Top 10 Psychiatry Programs - Research

[applefanatic]

For people interested in academic psychiatry (MDs & MD/PhDs) and top notch clinical programs, it's clear that there are only a few top programs. In my opinion and in no particular order, these are:
Stanford
Columbia
MGH / McLean
Washington University in St Louis / BJH
University of Pennsylvania
Johns Hopkins
UCLA Semel
Yale
University of Pittsburg / Western Psychiatric Institute
UCSD

Strong second tier places are UC Denver, Iowa, Duke, UMich, NYU, UCSF, UW, MUSC, Emory, UNC, MSSM, Cornell, Longwood, Mayo etc.

A lot of people on this forum dismiss the US News & World Report rankings because they are "reputation" based. Reputation is not completely erroneous or fabricated. Reputation mostly comes from research funding, history of prestige and clinical outcomes. Top biological places are doing TMS, VNS, DBS and other new interventional methods. Most research funding goes to top biological programs.

If you want to be a community psychiatrist, then this list is probably completely different.

Also - some places have trouble attracting residents due to location, whereas others attract great residents to a second tier program. There is still a huge difference between quality of research / faculty / program and type of residents who end up there.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

And your point is...?

 

[happyoolongtea]

And your point is...?

I wish I could "like" your post OPD haha...they need that feature on SDN

 

[splik]

I am quite sure you don't know what you are talking about. The top departments in terms of research productivity do not necessarily make them the best places to go for clinical training, or even research during residency. For example most people would not regard the clinical training at Stanford as on a par with its research reputation. Similarly, Hopkins has great (if somewhat anachronistic) clinical training with NO time for research until the last 6 months of PGY-4 so most serious researchers don't go there for residency. Duke has a huge amount of research output in 'biological' psychiatry and yet falls to 'second tier' on your list. UCSD gets large amounts of federal funding no doubt because Lewis Judd is chair and had been NIMH director for many years but most serious researchers go elsewhere for various reasons. Finally, most researchers know it is not about the prestige of the department that is important, it is about going somewhere that has people doing the kind of research you are interested in, and where you will be mentored expertly by someone with similar interests who wants to help you establish your career.

Also there is more to academic psychiatry than wretched biological psychiatry. Psychotherapy, epidemiology, health services research, cognitive neuropsychology, phenomenology, clinical trials, ethics, education and so on have been much more important in advancing the field and our understanding and treatment of mental disorders and expanding provision of care and so on. TMS is mostly useless, and the results for DBS are woefully disappointing despite all the hype, most people do not benefit from it.

 

[DrShineBright]

I am quite sure you don't know what you are talking about. The top departments in terms of research productivity do not necessarily make them the best places to go for clinical training, or even research during residency. For example most people would not regard the clinical training at Stanford as on a par with its research reputation. Similarly, Hopkins has great (if somewhat anachronistic) clinical training with NO time for research until the last 6 months of PGY-4 so most serious researchers don't go there for residency. Duke has a huge amount of research output in 'biological' psychiatry and yet falls to 'second tier' on your list. UCSD gets large amounts of federal funding no doubt because Lewis Judd is chair and had been NIMH director for many years but most serious researchers go elsewhere for various reasons. Finally, most researchers know it is not about the prestige of the department that is important, it is about going somewhere that has people doing the kind of research you are interested in, and where you will be mentored expertly by someone with similar interests who wants to help you establish your career.

Also there is more to academic psychiatry than wretched biological psychiatry. Psychotherapy, epidemiology, health services research, cognitive neuropsychology, phenomenology, clinical trials, ethics, education and so on have been much more important in advancing the field and our understanding and treatment of mental disorders and expanding provision of care and so on. TMS is mostly useless, and the results for DBS are woefully disappointing despite all the hype, most people do not benefit from it.

Awesome.

 

[cleareyedguy]

The following is a couple years old and was lifted from a post by Doctor and Geek, who'd counted the number of MD-PhD residents at different programs. It's a gauge of sorts for where presumably serious researchers go for training. By the way, as others have pointed out, programs vary significantly in regards to accessibility of grant-getting faculty and the flexibility afforded for research time (hence Hopkins--a research mecca--at 0 and Cornell--supposedly a haven for analysts--at 10). As for whether this is useful info for the average, bright general applicant who has a somewhat vague sense of what they might want to study (which is most people), I dunno.


Harvard programs 11
Cornell 10
Columbia 9
UCLA 9
UCSF 8
Yale 8
Penn 5
Pitt 5
U of Washington 5
UCSD 5
NYU 4
Stanford 4
Wisconsin 4
Duke 3
Emory 3
Michigan 3
Mt. Sinai 3
UTSW 3
Chicago 2
UCDavis 2
WashU 2

 

[NYCMS2]

Can someone (Splik?) list the programs with the very best clinical training, irrespective research status? If this has already been done, just show me the link...I searched but did not find it.

The chief criteria for my app list are location and lifestyle; I don't have any particular interest in research, nor do I foresee a career in academia, but I do care a great deal about the clinical training.

However, reading some comments here, I see that my list is a tad top heavy in research institutions, some with questionable clinical training.

 

[twright]

Can someone (Splik?) list the programs with the very best clinical training, irrespective research status? If this has already been done, just show me the link...I searched but did not find it.

The chief criteria for my app list are location and lifestyle; I don't have any particular interest in research, nor do I foresee a career in academia, but I do care a great deal about the clinical training.

However, reading some comments here, I see that my list is a tad top heavy in research institutions, some with questionable clinical training.

If you want to go to a program with the 'best' clinical training then it is likely to have a higher average workload. MGH, UCSF, etc provide good clinical training but the residents work hard. Which would run counter to your 'lifestyle' criterion (which I understand to mean less call, fewer weekends, etc).

 

[NYCMS2]

If you want to go to a program with the 'best' clinical training then it is likely to have a higher average workload. MGH, UCSF, etc provide good clinical training but the residents work hard. Which would run counter to your 'lifestyle' criterion (which I understand to mean less call, fewer weekends, etc).

Yes, hence my confusion - even my own question confuses me.

I should clarify: yes, lighter call matters, but I am simply hoping for reasonable, or average call and workload (whatever that is), whether at a big named research institution or not, and preferably in a desirable climate.

I am aware of the highly popular San Mateo, perhaps the poster child for what I want, but it is a small program, and they seem to favor Californians, perhaps exclusively.

So I guess I am looking for more programs in desirable locations (think nice weather) closer to San Mateo than, say, an MGH or UCSF (or UCSD, or UCLA).

You know, the Holy Grail.

 

[Shufflin]

Thought I'd chime in. At my program UCLA-Harbor we see tons of pathology, and have lots of autonomy. From what graduates say we see more cases than most other programs and receive some of the best training in the country. I've been very impressed and pleased with my residency training thus far. It's a close-knit family. NPI students tell us their situation is quite different in terms of less autonomy and high-functioning patients.

 

[nitemagi]

Research training, much like clinical training, is heavily steeped in the apprenticeship model. I was in the research track at my residency at UCSD, and I can tell you there are some outstanding researchers there, and Some of them are outstanding mentors.

First ask yourself why do you want to learn to do research -- are you planning for an academic career track? You should then be thinking about learning not only to do grants but preparing yourself for your own T32 and building a good research portfolio.

UCSD isn't just high because Lew Judd is the chair, but because UCSD is the "research pearl" of the UC system, for every department. Judd is the epitome of this, making every faculty devote at least 1/8th time to research (the VA has become an exception though), even those who are pure clinical faculty. The entire department prioritizes research and research $$ above all else, which is fine for what it is. It does have a biological bend, but there's a LOT of research in other areas of psychiatry, not biologically focused.

my little input on ucsd.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

I am sorry, but most of the reasons why top schools are top schools are beacause of NIH research funding. Something i really ****ing despise. Money is needed in researcxh but i would love it if the government didn't gussy up on certain schools. That or i am reading too much Mises.

 

[billypilgrim37]

All of the names on that list produce excellent clinicians as well. There are tons of good clinical programs that don't do much research, but there aren't really good research programs that don't have good clinical training, unless somebody knows something I don't. And just because a department has a more biological slant doesn't mean that the clinical work or the residency training will necessarily be unbalanced, either.

 

[applefanatic]

All of the names on that list produce excellent clinicians as well. There are tons of good clinical programs that don't do much research, but there aren't really good research programs that don't have good clinical training, unless somebody knows something I don't. And just because a department has a more biological slant doesn't mean that the clinical work or the residency training will necessarily be unbalanced, either.

Thank you!

 

[cleareyedguy]

I am sorry, but most of the reasons why top schools are top schools are beacause of NIH research funding. Something i really ****ing despise. Money is needed in researcxh but i would love it if the government didn't gussy up on certain schools. That or i am reading too much Mises.

The ability to get research funding isn't the government choosing favorites.

Top echelon research schools recruit researchers (as opposed to people who want to do research) and also have money for bridge funding, provide help with writing and maintaining grants, have excellent statisticians, and have a critical mass of research-oriented colleagues. They then encourage/force these researchers to apply for grants or be forced out.

In psychiatry (a clinical department at med schools), most faculty are clinical at even the most research-y of departments. There's a lot of clinical work to do, and researchers rightfully avoid clinical work. Departments do vary in what they expect from these clinicians, with some expecting a paper or two a year (for example) and others expecting no scholarly activity. For many quite academic departments, the expectations for the clinical faculty aren't really all that different from the expectations for virtually all faculty at relatively non-research-y departments. Because of the prestige, expectation, past training, and the interest in working with talented trainees, however, these clinical faculty at top-notch places are often much more engaged and on-top-of-the-literature than teaching faculty at less prestigious places, and they also tend to contribute to the literature even without any actual funding (what else are nights and weekends for if not additional, unpaid work). OTOH, there are also stars at the less-prestigious places who do great work and also participate nationally-they're just more scarce.

One reason for trainees to choose programs that are more academic is the opportunity to be surrounded by people who may or may not be smarter but who will choose to work nights and weekends. Amping up effort is one fairly clear way to get more done, and that's how many AOA type med students got to be AOA. Sometimes it's because they have photographic memories, but often it's because they were willing to do extra stuff (including extra stuff that wasn't much fun). Psych gets fewer of these students than do surgical subspecialties, but if you want to find a disproportionate number of them, go to the programs that are routinely put on this site's top 10 list (followed immediately by the protests about how there is no such thing as a top 10 list)... not to say that these trainees are necessarily nicer or better people, just that they tend not to try to go home as early.

 

[billypilgrim37]

not to say that these trainees are necessarily nicer or better people, just that they tend not to try to go home as early.

Hey, no fair! I have to go home because SPSS is much easier to run on my 27 inch monitor in the home office compared to my 13 inch laptop... I can't get any extra work done at work!

I kid, of course.

Though I think that last paragraph is stated in a way to be alienating even to those of us who do put in a lot of extra effort (I still regularly put in 65-70 hours a week as a pgy5 doing lots of things I absolutely don't have to be doing). You're talking to the Google generation that has very much divorced productivity from effort, despite obvious limits to that divorce. The rest I think is fairly spot on and consistent with my experience and the experience of my friends at other strong "academic" places.

 

[cleareyedguy]

Thanks, Billy.

On further reflection, one update to my comments about how the research-oriented departments are different from the large majority of departments that host residency programs...

The most academic of departments produces a big group of graduates whose primary interest is clinical. This is ok since there aren't endless research funds, but it also means that research-oriented programs are constantly on the lookout for junior faculty who will do what it take to move up the research hierarchy and into the world of independent grant getting (though that also varies a lot between lab researchers; big-time clinical researchers, and the bulk of academically-oriented psychiatrists whose primary source of income remains patient care; but the principles are the same). Regardless of where you train, you can "catch up" with a research-oriented fellowship, effort, and talent. It's also useful to remember that academically-oriented fellowships tend to be more open to a broader array of applicants than the cluster of upper echelon residencies (defined however you want, 5-10 residencies stand out as having way more excellent applicants than they can accept, and so--as is often the case in any kind of selection--they tend to select people who resemble themselves in regards to backgrounds; if they say they're diverse, check out what they mean since it may not mean "diverse" in any way beyond skin hue and possibly sexual orientation). Fellowships are more flexible partly because of supply and demand but also because--and this is actually useful to remember--you have been vetted by an additional 4 years of residency; one reason for residency application conservatism (H in IM often > H in Psych, and board scores count for a lot in admissions but are then never again counted) is fear that you'll flop. After 4 years of being an employee/resident, they don't really have to worry so much.

All that is to say: if you want a career in academic research, become clinically competent (clinical incompetence means you'll probably ask stupid research questions), skeptically read the literature (as in, read 3-5 journals each month and practice poking holes in methodology), keep your eye on the ball, and find a calling. If all that sounds like a waste of time, great, you've saved yourself a lot of ambivalence; just go into practice...

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

Thanks, Billy.

On further reflection, one update to my comments about how the research-oriented departments are different from the large majority of departments that host residency programs...

The most academic of departments produces a big group of graduates whose primary interest is clinical. This is ok since there aren't endless research funds, but it also means that research-oriented programs are constantly on the lookout for junior faculty who will do what it take to move up the research hierarchy and into the world of independent grant getting (though that also varies a lot between lab researchers; big-time clinical researchers, and the bulk of academically-oriented psychiatrists whose primary source of income remains patient care; but the principles are the same). Regardless of where you train, you can "catch up" with a research-oriented fellowship, effort, and talent. It's also useful to remember that academically-oriented fellowships tend to be more open to a broader array of applicants than the cluster of upper echelon residencies (defined however you want, 5-10 residencies stand out as having way more excellent applicants than they can accept, and so--as is often the case in any kind of selection--they tend to select people who resemble themselves in regards to backgrounds; if they say they're diverse, check out what they mean since it may not mean "diverse" in any way beyond skin hue and possibly sexual orientation). Fellowships are more flexible partly because of supply and demand but also because--and this is actually useful to remember--you have been vetted by an additional 4 years of residency; one reason for residency application conservatism (H in IM often > H in Psych, and board scores count for a lot in admissions but are then never again counted) is fear that you'll flop. After 4 years of being an employee/resident, they don't really have to worry so much.

All that is to say: if you want a career in academic research, become clinically competent (clinical incompetence means you'll probably ask stupid research questions), skeptically read the literature (as in, read 3-5 journals each month and practice poking holes in methodology), keep your eye on the ball, and find a calling. If all that sounds like a waste of time, great, you've saved yourself a lot of ambivalence; just go into practice...

I'm Sorry.