I actually don't mind rankings as long as certain concepts are made clear:
1. GIGO--how can one resident know much about more than 5 or 10 places? Second hand information is not worthless but is often self perpetuating and misleading. And info from attendings is often out of date and based on that attending's own residency interview experiences. There are, probably, academically-oriented attendings who travel around and may have insight, but I'd take everything with a grain of salt.
2. Exposure and role modeling is very important in the making of a professional. Yet...
3. Most solidly excellent departments have enough types of teachers, peer residents, and patients to satiate 98% of the potential residents.
4. Just being a resident at XYZ program does not mean that person is a stronger resident than someone at ABC program. While one might want to bet the odds, there is just a lot of overlap between people and trainees--and our ability to predict who will thrive in psychiatry isn't great.
5. We tend to overvalue differences as part of our narcissistic entitlement.
6. My experience at the residency and the city will be different from every other resident in my class.
7. To get back to ultracompetitive vs excellent programs: A handful of places may (legitimately?) be seen as on a higher plateau for several reasons. One is a combination of location; longstanding reputation that tends to provide a deep bench of FT and voluntary faculty as well as a replenishing supply of excellent residents; leadership (maybe the chair but also the dean and broader administration), and money (perhaps research money but also locales that provide a supply of private patients that "feeds" the faculty). I know of a program that is on most everyone's top list that is also a mediocre mess of a department that maintains its prestige because of its great location and the halo effect of its surrounding medical center; it attracts residents without a problem, but a better experience is likely had at the closest major program, which, while "major", isn't generally even looked at by the people who end up at the Famous Program.
OTOH, I know of another top flight residency that is derided (or lauded, depending on the reviewer) for its emphasis on psychodynamics but is actually among the most competitive places for researchers and writers into various areas, including the bench; the dynamic label of that program is accurate, but that particular program is very good at identifying psychiatrist scientists and then supplying them with financial resources that simply aren't available at most programs.
I also know of multiple programs that aren't seen as ultracompetitive, but they tend to identify a person or 3 in each class and then provide them with excellent opportunities that might not be available for that particular person if he or she had gone to a more competitive place.
Blah, blah. back to work. But the key thing is to do your homework, figure out where you will feel most comfortable and/or thrive, and disregard (or at least take with lotsa salt) what others say.
]
