 = 20%
U.S. medical graduates 159/229 = 69.4% 5/5 = 100%
Foreign medical graduates 70/229 = 30.6% 0/5 = 0%
Additional fellowship 61/229 = 26.6% 0/5 = 0%
External dermpath elective 100/229 = 43.7% 3/5 = 60%
Dermpath elective at UAMS 25/229 = 10.9% 2/5 = 40%
A OA 24 applicants reported
Step 1 87 applicants reported 5 applicants reported
Mean score = 228 Mean score = 229
Step 2 85 applicants reported 5 applicants reported
Mean score = 237 Mean score = 235
Step 3 77 applicants reported 5 applicants reported
Mean score = 215 Mean score = 221
Published research overall 143/229 = 62.4% 3/5 = 60%
Mean number = 3.1 Mean number = 9
Median = 2 Median = 7
Range = 0–26 Range = 0–18
Published research dermpath 84/229 = 36.7% 2/5 = 40%
Mean number = 3.1 Mean number = 8
Median = 2 Median = 8
Range = 0–12 Range = 0–9
Case reports overall 102/229 = 44.5% 5/5 = 100%
Mean number = 2.4 Mean number = 2.4
Median = 1 Median = 2
Range = 0–13 Range = 1–5
Case reports dermpath 89/229 = 38.9% 4/5 = 80%
Mean number = 2.2 Mean number = 2.3
Median = 1 Median = 2
Range = 0–13 Range = 0–4
Oral presentations overall 98/229 = 42.8% 3/5 = 60%
Mean number = 2.3 Mean number = 6
Median = 2 Median = 3
Range = 0–8 Range = 0–14
Oral presentations dermpath 73/229 = 31.9% 3/5 = 60%
Mean number = 2.2 Mean number = 2.3
Median = 2 Median = 2
Range = 0–8 Range = 0–4
Posters overall 209/229 = 91.3% 5/5 = 100%
Mean number = 4.3 Mean number = 6.6
Median = 3 Median = 5
Range = 0–30 Range = 1–14
Posters dermpath 174/229 = 76.0% 5/5 = 100%
Mean number = 3.9 Mean number = 3.2
Median = 3 Median = 3
Range = 0–19 Range = 1–8
Book chapters overall 29/229 = 12.7% 2/5 = 40%
Mean number = 2.4 Mean number = 2
Median = 1 Median = 2
Range = 0–16 Range = 0–2

413
Uhlenhake et al.

Table 1. Continued

All applicants (n = 229) Accepted applicants*(n = 5)

Book chapters dermpath 23/229 = 10.0% 1/5 = 20%

Mean number = 2.0 Mean number = 2
Median = 1 Median = 2
Range = 0–7 Range = 0–2

UAMS, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; AOA, alpha omega alpha; LOR, letter of recommendation. Note: mean and median values
were calculated based only on those applicants reporting at least one of the specific characteristics being examined (e.g. applicants with zero
case reports were excluded when calculating the mean and median number of case reports).
*Refers to the five applicants who were selected as dermatopathology fellows at our institution.

Table 2. Dermatopathology applicant characteristics by year

2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015

(N = 46) (N = 53) (N = 38) (N = 50) (N = 42)

Pathology trained 42/46 = 91.3 49/53 = 92.5% 36/38 = 94.7% 45/50 = 90.0% 33/42 = 78.6%
Dermatology trained 4/46 = 8.7% 4/53 = 7.5% 2/38 = 5.3% 5/50 = 10.0% 9/42 = 21.4%
Female 21/46 = 45.7% 21/53 = 39.6% 18/38 = 47.4% 22/50 = 44.0% 21/42 = 50.0%
Male 25/46 = 54.3% 32/53 = 60.4% 20/38 = 52.6% 28/50 = 56.0% 21/42 = 50.0%
U.S. medical graduates 28/46 = 60.9% 44/53 = 83.0% 29/38 = 76.3% 34/50 = 68.0% 24/42 = 57.1%
Foreign medical graduates 18/46 = 39.1% 9/53 = 17.0% 9/38 = 23.7% 16/50 = 32.0% 18/42 = 42.9%
U.S. medical school region
South 10/46 = 21.7% 24/53 = 45.3% 7/38 = 18.4% 16/50 = 32.0% 10/42 = 23.8%
Northeastern 9/46 = 19.6% 5/53 = 9.4% 5/38 = 13.2% 6/50 = 12.0% 6/42 = 14.3%
West 1/46 = 2.2% 4/53 = 7.5% 3/38 = 7.9% 1/50 = 2.0% 1/42 = 2.4%
Mid west 8/46 = 17.4% 11/53 = 20.8% 14/38 = 36.8% 11/50 = 22.0% 7/42 = 16.7%
U.S. residency region
South 14/46 = 30.4% 18/53 = 34.0% 9/38 = 23.7% 18/50 = 36.0% 14/42 = 33.3%
Northeastern 15/46 = 32.6% 12/53 = 22.6% 12/38 = 31.6% 12/50 = 24.0% 8/42 = 19.0%
West 3/46 = 6.5% 5/53 = 9.4% 8/38 = 21.1% 5/50 = 10.0% 3/42 = 7.1%
Mid west 14/46 = 30.4% 18/53 = 34.0% 9/38 = 23.7% 14/50 = 28.0% 15/42 = 35.7%
International 0/46 = 0% 0/53 = 0% 0/38 = 0% 1/50 = 2.0% 2/42 = 4.8%
Additional fellowship 15/46 = 32.6% 12/53 = 22.6% 7/38 = 18.4% 13/50 = 26.0% 14/42 = 33.3%
External elective 20/46 = 43.5% 19/53 = 35.8% 21/38 = 55.3% 18/50 = 36.0% 22/42 = 52.4%
Mean = 1.8 Mean = 2.8 Mean = 1.6 Mean = 2.0 Mean = 1.6
Elective at UAMS 8/46 = 17.4% 6/53 = 11.3% 4/38 = 10.5% 5/50 = 10.0% 2/42 = 4.8%
AOA 5 app reported 8 app reported 4 app reported 2 app reported 5 app reported
Step 1 14 app reported 24 app reported 13 app reported 14 app reported 22 app reported
Mean = 216.0 Mean = 237.4 Mean = 230.0 Mean = 226.2 Mean = 230.1
Step 2 13 app reported 24 app reported 13 app reported 14 app reported 21 app reported
Mean = 226.0 Mean = 241.3 Mean = 236.2 Mean = 236.8 Mean = 243.7
Step 3 11 app reported 24 app reported 12 app reported 11 app reported 19 app reported
Mean = 208.0 Mean = 218.1 Mean = 215.3 Mean = 212.2 Mean = 219.2
Research overall 29/46 = 63.0% 29/53 = 54.7% 20/38 = 52.6% 32/50 = 64.0% 33/42 = 78.6%
Mean = 3.5 Mean = 2.3 Mean = 3.5 Mean = 3.0 Mean = 3.4
Median = 2 Median = 2 Median = 1 Median = 2 Median = 2
Range = 0–26 Range = 0–5 Range = 0–19 Range = 0–12 Range = 0–19
Research dermpath 19/46 = 41.3% 21/53 = 40.0% 9/38 = 23.7% 19/50 = 38.0% 16/42 = 38.1%
Mean = 2.4 Mean = 3.4 Mean = 2.0 Mean = 3.1 Mean = 2.4
Median = 2 Median = 2 Median = 1 Median = 2 Median = 2
Range = 0–6 Range = 0–4 Range = 0–8 Range = 0–12 Range = 0–6
Case reports overall 21/46 = 45.7% 27/53 = 51.0% 19/38 = 52.8% 22/50 = 44.0% 13/42 = 31.0%
Mean = 3.0 Mean = 2.2 Mean = 1.9 Mean = 1.9 Mean = 2.8
Median = 1 Median = 2 Median = 2 Median = 1 Median = 1
Range = 1–13 Range = 1–2 Range = 0–8 Range = 0–3 Range = 0–3

414
 Characterization of dermatopathology fellowship applicants
Table 2. Continued

2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015

(N = 46) (N = 53) (N = 38) (N = 50) (N = 42)

Case reports dermpath 15/46 = 32.6% 20/53 = 37.7% 16/38 = 42.1% 17/50 = 34.0% 11/42 = 26.2%
Mean = 3.3 Mean = 2.5 Mean = 2.1 Mean = 2.0 Mean = 1.3
Median = 1 Median = 2 Median = 2 Median = 1 Median = 1
Range = 0–13 Range = 0–2 Range = 0–5 Range = 0–4 Range = 0–3
Oral presentation overall 16/46 = 34.8% 21/53 = 39.6% 17/38 = 44.7% 24/50 = 48.0% 20/42 = 47.6%
Mean = 3.1 Mean = 2.1 Mean = 1.9 Mean = 2.1 Mean = 2.1
Median = 2 Median = 3 Median = 1 Median = 1 Median = 2
Range = 0–8 Range = 1–4 Range = 0–6 Range = 0–8 Range = 0–7
Oral presentation dermpath 12/46 = 26.1% 18/53 = 34.0% 12/38 = 31.6% 15/50 = 30.0% 16/42 = 38.1%
Mean = 3.0 Mean = 2.5 Mean = 1.5 Mean = 2.2 Mean = 1.6
Median = 2 Median = 2.5 Median = 1 Median = 1 Median = 1
Range = 0–8 Range = 1–3 Range = 0–6 Range = 0–8 Range = 0–4
Posters overall 45/46 = 97.8% 46/53 = 86.8% 36/38 = 94.7% 45/50 = 90.0% 37/42 = 88.1%
Mean = 5.0 Mean = 5.1 Mean = 2.9 Mean = 3.9 Mean = 4.8
Median = 3.5 Median = 5 Median = 2 Median = 3 Median = 3
Range = 1–22 Range = 0–11 Range = 0–21 Range = 0–16 Range = 0–30
Posters dermpath 27/46 = 58.7% 44/53 = 83.0% 30/38 = 78.9% 39/50 = 78.0% 34/42 = 80.1%
Mean = 4.4 Mean = 5.4 Mean = 3.0 Mean = 3.4 Mean = 3.4
Median = 3 Median = 4.5 Median = 2 Median = 3 Median = 3
Range = 0–19 Range = 0–8 Range = 0–11 Range = 0–10 Range = 0–9
Book chapters overall 7/46 = 15.2% 4/53 = 7.5% 4/38 = 10.5% 9/50 = 18.0% 5/42 = 11.9%
Mean = 1.7 Mean = 1.0 Mean = 2.8 Mean = 2.3 Mean = 4.3
Median = 0 Median = 0 Median = 0 Median = 2 Median = 1
Range = 0–5 Range = 0–1 Range = 0–8 Range = 0–7 Range = 0–16
Book chapters dermpath 6/46 = 13.0% 4/53 = 7.5% 3/38 = 8.0% 6/50 = 12.0% 4/42 = 9.5%
Mean = 1.2 Mean = 1.0 Mean = 3.3 Mean = 2.5 Mean = 2.0
Median = 0 Median = 0 Median = 0 Median = 2 Median = 1
Range = 0–2 Range = 0–1 Range = 0–1 Range = 0–7 Range = 0–5
LOR dermpath 39/46 = 84.8% 45/53 = 84.9% 35/38 = 92.1% 38/50 = 76.0% 38/42 = 90.5%
Mean = 1.9 Mean = 1.6 Mean = 1.7 Mean = 1.7 Mean = 1.9
LOR other 42/46 = 91.3% 42/53 = 79.2% 36/38 = 94.7% 46/50 = 92.0% 39/42 = 92.9%
Mean = 2.0 Mean = 2.1 Mean = 1.9 Mean = 2.3 Mean = 2.1
LOR in program 41/46 = 89.1% 38/53 = 71.7% 38/38 = 100% 46/50 = 92.0% 42/42 = 100%
Mean = 2.8 Mean = 2.6 Mean = 2.5 Mean = 3.0 Mean = 3.1
LOR outside program 23/46 = 50% 15/53 = 28.3% 19/38 = 50.0% 17/50 = 34.0% 21/42 = 50.0%
Mean = 1.8 Mean = 1.8 Mean = 1.7 Mean = 1.9 Mean = 1.3

UAMS, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; AOA, alpha omega alpha; LOR, letter of recommendation. Note: mean and median values
were calculated based only on those applicants reporting at least one of the specific characteristics being examined (e.g. applicants with zero
case reports were excluded when calculating the mean and median number of case reports).

For the 5-year study period, one applicant per
year was accepted into our fellowship program
(n = 5). These were four pathologists and one
dermatologist, and all were U.S. medical school
graduates. One was an internal applicant who
had completed pathology residency at our insti-
tution; the other four were external applicants
from other institutions. Two had previously
completed a dermatopathology elective rota-
tion at our institution. None had previous
or planned additional fellowships aside from
dermatopathology. Mean USMLE scores were
229 (Step 1), 235 (Step 2) and 221 (Step 3).
Mean number of presentations/publications for
these five selected applicants were as follows:
9 original published research articles (mean
8 dermatopathology related), 2.4 published
case reports (mean 2.3 dermatopathology
related), 6 oral presentations (mean 2.3
dermatopathology related) and 6.6 poster
presentations (mean 3.2 dermatopathology
related). Table 1 (far right column) sum-
marizes the composite data collected from
these five applicants who were selected as der-
matopathology fellows at our institution from
2010–2014.

415
Uhlenhake et al.
Table 3. Previous or planned fellowships in addition to dermatopathology fellowship
2010–2011 2011–2012
(N = 46) (N = 53)
Surgical pathology 6 6
Research/clinical trials 3 4
Cytology 2 2
Hematopathology 2 0
Soft tissue/bone 1 0
Molecular 0 0
Total 15/46 = 32.6% 12/53 = 22.6%
Discussion
There are 54 ACGME-accredited dermatopathol-
ogy fellowship programs (23 based out of
dermatology departments and 31 based out
of pathology departments) with 78 positions
available as of 2013–2014.6 This limited num-
ber of positions may be filled by qualified
applicants completing training in either clin-
ical dermatology or anatomic pathology. The
dual pathways to fellowship probably further
contribute to the competitiveness of the der-
matopathology subspecialty. We attempted
to characterize ‘an average applicant’ for a
dermatopathology position.
In regards to overall research (including both
dermatopathology and non-dermatopathology
works), 62.4% of applicants had at least one
published original research article (mean: 3.1
publications; range: 0–26) and 44.5% had at
least one published case report (mean: 2.4 case
reports; range: 0–13). For research focused on
dermatopathology topics, 36.7% had original
published research and 38.9% had published
case reports. These are important factors to con-
sider for applicants during (and prior to) the
application process. Both oral and poster pre-
sentations at professional meetings are also vital
opportunities that are highly recommended:
42.8% of applicants gave at least one oral pre-
sentation (mean: 2.3 oral presentations) and
91.3% of applicants presented at least one poster
(mean: 4.3 posters). With regards to letters of
recommendation, 85.2% of applicants submit-
ted at least one letter from a dermatopathologist.
Dermatopathology elective rotations performed
outside of the home institution were popular
(43.7% of applicants completed an external der-
matopathology elective); we believe that these
electives represent a valuable avenue for appli-
cants to showcase their abilities and personality
traits, which can be hard to quantify or put into
verbiage in a CV or personal statement.
416
2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015
(N = 38) (N = 50) (N = 42)
5 8 8
1 2 3
1 0 0
0 2 1
0 1 0
0 0 2
7/38 = 18.4% 13/50 = 26.0% 14/42 = 33.3%
In light of the small sample size, we did not
attempt to draw definitive conclusions from com-
parison of the five applicants who were selected
as dermatopathology fellows in our program
to the overall applicant pool; we did, however,
examine broad trends between these two groups.
Most of the statistics of our five accepted fellows
appear to closely mirror the mean values of the
entire applicant pool with a few notable excep-
tions. All 5 (100%) of the applicants accepted
as fellows at our institution had published at
least one case report, presented at least one
poster and, specifically, presented at least one
dermpath-related poster. The percentages of our
accepted fellows who had published research
overall and who had published dermpath-related
research were relatively similar to the percent-
ages seen in the overall applicant pool (60% vs.
62.4% and 40% vs. 36.7%, respectively). How-
ever, of those who had published research and
dermpath-related research, the mean number of
published articles was higher for our accepted
fellows vs. the overall applicant pool (9 vs. 3.1
research articles and 8 vs. 3.1 dermpath-related
research articles, respectively). Of those appli-
cants selected to be our fellows, 40% had rotated
on dermatopathology as an elective at our insti-
tution (10.9% of the overall applicant group).
Again, given the limited sample size, we cannot
draw any definitive conclusions from compari-
son of these two groups.
Limitations of our current study include that
the data derived are from a single program
based within a pathology department in the
mid-southern United States and that has his-
torically trained more pathology-trained than
dermatology-trained individuals. These factors
may have influenced our finding that a majority
of applicants to our program had previously
trained in the same region of the country and
had completed a pathology, rather than der-
matology, residency. A planned or completed
 Characterization of dermatopathology fellowship applicants

additional fellowship was reported by 26.6% of
applicants, the most popular subspecialty being
surgical pathology, a statistic also potentially
skewed because of our program being based
in a pathology department (Table 3). Aside
from the five applicants selected as fellows in
our program, there was no follow-up informa-
tion available from the applicants to determine
which were interviewed and/or offered a fel-
lowship position elsewhere. Such information
would obviously be very valuable in identifying
the applicant characteristics that best correlate
with successfully obtaining a dermatopathology
fellowship position and represents an avenue for
future study. However, without a standardized
application and/or match system to serve as a
database, it is not currently feasible to collect
this information. Finally, as our program had a
change in leadership during the 5-year period
(in 2012), the data files of previous years may be
incomplete.
A standardized pathology fellowship applica-
tion was created by the College of American
Pathologists several years ago, with the goal of
standardizing the application process; however,
this application is not universally accepted by all
institutions and those applicants coming from a
dermatology background may not know of this
resource.7 As there is no widely accepted and uti-
lized application form, it is generally suggested
that applicants provide as much personal infor-
mation as possible to programs to aid in their
decision. As not all programs demand set criteria
of information, the array of data gathered from
applicants can make for an uneven playing field
when selecting applicants to interview.
This study provides a 5-year snapshot of the
academic profiles of dermatopathology fellow-
ship applicants to a single academic medical
institution. It offers future applicants the oppor-
tunity to see how their peers have performed
academically and constructed their applica-
tions for subspecialty training. It also allows
institutions to compare and contrast their own
dermatopathology fellowship applicant data
with average data from another institution.
Ideally, all dermatopathology programs could
track and publicly report this type of data on an
annual basis, but that type of endeavor would
not be feasible unless a standardized application
service one day becomes widely utilized in our
subspecialty.

References
1. Lagwinski N, Hunt J. Fellowship trends of
pathology residents. Arch Pathol Lab Med
2009; 133: 1431.
2. Brotherton SE, Rockey PH, Etzel SI. US
graduate medical education, 2003–2004.
JAMA 2004; 292: 1032.
3. Kant JA. A tale of two systems: pathology res-
ident recruitment in and out of the National
Resident Matching Program. Hum Pathol
2001; 32: 677.
4. National Resident Matching Program.
Results and data: 2014 Main Residency
Match®. Washington, DC: National
Resident Matching Program, 2014.
5. National Resident Matching Program.
Results and data: specialties match-
ing service 2014 appointment year.
Washington, DC: National Resident
Matching Program, 2014.
6. Accreditation Council for Graduate Med-
ical Education. Public. URL https://www.
acgme.org/ads/Public/Reports/Report
Run?ReportId=1&CurrentYear=2013&
SpecialtyId=9 [accessed on 1 June 2014].
7. Standardized Pathology Fellowship Applica-
tion. URL http://www.cap.org/apps//cap.
portal?_nfpb=true&cntvwrPtlt_actionOver
ride=%2Fportlets%2FcontentViewer%2
Fshow&_windowLabel=cntvwrPtlt&cntvwr
Ptlt%7BactionForm.contentReference%7D
=pathology_residents%2FStandardized_
Pathology_Fellowship_Application.html&_
state=maximized&_pageLabel=cntvwr
[accessed on 24 February 2015].

417