The Perfect Match.

Each year, oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) program directors from approximately 100 postgraduate residency training programs across the United States evaluate applications from fourth-year dental students, OMS interns, general practice residency (GPR) residents, and other applicants interested in pursuing a residency in OMS. The AAOMS Statement on Resident Selection supports the Commission on Dental Accreditation Standards on this process and recognizes that program directors ‘‘. are granted appropriate latitude to seek and admit residents who they believewill not only succeed but thrive during training and beyond.’’ And further, that ‘‘. the admission process cannot be reduced to an algorithm assessing academic credentials but is necessarily holistic, and, to some degree, subjective.’’ Of course the process of resident selection is such an imperfect science that many program directors can attest having chosen less than wisely based on their subjective impressions of an applicant’s credentials and interview skills. Despite an anti-algorithm sentiment, attempts have been made to automate and simplify the arduous task of resident selection and create a more efficient overall process. Many of these ‘‘automated’’ systems use visual spreadsheets viewable by all members of the selection committee (faculty, residents, others) and consist of objective data, which are then supplemented with subjective rating biases of the faculty and residents. As new data are entered into the spreadsheet database, the current rank for each particular applicant is recalculated. The ‘‘Automated Residency Match Rank List’’ for radiology residents uses this visual rank list that is updated instantaneously in real time, but the factors involved in the calculations still contain objective and subjective data. As a result, the ‘‘automation’’ does not objectify the decisionmaking process, but only allows the subjectivity to be understood more readily. From an objective standpoint, there are many factors for the OMS program director to consider including dental school grades and class rank, undergraduate grades and grade point average (GPA; perhaps more important for dual-degree programs), applicant personal statements, extracurricular activities, leadership roles, and letters of recommendation. But each of these alone, or in combination, may be poor predictors of whether or not that dental student will ‘‘succeed’’ or ‘‘thrive during training and beyond.’’