This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Education  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their Research Letter, Drs Niederle and Roth¹ reported that fellowship markets without a match offered similar salaries as those that do. Although the authors acknowledged that "the market for fellowships is not the same as the market for residencies," they nonetheless concluded that "eliminating the resident match would not necessarily increase residents' wages." Their underlying comparison between fellowship and residency, however, is misleading: an applicant for nephrology fellowship, for instance, in which there is no match, is not in the same market as an applicant for pulmonary/critical care, in which there is. The correct comparison from which one could draw conclusions about the effect of a match on fellowship salary would be between the salaries paid to fellows who obtain positions through the match and the salaries paid to fellows who are offered positions in the same fellowship program outside the match. I suspect that the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Amnon Schlegel, MD, PhD
Department of Medicine
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Boston, Mass

RELATED ARTICLES

Effect of a Match on Salaries for Medical Fellows—Reply
Muriel Niederle and Alvin E. Roth
JAMA. 2003;290(18):2408.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Relationship Between Wages and Presence of a Match in Medical Fellowships
Muriel Niederle and Alvin E. Roth
JAMA. 2003;290(9):1153-1154.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT