Understanding what attracts trainees to a specialty, in this case nephrology, is elusive. Some factors relate to the individual, their personality and needs; some factors are related to the field, including characteristics of daily work, patient problems, and an individual’s experience with nephrology and the people; and other factors are idiosyncratic. The reduced number of nephrology fellowship applicants, and particularly US-educated medical graduates, has recently been documented (1,2). In this issue of CJASN, Shah et al. (3) report results, analyze trends, and recommend changes based on data from a survey about career choice selection and satisfaction among nephrology fellows. This analysis derives from responses of almost one-quarter of fellows, all of whom were surveyed in June 2011. What Have We Learned about Internal Medicine Resident Selection of Future Careers? Among internal medicine (IM) postgraduate year (PGY)-3 residents surveyed when taking the 2002 intraining examination, Garibaldi et al. (4) documented that residents selecting nephrology fellowships were interested in the “opportunity to participate in the care of critically ill patients,” “long-term relationships with patients,” and higher income (nephrology was viewed as a procedural specialty). Significantly more international medical graduates (IMGs) than USeducated medical graduates were interested in nephrology. West et al. (5) identified time with family as the most significant factor in career decisions in a survey of graduating IM residents taking the in-training examination from 2005 to 2007. This factor and longterm relationships with patients were highly ranked by women, and time with family, mentor’s subspecialty, and procedures were highly ranked by IMGs. Noteworthy is that nephrology and cardiology were the two subspecialties where mentor’s subspecialty was most important, although mentor’s subspecialty was less important for the entire group. A Canadian study of subspecialty choice by PGY-3 residents used both survey and focus group methods (6). In Canada, a general internist completes a fourth year and a subspecialist completes a 2- to 3-year fellowship. Overall lifestyle considerations played heavily in selecting a future discipline, but intellectual stimulation, procedures, and a mentor were also important. Women residents identified mentorship by women, either faculty or fellows, in a discipline as particularly helpful. Their availability, both clinical presence and affability, seemed valuable. Mentoring (“excellent teaching and mentoring by faculty”) was the most important factor to the satisfaction of nephrology fellows (3,7). All of us in the nephrology community must expand our skills and commitment to this important aspect of training fellows, residents, and students. Through various formal and informal methods, engaged and skillful mentoring is vital to maintaining and growing the nephrology workforce. Personal factors, described in surveys as “good match with interests” (4) or “consistent with personality” (6), contribute greatly to fellowship selection, especially for those choosing nonprocedural specialties (the category for nephrology). However, we do not have data about what this really means. Do nephrologists prefer quantitative assessments and documented abnormalities (elevated serum creatinine, hypokalemia, or red blood cell casts) rather than complaints of pain or fatigue in their patients? How Can We Attract More Trainees? The ASN Program for Medical Residents began approximately 14 years ago to provide travel support to the annual ASN meeting. What do we know about the percentage of these residents who selected and then completed nephrology fellowships? Have we surveyed or measured their satisfaction after attending the conference and presumably developing a relationship with their travel grant sponsor during residency? The ASN program was expanded in 2010 to invite students to the ASN annual meeting, and the first group is now in their PGY-2 training. It will take time to know how many choose nephrology and how satisfied they are. We must follow this group and better understand aspects of their career choices. An important finding of the article by Shah et al. is that 13% of fellows, or more than one in eight, “found nephrology research interesting during medical school or residency” and that was a factor in their career selection (3). Thirty percent of fellows identified opportunities during fellowship “to participate in research and scholarly activities” contributed to their satisfaction. Parker et al. (8) also reported that a number of nephrology fellows came to the discipline through research interests and were interested in an academic career. Capturing this interest and cultivating it through further opportunities, such as the Mt. Desert Island Origins of Renal Physiology course, ASN research