Following up on a thread from last year's applicants on interview feedback (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53991), I thought maybe people would be interested in posting their thoughts on places where they've interviewed so far. I'll start off:
1) Stanford: Small place, residents seem happy. They kept saying that they didn't know where they got their rap for being too biological -- while they said their program did emphasize psychopharm (partly because their chair is a good psychopharm guy), they did say that they felt they got enough psychotherapy training to go out and do whatever they liked. They insisted that despite being in affluent Palo Alto, they had a good variety of patients (they're affiliated with a VA and also some community clinic with many uninsured patients). Pros: An enormous variety of clinics available to choose from, great flexibility in your third and fourth years. Sounds like you really get to know the faculty well, since it's a small faculty. Cons: It's way out in Palo Alto. Am unconvinced that the patient exposure is as varied as they claim.
2) UCLA: They touted the size of their research program and faculty (more than 1000 people, between full-time faculty members and clinical people). They may have had a bit of a chip on their shoulder about UCSF, but they still felt they were better. Most people there had some California tie -- all but a handful grew up there or went to college or med school there. Pros: The residents seem really diverse and interesting. The PD seems very relaxed and approachable. They try to make call more bearable -- during first year, for iinstance, you're on call with a PGY-2. They all stressed that you can have a life even during 2nd year. They also said that if you want to be in private practice, you could establish yourself very easily and quickly. UCLA is building a new hospital. Lots of moonlighting opportunities. Cons: You do have to hunt out what you want -- it's not a warm and fuzzy hold-your-hand kind of place.
3) UCSF: A liberal, diverse, socially conscious crew. Pros: Terrific public sector exposure (VA, county hospital), focused inpatient units. San Francisco. Excellent psychodynamic training, some of the best in the country. They made the most effort of the places I visited to match your interviewers' interests to yours. Cons: Commuting between the three main sites can get tiring. Some people have mentioned the "attitude" of other services/staff at Moffitt and Langley-Porter (either disrespect of psych or just touchiness in general, I'm not sure). Call does sound difficult. Residents feel didactics could be improved.
(ETA: Interview day schedules: Stanford 8:30 am to whenever you finish; four or five half-hour interviews. B'fast at orientation and lunch with residents. UCLA: 8 am to 7 pm. Five 40-minute interviews, two tours. B'fast at orientation, lunch with residents, happy hour. UCSF: 7:45 am to 9 pm. Four 1-hour interviews, 20 min. with PD. B'fast at orientation, lunch with one or two residents, grand rounds, dinner with residents.)
Any other program feedback?
1) Stanford: Small place, residents seem happy. They kept saying that they didn't know where they got their rap for being too biological -- while they said their program did emphasize psychopharm (partly because their chair is a good psychopharm guy), they did say that they felt they got enough psychotherapy training to go out and do whatever they liked. They insisted that despite being in affluent Palo Alto, they had a good variety of patients (they're affiliated with a VA and also some community clinic with many uninsured patients). Pros: An enormous variety of clinics available to choose from, great flexibility in your third and fourth years. Sounds like you really get to know the faculty well, since it's a small faculty. Cons: It's way out in Palo Alto. Am unconvinced that the patient exposure is as varied as they claim.
2) UCLA: They touted the size of their research program and faculty (more than 1000 people, between full-time faculty members and clinical people). They may have had a bit of a chip on their shoulder about UCSF, but they still felt they were better. Most people there had some California tie -- all but a handful grew up there or went to college or med school there. Pros: The residents seem really diverse and interesting. The PD seems very relaxed and approachable. They try to make call more bearable -- during first year, for iinstance, you're on call with a PGY-2. They all stressed that you can have a life even during 2nd year. They also said that if you want to be in private practice, you could establish yourself very easily and quickly. UCLA is building a new hospital. Lots of moonlighting opportunities. Cons: You do have to hunt out what you want -- it's not a warm and fuzzy hold-your-hand kind of place.
3) UCSF: A liberal, diverse, socially conscious crew. Pros: Terrific public sector exposure (VA, county hospital), focused inpatient units. San Francisco. Excellent psychodynamic training, some of the best in the country. They made the most effort of the places I visited to match your interviewers' interests to yours. Cons: Commuting between the three main sites can get tiring. Some people have mentioned the "attitude" of other services/staff at Moffitt and Langley-Porter (either disrespect of psych or just touchiness in general, I'm not sure). Call does sound difficult. Residents feel didactics could be improved.
(ETA: Interview day schedules: Stanford 8:30 am to whenever you finish; four or five half-hour interviews. B'fast at orientation and lunch with residents. UCLA: 8 am to 7 pm. Five 40-minute interviews, two tours. B'fast at orientation, lunch with residents, happy hour. UCSF: 7:45 am to 9 pm. Four 1-hour interviews, 20 min. with PD. B'fast at orientation, lunch with one or two residents, grand rounds, dinner with residents.)
Any other program feedback?