Top 25 psych programs

[rbbpsychmd]

Obviously I know the cliche "whats best for one person is not necessarily best for another." Nonetheless, here is a list. Let me know if there are any flagrant omissions. I am a third year med student and I attend one of the schools listed below. Enjoy.

1. MGH
2. Hopkins
3. Columbia
4. Yale
5. Cornell
6. UCSF
7. UPenn
8. UCLA
9. Pitt
10. Stanford
11. Wash U
12. UMich
13. Duke
14. Mayo
15. Harvard Longwood
16. NYU
17. UCSD
18. Brown
19. Mt. Sinai
20. Harvard Cambridge
21. U. Washington
22. Emory
23. UNC
24 Illinois
25. MUSC

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[2tall]

Lol

 

[TheWowEffect]

Obviously I know the cliche "whats best for one person is not necessarily best for another." Nonetheless, here is a list. Let me know if there are any flagrant omissions. I am a third year med student and I attend one of the schools listed below. Enjoy.

1. MGH
2. Hopkins
3. Columbia
4. Yale
5. Cornell
6. UCSF
7. UPenn
8. UCLA
9. Pitt
10. Stanford
11. Wash U
12. UMich
13. Duke
14. Mayo
15. Harvard Longwood
16. NYU
17. UCSD
18. Brown
19. Mt. Sinai
20. Harvard Cambridge
21. U. Washington
22. Emory
23. UNC
24 Illinois
25. MUSC

Where is my program??? I am sure I speak for many people visiting this thread.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Until the NCAA finally gets off its ***** and institutes a true national playoff system, we'll never know for sure.

Obviously I know the cliche "whats best for one person is not necessarily best for another." Nonetheless, here is a list. Let me know if there are any flagrant omissions. I am a third year med student and I attend one of the schools listed below. Enjoy.

1. MGH
2. Hopkins
3. Columbia
4. Yale
5. Cornell
6. UCSF
7. UPenn
8. UCLA
9. Pitt
10. Stanford
11. Wash U
12. UMich
13. Duke
14. Mayo
15. Harvard Longwood
16. NYU
17. UCSD
18. Brown
19. Mt. Sinai
20. Harvard Cambridge
21. U. Washington
22. Emory
23. UNC
24 Illinois
25. MUSC

 

[Doc Samson]

Until the NCAA finally gets off its ***** and institutes a true national playoff system, we'll never know for sure.

We really need to do that bracket style poll we talked about.

 

[billypilgrim37]

Not bad. I mean, JHU at number two is a bit of a joke, but as far as the programs you listed, it's at LEAST as good as any preseason NCAA poll.

 

[2tall]

I'd rather you list the bottom 25. That's more interesting (more helpful).

People prefer negativity. Don't you watch the news. It's all about the worst dressed lists, the fattest, most polluted, most traffic-filled cities, worst president and all that jazz.

At least that way we'd know what to avoid.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Not bad. I mean, JHU at number two is a bit of a joke, but as far as the programs you listed, it's at LEAST as good as any preseason NCAA poll.

Based on this seeding, I'd predict a LOT of first-round upsets.

 

[rbbpsychmd]

Not bad. I mean, JHU at number two is a bit of a joke, but as far as the programs you listed, it's at LEAST as good as any preseason NCAA poll.

I just realized that I forgot to include Baylor.
Pilgrim, where would you put JHU on this list?

 

[NewmansOwn]

I just realized that I forgot to include Baylor.
Pilgrim, where would you put JHU on this list?

Wouldn't be ranked, man. They were only 16 - 10 last season.

 

[billypilgrim37]

Wouldn't be ranked, man. They were only 16 - 10 last season.

I dunno, Blue Bird lacrosse keeps them in the poll.

I'd hold them as a strong five seed, a week four seed. Still in the hunt. Still good enough that the "best medical student ever" could reasonably decide to go there without gasps from the audience. But that's true for any program on this list. Props for keeping MUSC on there as the mid-major bracketbuster.

 

[NewmansOwn]

I dunno, Blue Bird lacrosse keeps them in the poll.

I'd hold them as a strong five seed, a week four seed. Still in the hunt. Still good enough that the "best medical student ever" could reasonably decide to go there without gasps from the audience. But that's true for any program on this list. Props for keeping MUSC on there as the mid-major bracketbuster.

Agreed. They're the George Mason of psychiatry -- the program director has that tattooed on his bicep.

 

[silas2642]

Until the NCAA finally gets off its ***** and institutes a true national playoff system, we'll never know for sure.

Just out of curiosity, how come schools like Harvard, Hopkins, Cornell, and Columbia don't have any game? I mean, they're in a location where they could attract some really talented athletes and they have the money to build up some serious programs-- are they too good to get get their game on? Seriously. Other really prestigious schools got their groove on and the people didn't look down on them-- Duke, Stanford, Yale, etc. I just think it'd be kinda cool to see a Hahvahd kid walk down the street and think, "damn I shouldn't mess with him or he'll kick my ass!!!" Instead of, "Prick."

 

[jjbmsiv]

Where the hell is my program?

 

[deleted77919]

…

 

[Doc Samson]

Ivy league schools as a policy so not offer athletic scholarships . . . makes recruiting a bit tougher. Hopkins I suppose has no real excuse.

Except that they're in Baltimore.

 

[silas2642]

Except that they're in Baltimore.

No excuse. The fact that you might get shot during practice should only toughen athletes up. Plus, strippers are more widely available for cheaper prices, hence attracting more athletic talent.

 

[silas2642]

Ivy league schools as a policy so not offer athletic scholarships . . . makes recruiting a bit tougher. Hopkins I suppose has no real excuse.

Forgot about the ivy/scholarship thing.

 

[Hurricane]

Ivy league schools as a policy so not offer athletic scholarships . . . makes recruiting a bit tougher. Hopkins I suppose has no real excuse.

Hopkins is division III which similarly limits their athletic scholarship options. Except, of course, in lacrosse, which is division I. That's how you knew how to find the easy classes - the ones with all the lax players in it

 

[larousse]

Pretty good job. Here's my take:

1. MGH
2. Columbia
3. Cornell
4. UCLA
5. Stanford
6. Yale
7. UCSF
8. Penn
9. NYU
10. Hopkins
11. Duke
12. UMich
13. Pitt
14. Mayo
15. Harvard Longwood
16. UCSD
17. Harvard Cambridge
18. Brown
19. Mt. Sinai
20. U. Washington
21. Emory
22. UNC
23. MUSC
24 Illinois
25. UC Davis

 

[joekayone]

This is one of those impossible things to answer. What's the criteria based on? Because the rankings might get upside-down depending on what you're looking for in a program (e.g., clinical training vs. research). How does one even make this kind of list?

 

[billypilgrim37]

This is one of those impossible things to answer. What's the criteria based on? Because the rankings might get upside-down depending on what you're looking for in a program (e.g., clinical training vs. research). How does one even make this kind of list?

It's based on how impressed people who went to the other 24 programs would be with you based on the simple fact that you went to that one program.

Think about your high school, and there were probably a few kids who were the most popular. Who decided it? Everybody did, and nobody did. Maybe those people sucked, and maybe you'd rather spit in their face than be near them. But they were still the most popular, objectively speaking.

I love my wife. But I'd certainly rank Maggie Gyllenhall higher on the "top 25 women" list.

I'm at one of these programs, and I certainly ranked my program above many of these other "top" programs. I'd still say they were, overall, more prestigious programs than mine, for reasons that weren't all that important to me. I found one of those top programs entirely odious, while one of my best friends matched there and loved it.

Like food, wine, and movies, some are better than others. You're not bad if you like Happy Gilmore more than you like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. But the latter is certainly a "better" movie. Because humanity has generally progressed to a point where we can create semi-objective coding systems by which to communicate.

 

[BobA]

Without a ranked list how would we know how valuable we are as people?

 

[Still Kickin]

Obviously I know the cliche "whats best for one person is not necessarily best for another." Nonetheless, here is a list. Let me know if there are any flagrant omissions. I am a third year med student and I attend one of the schools listed below. Enjoy.

1. MGH
2. Hopkins
3. Columbia
4. Yale
5. Cornell
6. UCSF
7. UPenn
8. UCLA
9. Pitt
10. Stanford
11. Wash U
12. UMich
13. Duke
14. Mayo
15. Harvard Longwood
16. NYU
17. UCSD
18. Brown
19. Mt. Sinai
20. Harvard Cambridge
21. U. Washington
22. Emory
23. UNC
24 Illinois
25. MUSC

Which "Illinois" program is that? (Univ of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago Program?)

Anyone know anything about Southern Illinois University in Springfield program?

 

[Cinnameg]

Obviously I know the cliche "whats best for one person is not necessarily best for another." Nonetheless, here is a list. Let me know if there are any flagrant omissions. I am a third year med student and I attend one of the schools listed below. Enjoy.

1. MGH
2. Hopkins
3. Columbia
4. Yale
5. Cornell
6. UCSF
7. UPenn
8. UCLA
9. Pitt
10. Stanford
11. Wash U
12. UMich
13. Duke
14. Mayo
15. Harvard Longwood
16. NYU
17. UCSD
18. Brown
19. Mt. Sinai
20. Harvard Cambridge
21. U. Washington
22. Emory
23. UNC
24 Illinois
25. MUSC

Here's how I'd rank "prestige," based on what I've heard on the interview trail this season from my advisor who used to be the director at a well-known program, other applicants, residents, and one chair of a prestigious department: by geographic region. Any national list gets very muddy, as very few people actually consider the entire country when applying to residency programs, and few attendings really consider academic jobs nationwide. I've gotten a lot of surprise from fellow applicants and interviewers when I'm on the east coast, since I'm from the west coast. I've met more applicants who are only applying in the Northeast, only applying the in South and Midwest, or trying to "stay west" than I have met applicants like myself, who are trying to wade through the entire country to find the best program. What I've found is it is difficult to get a Northeasterner to list any California programs in his or her top 5 and likewise hard to get Californians to compare, say, Hopkins with UCLA or Yale with UCSF, simply because the programs are different enough and far enough apart that the comparison usually isn't made.

Most people who've given me advice on the subject have ranked programs within a geographic region, and the consensus seems to be the following:

Northeast:
MGH/McLean, Columbia, Longwood, Penn, Hopkins, Pittsburgh, Yale, Maryland/Sheppard Pratt . . . . (Maryland gets shafted a little in reputation only because Hopkins is in the same city. Cornell and NYU go somewhere on this list also, but I'm not sure where as I didn't look at NYC at all, and people from NYC seem very biased to think anything in NYC is much better than anywhere else in the country.)

South:
Duke, Emory, UNC, MUSC, Baylor

Midwest:
Washington-St. Louis, U of Michigan, UW Madison

West Coast:
UCSF, UCLA, UCSD, U of W . . . (Many would include Stanford here, but honestly I haven't heard much about it on the interview trail, especially when east-coasters are listing off the west-coast programs they think are best.)

A NOTE TO PROGRAMS WHO MAY MONITOR MESSAGE BOARDS: It's pretty easy to figure out who I am so I just want to say that this list in NO way reflects my own match list (which has been drafted and re-drafted by my husband and I again and again based on numerous factors), but is only meant to list information about "prestige" or "reputation" that I've gathered and share it with those message-board readers who are interested. Prestige is a factor but not the most important one in my own residency rank list.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

A NOTE TO PROGRAMS WHO MAY MONITOR MESSAGE BOARDS: It's pretty easy to figure out who I am so I just want to say that this list in NO way reflects my own match list (which has been drafted and re-drafted by my husband and I again and again based on numerous factors), but is only meant to list information about "prestige" or "reputation" that I've gathered and share it with those message-board readers who are interested. Prestige is a factor but not the most important one in my own residency rank list.

We don't care.

 

[Cinnameg]

We don't care.

Good to know.

 

[notdeadyet]

Maybe I'm dense, but the subject of prestige always leaves me scratching my head. Prestige by whom and prestige for what?

Ideas of the prestigious programs vary a lot by who you're talking to in the food chain. And those whose opinion of what is prestigious arguably matters the most (folks at the Chief and PD level, say) sometimes seem to have pretty out-dated impressions of most programs not within a limited reach. I heard more outright incorrect descriptions of other programs from Chief's and PDs during the interview process that I don't think was malicious but just based on what may have been true 5 or even 10 years ago. Current residents may have better info, but their opinion will be biased based on current location and is likely to change in the coming years by the time they achieve rank that will be useful to you. Regardless, prestige seems to be pretty labile and can change on a dime with the departure of a Program Director who leaves with several key departmental faculty. The prestige of a program you rank now might very well change by the time it will be useful to your academic career.

And talking about "overall prestige" really seems to border on silly, no? Prestige for what? For neuroscience-based research? Or HIV dementia? Or forensics? I'd choose UCSF, UCSD, and UC Davis, respectively. For DBT? For analysis? For cross-cultural? Maybe University of Washington, UCSF, and UC Davis, respectively. For working with veterans? Or refugees? Or the medically underserved? Maybe UCLA, OHSU, and USC. All of these choices are highly debatable and I'm limiting my answers to the three continental west coast states. Open it up nationally and it's really a crapshoot.

Figure out where you want to live and where you want to practice. After you've narrowed that down, come up with key features you want to see in a program. Make a list accordingly and interview as widely as you can. Go with your gut and you're much less likely to regret than your decision than if you go based on a bunch of strangers highly-debatable views of what constitutes "prestige."

Otherwise, debating about the most prestigious programs is akin to asking "what's the best car: an Audi A4, a Subaru Outback, or a Ford F-150?" It's hard to figure out the best way to get there without knowing where in the world do you want to go...

 

[TexasPhysician]

Here's how I'd rank "prestige," based on what I've heard on the interview trail this season from my advisor who used to be the director at a well-known program, other applicants, residents, and one chair of a prestigious department: by geographic region.

South:
Duke, Emory, UNC, MUSC, Baylor

.

I only applied in the south, and I think you are confusing "prestige" with "research dollars". I interviewed at every program above (minus 1), and many other programs in the south. I wouldn't even consider Baylor to be a Top 3 program in Texas. I know a few current residents there who are very unhappy. I hate when people bash programs, but I think Baylor really needs to make a lot of changes for their residents.

If I were to give a list of top programs to make the best/happiest resident in the south, it would be in no particular order:
UTSW-Dallas, Duke, UTMB-Galveston, Palmetto in South Carolina, and Arkansas. MUSC would be borderline.

Those 5 in my opinion are the best mix of research, resident teaching, facilities, faculty, lifestyle, happiness of residents, etc. If you are only interested in research and nothing else, then your above list is much better.

 

[NandeYanen]

Maybe I'm dense, but the subject of prestige always leaves me scratching my head. Prestige by whom and prestige for what?

Ideas of the prestigious programs vary a lot by who you're talking to in the food chain. And those whose opinion of what is prestigious arguably matters the most (folks at the Chief and PD level, say) sometimes seem to have pretty out-dated impressions of most programs not within a limited reach. I heard more outright incorrect descriptions of other programs from Chief's and PDs during the interview process that I don't think was malicious but just based on what may have been true 5 or even 10 years ago. Current residents may have better info, but their opinion will be biased based on current location and is likely to change in the coming years by the time they achieve rank that will be useful to you. Regardless, prestige seems to be pretty labile and can change on a dime with the departure of a Program Director who leaves with several key departmental faculty. The prestige of a program you rank now might very well change by the time it will be useful to your academic career.

And talking about "overall prestige" really seems to border on silly, no? Prestige for what? For neuroscience-based research? Or HIV dementia? Or forensics? I'd choose UCSF, UCSD, and UC Davis, respectively. For DBT? For analysis? For cross-cultural? Maybe University of Washington, UCSF, and UC Davis, respectively. For working with veterans? Or refugees? Or the medically underserved? Maybe UCLA, OHSU, and USC. All of these choices are highly debatable and I'm limiting my answers to the three continental west coast states. Open it up nationally and it's really a crapshoot.

Figure out where you want to live and where you want to practice. After you've narrowed that down, come up with key features you want to see in a program. Make a list accordingly and interview as widely as you can. Go with your gut and you're much less likely to regret than your decision than if you go based on a bunch of strangers highly-debatable views of what constitutes "prestige."

Otherwise, debating about the most prestigious programs is akin to asking "what's the best car: an Audi A4, a Subaru Outback, or a Ford F-150?" It's hard to figure out the best way to get there without knowing where in the world do you want to go...

Amen, brother. Well said.

 

[tortuga87]

According to NIH funding:

Rank Name PSYCHIATRY
1 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH $65,591,628
2 YALE UNIVERSITY $54,513,970
3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO $45,595,211
4 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA $41,190,664
5 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY $32,665,661
6 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY $29,508,141
7 DUKE UNIVERSITY $26,573,037
8 MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA $24,588,384
9 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL $23,265,907
10 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES $21,724,171
11 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR $21,356,457
12 STANFORD UNIVERSITY $20,491,130
13 EMORY UNIVERSITY $20,387,635
14 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO $19,618,511
15 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE $18,665,519
16 MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE OF NYU $16,856,204
17 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON $16,385,993
18 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI $15,890,285
19 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SW MED CTR/DALLAS $14,815,578
20 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA $13,640,795
21 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER $13,289,142
22 INDIANA UNIV-PURDUE UNIV AT INDIANAPOLIS $12,999,408
23 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO $12,966,207
24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS $11,950,632
25 WEILL MEDICAL COLLEGE OF CORNELL UNIV $11,183,860



http://www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/2009/Psychiatry2009R.xls

 

[HCE]

According to NIH funding:

Rank Name PSYCHIATRY
1 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH $65,591,628
2 YALE UNIVERSITY $54,513,970
3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO $45,595,211
4 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA $41,190,664
5 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY $32,665,661
6 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY $29,508,141
7 DUKE UNIVERSITY $26,573,037
8 MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA $24,588,384
9 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL $23,265,907
10 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES $21,724,171
11 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR $21,356,457
12 STANFORD UNIVERSITY $20,491,130
13 EMORY UNIVERSITY $20,387,635
14 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO $19,618,511
15 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE $18,665,519
16 MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE OF NYU $16,856,204
17 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON $16,385,993
18 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI $15,890,285
19 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SW MED CTR/DALLAS $14,815,578
20 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA $13,640,795
21 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER $13,289,142
22 INDIANA UNIV-PURDUE UNIV AT INDIANAPOLIS $12,999,408
23 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO $12,966,207
24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS $11,950,632
25 WEILL MEDICAL COLLEGE OF CORNELL UNIV $11,183,860



http://www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/2009/Psychiatry2009R.xls

So, size matters?

 

[nitemagi]

So, size matters?

Duh.

 

[Chimed]

According to NIH funding:

Rank Name PSYCHIATRY
1 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH $65,591,628
2 YALE UNIVERSITY $54,513,970
3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO $45,595,211
4 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA $41,190,664
5 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY $32,665,661
6 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY $29,508,141
7 DUKE UNIVERSITY $26,573,037
8 MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA $24,588,384
9 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL $23,265,907
10 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES $21,724,171
11 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR $21,356,457
12 STANFORD UNIVERSITY $20,491,130
13 EMORY UNIVERSITY $20,387,635
14 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO $19,618,511
15 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE $18,665,519
16 MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE OF NYU $16,856,204
17 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON $16,385,993
18 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI $15,890,285
19 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SW MED CTR/DALLAS $14,815,578
20 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA $13,640,795
21 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER $13,289,142
22 INDIANA UNIV-PURDUE UNIV AT INDIANAPOLIS $12,999,408
23 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO $12,966,207
24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS $11,950,632
25 WEILL MEDICAL COLLEGE OF CORNELL UNIV $11,183,860



http://www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/2009/Psychiatry2009R.xls

To state the obvious (at least I hope it is), the amount of research funds says little about the quality of clinical training at a program. However, there is something to be said for being at a program that is doing exciting work in the field and being able to tap into some of the experts in the field. If you want an academic career, then being at one of the programs above can be nice. But otherwise, it means little.

 

[digitlnoize]

Everyone knows that the only thing that matters when choosing a med school or residency is US News Rankings <needlesss eye rolling>.

 

[cleareyedguy]

Another way to look at it.

You can become a solid clinician from dozens of programs, probably any program. I'd think that the better known programs are more likely to produce people who have academic jobs 10 years later, though much of that depends on your own interest and effort. To aggrandize academics for a moment by linking it with sports: here is a list of colleges by the numbers of their graduates/attendees who had a roster spot in the NBA on opening day 2010. One thing that is obvious is that the schools that have won a lot of games in the past decade and past 50 years (UCLA, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Carolina, etc) are more likely to produce pros, presumably because they recruit the most likely candidates and then surround them with other players who have similar interests and a drive to work harder than most people. The difference between an NBA player and a rec league player is obviously greater than between an academic psychiatrist and a general clinician (for example, the general clinician may well be a better overall psychiatrist/physician), there is likely to be merit to trying to train with a bunch of people with similar goals, since it likely increases your opportunities to reach them. At the same time, there are grads of such mediocre basketball schools as Harvard who make it in the NBA, and plenty of high school All Americans from UCLA or Duke who are playing overseas.

UCLA 14
Duke 13
Kentucky 13
Kansas 12
North Carolina 12
Connecticut 11
Arizona 10
Texas 10
Florida 9
Wake Forest 8
Georgia Tech 7
LSU 7
Memphis 7
Ohio St. 7
Syracuse 7
Michigan St. 6
Stanford 6
Southern Cal 5
Washington 5
Alabama 4
California 4
Florida St. 4
Georgetown 4
Louisville 4
Marquette 4
Maryland 4
Nevada 4
Oklahoma St. 4
UNLV 4
Villanova 4
Xavier 4
Arkansas 3
Cincinnati 3
DePaul 3
Fresno St. 3
Illinois 3
Indiana 3
Kansas St. 3
Michigan 3
Notre Dame 3
Oklahoma 3
Pittsburgh 3
Purdue 3
Texas A&M 3
Arizona St. 2
Boston College 2
Creighton 2
Florida Int. 2
Gonzaga 2
Massachusetts 2
Miami-FL 2
Minnesota 2
Missouri 2
New Mexico 2
Northeastern 2
N.C. St. 2
Oregon 2
Saint Joseph's 2
South Florida 2
Va. Commonwealth 2
West Virginia 2
Western Kentucky 2
Auburn 1
Baylor 1
Bradley 1
Butler 1
Central Michigan 1
Clemson 1
Colorado 1
Colorado St. 1
Davidson 1
Detroit 1
Eastern Michigan 1
Eastern Wash. 1
George Washington 1
Harvard 1
Hawaii 1
Iowa 1
Iowa St. 1
IUPUI 1
La Salle 1
Louisiana Tech 1
Marshall 1
Mississippi 1
Portland 1
Providence 1
Rhode Island 1
Rider 1
Rutgers 1
Santa Clara 1
Seton Hall 1
SMU 1
South Carolina 1
St. John's 1
St. Mary's 1
TCU 1
Tennessee 1
Tennessee-Martin 1
Texas St. 1
Texas Tech 1
Towson 1
Tulsa 1
UALR 1
UCF 1
Utah 1
Utah Valley 1
UTEP 1
Virginia 1
VMI 1
Western Carolina 1
Wisconsin 1
Wyoming 1

 

[Chimed]

Another way to look at it.

You can become a solid clinician from dozens of programs, probably any program. I'd think that the better known programs are more likely to produce people who have academic jobs 10 years later, though much of that depends on your own interest and effort. To aggrandize academics for a moment by linking it with sports: here is a list of colleges by the numbers of their graduates/attendees who had a roster spot in the NBA on opening day 2010. One thing that is obvious is that the schools that have won a lot of games in the past decade and past 50 years (UCLA, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Carolina, etc) are more likely to produce pros, presumably because they recruit the most likely candidates and then surround them with other players who have similar interests and a drive to work harder than most people. The difference between an NBA player and a rec league player is obviously greater than between an academic psychiatrist and a general clinician (for example, the general clinician may well be a better overall psychiatrist/physician), there is likely to be merit to trying to train with a bunch of people with similar goals, since it likely increases your opportunities to reach them. At the same time, there are grads of such mediocre basketball schools as Harvard who make it in the NBA, and plenty of high school All Americans from UCLA or Duke who are playing overseas.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

From my experience, it has been nice being at a well funded academic program from a practical standpoint. For example, I applied for my own research grant. The funding I'll receive will not cover the full cost of my project (it's an fMRI study and expansive). However, my research mentors are well funded and I can just pull from their funds to complete the project. That is pretty nice. Also, I have other research interests and can just walk down the hall and speak to someone in another field about it. I'm at one of the programs on the NIH list and would likely not have the same opportunities at other places. But, again, that is from an academic point of view rather then reflecting clinical training. In fact, I'd say that many of our best attendings are not researchers.

 

[Doc Samson]

To state the obvious (at least I hope it is), the amount of research funds says little about the quality of clinical training at a program. However, there is something to be said for being at a program that is doing exciting work in the field and being able to tap into some of the experts in the field. If you want an academic career, then being at one of the programs above can be nice. But otherwise, it means little.

To further complicate the matter, this list is funding per medical school only. When you look at NIH funding to hospitals (i.e., the organizations that actually sponsor residency programs), the list shakes out a little differently.

 

[nitemagi]

To further complicate the matter, this list is funding per medical school only. When you look at NIH funding to hospitals (i.e., the organizations that actually sponsor residency programs), the list shakes out a little differently.

Plus this doesn't even include private grant funding for research, which is its own monster.

My perspective is that I wanted a program that would give me a solid foundation as a clinician at baseline, but had the infrastructure and opportunities that I could further my own particular interests and grow into something better. Even to develop my own niche during residency, through the opportunities there (mentors, clinical experiences, research, fellowships, etc.)

 

[myPsychAlt]

I only applied in the south, and I think you are confusing "prestige" with "research dollars". I interviewed at every program above (minus 1), and many other programs in the south. I wouldn't even consider Baylor to be a Top 3 program in Texas. I know a few current residents there who are very unhappy. I hate when people bash programs, but I think Baylor really needs to make a lot of changes for their residents.

If I were to give a list of top programs to make the best/happiest resident in the south, it would be in no particular order:
UTSW-Dallas, Duke, UTMB-Galveston, Palmetto in South Carolina, and Arkansas. MUSC would be borderline.

Those 5 in my opinion are the best mix of research, resident teaching, facilities, faculty, lifestyle, happiness of residents, etc. If you are only interested in research and nothing else, then your above list is much better.

curious as to why you left UNC off your list.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I only applied in the south, and I think you are confusing "prestige" with "research dollars". I interviewed at every program above (minus 1), and many other programs in the south. I wouldn't even consider Baylor to be a Top 3 program in Texas. I know a few current residents there who are very unhappy. I hate when people bash programs, but I think Baylor really needs to make a lot of changes for their residents.

If I were to give a list of top programs to make the best/happiest resident in the south, it would be in no particular order:
UTSW-Dallas, Duke, UTMB-Galveston, Palmetto in South Carolina, and Arkansas. MUSC would be borderline.

Those 5 in my opinion are the best mix of research, resident teaching, facilities, faculty, lifestyle, happiness of residents, etc. If you are only interested in research and nothing else, then your above list is much better.

Yeah, totally not agreeing with Baylor being in the top 5 for that region. I didn't apply in Texas but went to medical school in a neighboring state, and there's no way Baylor is considered a stronger program than UTSW. Don't know anything about Palmetto or UTMB, but I'd agree UAMS would probably be a stronger program than Baylor, too.

And I guess that's the big point. There's no real way to put together a great prestige list. Sure, there are super big name places (MGH/McLean, UCSF ... ), but it's kind of pointless to say UW-Madison is a more prestigious program than say UIC. Both, I'm sure are great programs, and in the greater world probably get you to the same place.

 

[zac16125]

Like food, wine, and movies, some are better than others. You're not bad if you like Happy Gilmore more than you like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. But the latter is certainly a "better" movie. Because humanity has generally progressed to a point where we can create semi-objective coding systems by which to communicate.

If I like Happy Gilmore more than The Good, the Bad and the Ugly should I not apply to the above schools?

 

[billypilgrim37]

If I like Happy Gilmore more than The Good, the Bad and the Ugly should I not apply to the above schools?

There is no sin in partaking in the wonders of Happy Gilmore.

 

[myPsychAlt]

We really need to do that bracket style poll we talked about.

well, taking the two user polls stated in this thread, and the controversial computer polls (NIH rankings posted here), I counted 1/3 for each poll, which left me with 31 programs (I added a play in game between Wisc and Maryland to battle it out in Dayton.)

(1) Yale vs Wisc/Maryland play in winner
(16) Mayo vs (17) Sinai

(8) Duke vs (25) Harvard Cambridge
(9) Cornell vs (24) Brown

(4) Hopkins vs (29) Colorado
(13) UCLA vs (20) Emory

(5) Penn vs (28) Iowa
(12) UCSD vs (21) MUSC

(2) Columbia vs (31) UC Davis
(15) Wash U vs (18) UNC

(7) Stanford vs (26) Cincinnati
(10) Michigan vs (23) UIC

(3) MGH vs (30) Indiana
(14) NYU vs (19) Longwood

(6) Pitt vs (27) UTSW
(11) UCSF vs (22) UWashington

...

I fully recognize I have too much free time on vacation.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

well, taking the two user polls stated in this thread, and the controversial computer polls (NIH rankings posted here), I counted 1/3 for each poll, which left me with 31 programs (I added a play in game between Wisc and Maryland to battle it out in Dayton.)

(1) Yale vs Wisc/Maryland play in winner
(16) Mayo vs (17) Sinai

(8) Duke vs (25) Harvard Cambridge
(9) Cornell vs (24) Brown

(4) Hopkins vs (29) Colorado
(13) UCLA vs (20) Emory

(5) Penn vs (28) Iowa
(12) UCSD vs (21) MUSC

(2) Columbia vs (31) UC Davis
(15) Wash U vs (18) UNC

(7) Stanford vs (26) Cincinnati
(10) Michigan vs (23) UIC

(3) MGH vs (30) Indiana
(14) NYU vs (19) Longwood

(6) Pitt vs (27) UTSW
(11) UCSF vs (22) UWashington

...

I fully recognize I have too much free time on vacation.

Looking forward to that Pitt vs MGH showdown in the quarterfinals, otherwise I see lots of 1st & 2nd round upsets coming!
The Stanford-Michigan 2nd round game could be a classic, too--not only with all the Harbaugh drama lately, but also with Michigan's PD facing his alma mater...
And Columbia/UC-Davis: Wow! "Hoosiers"-style drama with the rising west coast mid-major underdogs taking on the big city east coast establishment and their plodding analytic therapies. I'm predicting a huge upset here--we'll see just who is actually padding their CV by beating up on the Little Sisters of the Poor!

 

[billypilgrim37]

NYU-Longwood in the opening round will be shown on PsychClassic at 3AM for years to come.

I think OPD exhausted all the brilliance of the Stanford-Michigan game. The AstraZeneca Rose Bowl of Psychiatry!

Duke-Cambridge would have to be the lowest scoring game of the tournament. So many shot-clock violations.

Yale-Hopkins would be the absolute worst semi-final game in the history of this esteemed tournament.

 

[myPsychAlt]

while putting this together it made me kinda disappointed that I couldn't delay making my match list until March when the tournament is over. I have to make this decision based on SOMETHING, right?

/though I'd want tickets for UNC/WashU... and Mayo/Sinai is the classic Big City vs Rural Midwest matchup. A true 16/17 game! (in hindsight, I should have broken these up into regions)

 

[OldPsychDoc]

NYU-Longwood in the opening round will be shown on PsychClassic at 3AM for years to come.

I think OPD exhausted all the brilliance of the Stanford-Michigan game. The AstraZeneca Rose Bowl of Psychiatry!

Duke-Cambridge would have to be the lowest scoring game of the tournament. So many shot-clock violations.

Yale-Hopkins would be the absolute worst semi-final game in the history of this esteemed tournament.

Hopkins won't make it that far--the Emory-UCLA winner is the Final Four team from that bracket.

I'm predicting that Yale bludgeons its way to the final, only to lose to the Pitt-MGH victor.

 

[billypilgrim37]

Hopkins won't make it that far--the Emory-UCLA winner is the Final Four team from that bracket.

I'm predicting that Yale bludgeons its way to the final, only to lose to the Pitt-MGH victor.

A Yale-Pitt final would be the equivalent of the UK-Duke 1993 Elite Eight game. There Will Be Blood!

 

[TexasPhysician]

NYU-Longwood in the opening round will be shown on PsychClassic at 3AM for years to come.

I think OPD exhausted all the brilliance of the Stanford-Michigan game. The AstraZeneca Rose Bowl of Psychiatry!

Duke-Cambridge would have to be the lowest scoring game of the tournament. So many shot-clock violations.

Yale-Hopkins would be the absolute worst semi-final game in the history of this esteemed tournament.

It would have been funny for AstraZeneca to sponsor the real Rose Bowl. My TCU Frogs dominated there this year.