Paradox of meritocracy in surgical selection, and of variation in the attractiveness of individual specialties: to what extent are women still disadvantaged?

BACKGROUND: Evidence from outside surgery suggests that meritocracy-based processes around selection tend to reduce, rather than increase, diversity. In recent years, the surgical training boards have gone to considerable effort to achieve greater transparency and fairness in their selection processes, and to identify those attributes that are believed to best predict future success as a surgeon. This is consistent with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Diversity and Inclusion Plan, which places emphasis on gender equity and has goals that include increasing the attractiveness of surgery as a vocation for women, removing impediments to them applying to the surgical training programmes and removing any biases that might disadvantage them during the selection process.

METHODS: This study uses the Female Opportunity Index and rate ratio metrics to measure the level of female disadvantage in surgical selection, whether it be by the perception of its attractiveness to women which influences their application rates, or by the likelihood of successful selection for those who have applied, compared with their male counterparts.

RESULTS: There are marked differences between the nine surgical specialties and 13 specialty training boards in both the proportion of women who apply, and the proportion who are successful in gaining entry onto the Surgical Education and Training programmes. The Female Opportunity Index ranged from 0.21 to 0.87, which represents a wide variation between surgical specialties.

CONCLUSION: These data raise the question as to whether unconscious bias is occurring in an apparently meritocracy-based selection process in some specialties. The data also suggest that some specialties are relatively unattractive to women, for which the reasons are likely to be complex.