Sometimes you hear these things "out there," like one is more focused on psychopharm and another on therapy, and I think for some of the programs in the Harvard system, that's probably true. I don't think it's necessarily a difference of philosophy, as most programs consider both important--but I do think it can be a function of the training environments offered to residents at the different programs, and the overall tendency toward a particular treatment modality. This could be due to internal politics, history, strengths of the faculty members, the research being done, the facilities available to the institutions, the patient populations served, and logistics (scheduling factors, reimbursements, etc).
There are differences in the environments the residents train in across the system, I think, and there are some differences in where the focus lies (in terms of exposure and opportunity for residents).
During the interview process, when talking about yourself and your aspirations ad nauseum, I think you'll start to find out just what *kind* of psychiatrist you want to be--and you'll start to pick up on how the training needs to be put together for you to achieve your goals.
You most likely will find one program more appealing than the others for those reasons, and I think you should go with what fits. Regardless of perceived prestige.
Just my opinion. Keep in mind I didn't interview at all the Harvard programs last year, so I can't really do a good side to side comparison.
Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions.
----
BTW, if you're looking to further develop your research career, I would look most strongly at the research being done at each institution, and ask on interviews about the possibility of working with Harvard faculty from another program. I remember someone telling me that such a thing might be possible, as long as it worked practically (McLean, Cambridge, and Longwood are not right next door to each other). But maybe I'm remembering wrong, too. So ask!
