California Programs

[carolyn]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi all,

First, I'd just like to thank everyone for sharing their thoughts and experiences on this forum. Because of scheduling mishaps, all my interviews ended up late in January and it was very helpful to read about post-interview impressions from people applying to all the same schools I was applying to (esp. Leaf, Asher, Willow212, and boards032003).

I finished my interviews 2 weeks ago and am now in a rut as I sit at my computer making all kinds of spreadsheets to help me rank my schools. (Yes, I know, very Type-A of me... 🙂 ) I find myself creating the "artificial differences" that Willow212 talked about. Although I interviewed at both coasts, and despite knowing that Yale seems to be the best "fit" for me and my goal to be a child psychiatrist, I've decided to stay in California since all my family is in Los Angeles... Plus, after 4 years of East Coast weather, I realize that I'm a California girl with seasonal affective d/o. 😉

With that said, I'd like to hear from people who are trying to decide between the CA programs. Did anyone get a weird vibe from the PD or from the residents on the UCLA NPI interview day? Did anyone feel that UCSD worked too hard (carrying 150 patients a year)? I loved the community setting and collegiality of Harbor-UCLA--but is it too small with not enough resources? I love how "balanced" UCSF is with both academic and community psychiatry, but does anyone know the quality of their child program? Did anyone feel it was weird that we only really got to talk to ONE resident (the chief resident) at Stanford?

Another pressing question... does anyone know if UCLA NPI sends out any type of follow-up email or letter? I haven't sent out any letters of interest to my programs yet and am not even sure if they matter at this point in time--someone on the trail told me the PD at UCLA told them it doesn't affect the program's rank list... I've heard lots of conflicting things about it and don't want the PD to think I don't care about their program, because I do! So if someone could just let me know if UCLA communicates with applicants about each other's interest, that would be really helpful! Thanks in advance.

--Carolyn

 

[monocyte]

Dear Carolyn,

It seems you and I have many of the same leanings. I am someone who thrives in sunny weather as well, and so CA is a natural choice for me.

I didn't interview at UCSF or UCSD, but UCLA-NPI is currently my first choice. To be honest, I did get a bit of a 'weird' (eccentric?) feeling from *some* of the UCLA residents. However, they also seemed to be the happiest residents I met on the interview trail, and they were clearly very intelligent and friendly. Also, I was very happy with the assistant PD (Dr. R.S.), who is herself a former resident.

One thing that concerned me was the (possible) presence of an 'LA attitude'; i.e., less emphasis on dedication to patients and more emphasis on leaving early and (e.g.) going to the beach. However, after looking at the PGY-I resident summaries, I'm fairly impressed with the number of persons who have done significant humanitarian work. Also, I suppose there are good people anywhere.

I wouldn't worry if you haven't heard from the PD. He seems to be a friendly---but somewhat stoic and hard-to-read---individual who likes to put people on the spot a bit during the interview. I actually had a highly favorable interview with him, but received no follow up letters or calls after that. When I e-mailed him to tell him that I was ranking UCLA #1, he replied with a sentence that my friends found very encouraging but seemed to me somewhat ambiguous. 🙄 It was friendly, anyway.

As for Stanford, I think it's a very good program, but did get a perhaps somewhat lukewarm feeling from the residents. I have heard of other persons getting the same feeling as well. (It is very strong in child psych, is it not?)

Hope this helps!

---Monocyte

 

[carolyn]

Monocyte,

Thanks for your letting me know about your experience with communicating with the NPI PD. I had a strange interview with him (somewhat oppositional, even) and left feeling a bit shaken. I was highly relieved to find out that other applicants that same day (and others on the interview trail) had similar experiences with their interview with him.

In regards to the "LA mentality," I didn't see much of that, but maybe I was sitting with the wrong residents. I did hear about the "easy" NeuroBehavior rotation--I think people show up at noon or something. But I have no doubt that the NPI residents work hard. The good thing is that they didn't seem to complain much.

Anyhow, I plan to send him an email soon but it's so hard to compose those things! And yeah, every email response that my peers and I have gotten from programs have always been ambiguous: "We would love to have/see you here." Everyone's "playing the game". I hate the game.

I didn't get a chance to elicit the "somewhat lukewarm" feelings you got from the Stanford residents because I didn't really get a chance to meet many residents. The other applicants with me commented "it's a bad sign when a program doesn't show you its residents." But anyhow, yes, Stanford has a great child program. They are in the middle of a transition, but I met with the Acting Child Program Director (Dr. Joshi) and he was really nice and cool. He most likely (95% probability) will become the Child Director, but there's some bureaucratic process delay currently. He told me to keep him updated with whereever I end up.

Well, I really hope you get NPI since it's your first choice. I still need a couple days to mull it over, but it's looking like it might be my first choice too. (It keeps switching between UCLA and UCSF!)

Anyone else on the forum have that problem???!!

 

[leaf]

Re UCLA: I too have heard that people have had strange interviews with the UCLA PD. Just about all the residents I met seemed to be very nice, open, friendly people; there was just one guy who seemed a little stiff and eccentric. I've been told by multiple sources I trust that as a rule, UCLA does not contact applicants post-interview, which I actually like better because it means UCLA isn't "playing the game" the way certain other programs are.

Regarding UCSF's child psychiatry component: I don't know much about the quality of the child psychiatry fellowship, but I got the impression that for most residents (at least those not doing child psych), there's not that much exposure to child psych. There's an elective on infant-mother something, but I think only three or four residents get to do that.

As for Stanford not letting you talk to residents...hm, I did interview with one resident, and we had lunch with the residents where we got to talk to them about the program. I didn't really sense "lukewarm feelings" among them -- the ones I met seemed happy and laidback (and compared their experience favorably to what they'd heard about UCSF, which is that UCSF was supposed to be more intense and rough).

The question I have about UCSF is that I've heard that its training isn't quite as good as the training at programs that attract a comparable quality of resident. Has anyone else heard that, and does anyone else have thoughts about that?

I can completely relate to your indecision in choosing between #1 and #2, by the way. Not only do my #1 and #2 choices keep flipping back and forth, but everything below them is also constantly changing, and I have no idea how I'm eventually going to settle on a list. I feel as if I'm also creating and inflating artificial distinctions between programs where I'd be equally happy. I suspect I'm not going to make my final decision until the last minute (and given what I've heard about UCSF wanting people who really want to be there, this indecision is not a good thing!).

Anyway, Carolyn, I wish you luck with the decision-making process, and Monocyte, I hope you get to go to UCLA. Good luck everyone!

 

[monocyte]

Dear Carolyn and Leaf,

Thanks for an excellent thread! Regarding UCSF, I have received a few recurrent impressions from talking to people:

1) excellent psychodynamics
2) great county exposure
3) intense (overworked?)
4) sig. less strong than UCLA in terms of biological psychiatry
5) less overall resources than UCLA
6) strong in basic (i.e. cell-level) science
7) SF is a great city
8) very likeable residents

I have the feeling that if you're someone who wants to be an excellent psychotherapist with a lot of experience under your belt, UCSF may be a good program for you. If however, you have a strong leaning towards bio psych, neuroimaging, neuropsychiatry, etc., UCLA may be the preferred choice. Though I want to be a great therapist and am very interested in the psychotherapeutic tx of PTSD, anxiety, and depression, I am also very interested in the brain as an organ (so to speak), and thus UCLA is a good fit for me.

Carolyn: as for contacting the PD at UCLA, I wouldn't worry about composing a literary masterpiece. If you're ranking them #1, just tell him that---although it probably won't change your rank position (?). If you want to compare responses, you can pm me. 😉

Good luck!

 

[carolyn]

Originally posted by leaf
The question I have about UCSF is that I've heard that its training isn't quite as good as the training at programs that attract a comparable quality of resident. Has anyone else heard that, and does anyone else have thoughts about that?

That's the first time I've heard that. UCSF has outstanding psychotherapy training (the Chair pointed out that they ranked #1 on the Columbia Psychotherapy Exam). Maybe people felt that there was more emphasis on psychotherapy and hence the bio-psych training suffered? I didn't get that impression from talking to the residents, but that could possibly be true... My gut feeling is that you will get really good training that's comparable to the other programs you have been applying to....

Positives: I actually think UCSF is one of the most well-rounded programs on the West Coast. It's really hard to find a program with that unique combination of having a county hospital with cultural/ethnic units balanced with a strong academic hospital like Langley Porter. Most other programs are either mostly Community --OR-- mostly Academic. UCSF has great patient and staff diversity. Plus, the residents are cool and likeable.

The negatives: I do believe that the workload is high (but they did recently change to a night float system which seems to make people a bit happier). The residents I spoke with complained about how much supervision they had (it did sound like alot... almost 7 hrs/wk at times).

 

[leaf]

Originally posted by carolyn
UCSF has outstanding psychotherapy training (the Chair pointed out that they ranked #1 on the Columbia Psychotherapy Exam). Maybe people felt that there was more emphasis on psychotherapy and hence the bio-psych training suffered?

Yes, that might be it -- that while the psychodynamic training is top-notch, the biological side might be a little lacking. I think the didactics have also gotten singled out for criticism (particularly the neuroscience component); I hear they're working on revamping them.

Positives: I actually think UCSF is one of the most well-rounded programs on the West Coast. It's really hard to find a program with that unique combination of having a county hospital with cultural/ethnic units balanced with a strong academic hospital like Langley Porter. Most other programs are either mostly Community --OR-- mostly Academic. UCSF has great patient and staff diversity. Plus, the residents are cool and likeable.

I'm in total agreement here. I love its academic/community focus and agree the program is better rounded than its West Coast rivals, which seem to be either research-focused or community-focused but not both. And the residents are one of the best parts of the UCSF program, as even the program director would say.

Oh, and as Monocyte said, I gather UCSF isn't quite as resource-rich as rivals like UCLA. I'm not sure what that means for residency training, though -- added frustration? more?

 

[aldorvie]

In my opinion, I would not rank Stanford. I am familiar with the program from the residents' point of view, and the program has been spending years riding the coattails of the institution's name. I have heard from a recent residency graduate that he did not feel prepared to practice when he graduated because of the poor training. The child program is good, but I wouldn't go there just for that - they take at least 2 outsiders a year in the program. Also interesting is that Dr. Joshi told you to keep him updated on where you go -- he told me and another applicant that as well.
Good luck with your decision.

 

[PsychNOS]

Aldorvie:

Why such strong feelings about Stanford? I know one of the residents who feels that Stanford does get adequate training.

I spoke to multiple residents who said that they didn't regret their decision to go there. Some of them chose Stanford over MGH, UCSF, and UCLA. The faculty seem supportive and residents seem to get a lot of personal attention relative to UCSF and UCLA.

Regarding UCSF:

Great residents and clinical training, but I met more than a few residents that were unhappy with the support from the administration. I had a feeling that some of the residents would have chose differently if they had another chance. Any comments for the peanut gallery about this one?

UCLA is also a great program, but it also lacks a lot of administrative support.

I think that all three of these programs are good with different strengths.

 

[Thewonderer]

Originally posted by PsychNOS
Aldorvie:

lacks a lot of administrative support.

i.e. their residency directors don't really care about them?

 

[PsychNOS]

UCSF was described by the residents as a place that was not warm and fuzzy. One fourth year resident met with the residency director twice over her 4 years; once as a fourth year and once during her interview!

 

[Thewonderer]

Whether the residency directors really care about the programs, you can kind of feel that during the interviews. Some have the opinions that the residency director postion is a stepping stone for some people for greater administrative positions such as chairmanship and others. Some residency directors also only care about recruitment or curriculum and very few that care about both.

A couple residents I met at some schools did mention that having a residency director that cares and easy to approach can make your life a heck lot easier. But regardless, UCSF and UCLA continue to churn out good clinicians and researchers. It is hard to say.

 

[aldorvie]

I just know some residents at Stanford who gave me the "real picture" about the program. Three of the four I talked to said they might have made a different decision had they know better before the Match. It;s all about making the decision that is right for you, and Stanford is definitely not right for me. But, trust your gut instinct.

 

[Caffeine]

Aldorvie,

Could you please elaborate on the "real picture" at Stanford. I am seriously considering ranking them #1, but mostly because of geography. I do have some reservations about the atmosphere and personality, but don't have a great feel. I did speak with several residents who seemed to like it there. Some reasons for liking it were location, lifestyle (compared to UCSF), and not having to do too much psychotherapy training (compared to UCSF). The residents seemed happy enough, but I didn't talk in depth about how they felt about their program. Any info you have would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

 

[PsychNOS]

Aldorvie,

I would like you to elaborate also! Thanks.

 

[carolyn]

Originally posted by PsychNOS
UCSF was described by the residents as a place that was not warm and fuzzy. One fourth year resident met with the residency director twice over her 4 years; once as a fourth year and once during her interview!

Wow, seeing your PD twice over the course of 4 years? But I guess it depends on the type of person you are. I rarely saw my Dean of med school unless there was some mandatory meeting. On the other hand, one of the really outgoing SF resident did tell me that faculty usually are very approachable, but that there are faculty you don't get much contact with (ie., the PD and the Chairman of Psychiatry).

And all this talk about lifestyles.... I know that most programs have a tougher lifestyle than Stanford's (except San Mateo)... but how does UCSF compare with UCLA NPI or UCSD or with the East Coast programs like Yale, Columbia, or MGH?

Monocyte and Leaf, I just PM'd you again.
(You should change your preferences so that you get emailed about PM's.)

 

[monocyte]

I got the following impressions:

Stanford: lighter
UCLA: lighter
MGH: harder
UCSF: harder

MGH and UCSF seem to have a reputation for intensity.

 

[leaf]

My impressions: MGH is intense, perhaps more so than UCSF (which is nevertheless also supposed to be intense). Columbia is less service-driven (especially with much lighter calls, perhaps because there's only one site to cover), although 4th year can be intense because of the C/L rotation then. UCLA also seems lighter than MGH and UCSF (no call in 4th year; I met a PGY-4 who claimed to work 4 days a week). I'm not sure how Yale compares.

 

[pretzeltime]

Just a couple thoughts -- I'm a student at UCSF, and I would say that there is some truth to the fact that residents here are not that happy with the program. I can't tell if it's just that some of the residents complain a lot because it's their personality or if there really is a problem w/responsiveness from administration. Example:there are 5 people doing child fellowship and all but one chose to leave UCSF. It's definitely a strong program, but I think some of the East coast programs (and maybe UCLA) offer better training and are more in touch with resident needs. Despite all this, I will probably rank UCSF highly just bacause of location -- but I think if it weren't in such a great city, I wouldn't be as interested.