Help me rank these programs solely based on clout

[jjfversion1]

---

Members don't see this ad.

A top 3-5 from the list below would suffice. Mainly looking for the programs below that have the best national presence based on reputation and tend to recruit stronger applicants. Curious to see what others think. Broke it up by state to make it easier on the eyes.

AZ:
Arizona-Phoenix
Arizona-Tucson

CA:
UCLA-SFV
UC Riverside
Kaiser Permanente-Fontana
UCSF-Fresno

CT:
University of Connecticut

DC:
George Washington University
Georgetown

FL:
University of Central Florida

NY:
SUNY Upstate
Albany

OH:
Ohio State University

PA:
Drexel
Thomas Jefferson
Temple

VA:
Eastern Virginia Medical School
University of Virginia
Virginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Tech

VT:
University of Vermont

WV:
West Virginia University

 

[wolfvgang22]

Why?

 

[OldPsychDoc]

All solid, all imperfect. I wouldn't make many, if any, distinctions between them, except location.

 

[abcdior]

gonna give it a shot (for entertainment purpose only)
1. Jefferson/UCLA-SFV
2. university of Vermont
3. everything else on your list

 

[TheFuture_22]

Just use the Doximity rankings.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[jjfversion1]

Doximity is terrible past the first 10-20 rankings.

 

[sazerac]

Isn't UCF a brand new program in Gainesville? OP, have you done any research at all on these programs yourself?

 

[675015]

Doximity is terrible past the first 10-20 rankings.

How did you make that determination?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

To make it interesting you should rank them by fav. mascot or maybe best football team? I dunno…just spitballin' here.

(Fit and what YOU want from a program is what matters)

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Doximity is terrible past the first 10-20 rankings.

I wouldn't even give them that much credence.

 

[jjfversion1]

To make it interesting you should rank them by fav. mascot or maybe best football team? I dunno…just spitballin' here.

(Fit and what YOU want from a program is what matters)

Last time I checked, connections were still a thing in medicine. But I appreciate the advice, no matter the sarcasm.

 

[TheFuture_22]

Doximity is terrible past the first 10-20 rankings.

Better than some random internet people opinions. He said clout alone which is a bad way to rank a program, but I think it's the best system we have unfortunately to measure clout.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[SmallBird]

A top 3-5 from the list below would suffice. Mainly looking for the programs below that have the best national presence based on reputation and tend to recruit stronger applicants. Curious to see what others think. Broke it up by state to make it easier on the eyes.

AZ:
Arizona-Phoenix
Arizona-Tucson

CA:
UCLA-SFV
UC Riverside
Kaiser Permanente-Fontana
UCSF-Fresno

CT:
University of Connecticut

DC:
George Washington University
Georgetown

FL:
University of Central Florida

NY:
SUNY Upstate
Albany

OH:
Ohio State University

PA:
Drexel
Thomas Jefferson
Temple

VA:
Eastern Virginia Medical School
University of Virginia
Virginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Tech

VT:
University of Vermont

WV:
West Virginia University

Your question was clout, and I don't know what you mean by that (not trying to be difficult, just it's unclear how you would experience/define that) - one measure of a department is the size, strength and reputation of their research activities. In this regard, University of Vermont and University of Connecticut stand out on this list. I actually think UConn is a great program and department, and we work with many faculty and fellows who did residency there and then come to Yale. They have really nice, modern facilities, and its in a nice part of the state.

 

[jjfversion1]

Your question was clout, and I don't know what you mean by that (not trying to be difficult, just it's unclear how you would experience/define that) - one measure of a department is the size, strength and reputation of their research activities. In this regard, University of Vermont and University of Connecticut stand out on this list. I actually think UConn is a great program and department, and we work with many faculty and fellows who did residency there and then come to Yale. They have really nice, modern facilities, and its in a nice part of the state.

Thank you for the concise and informative response

 

[jjfversion1]

Better than some random internet people opinions. He said clout alone which is a bad way to rank a program, but I think it's the best system we have unfortunately to measure clout.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Would be nice if US News ranked residency programs. There are some questionable rankings on Doximity. I will look for examples when I have some time.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The USN&WR metrics for program rankings are/were equally as poor. Unfortunately Doximity is getting a big push from programs, so all of that just feeds the beast. Programs with the most responses from their faculty/graduates/others can really skew a ranking.

Word of mouth can provide some of the best info. If you know where you want to practice afterwards, it may be worth asking around. It's also worth looking at the CVs of some of the places where you'd like to work.

 

[jjfversion1]

I wholeheartedly agree. I guess the point of my question was to get an idea as to which programs based on national reputation were the best in regards to recruiting and producing Psychiatrists that are in demand.

Coming from a small liberal arts college and then a top 20 med program, I have seen first hand the doors that going to a "name brand" program can open for you. Hope that clarifies things a little, but I appreciate all the feedback so far.

 

[SmallBird]

I wholeheartedly agree. I guess the point of my question was to get an idea as to which programs based on national reputation were the best in regards to recruiting and producing Psychiatrists that are in demand.

Coming from a small liberal arts college and then a top 20 med program, I have seen first hand the doors that going to a "name brand" program can open for you. Hope that clarifies things a little, but I appreciate all the feedback so far.

This is fair enough, but I would argue that you should think of this in a more pragmatic way. Different programs will be more or less useful to you depending on your career goals. Using the example of research, if you go to a program with a strong research department, they are going to be in a better position to connect you to faculty at other academic departments when you graduate. On the other hand, if you hope to work at a community mental health center, this will really not matter at all - its nice to imagine that it does, but it just doesn't. Here the only advantage is regional; a CMHC may be more interested in a local candidate because they might see them as having ties to the area. But you are no better off going to MGH vs a small community program if your goal is to get a job in a non-academic clinical setting. If you hope to go into private practice, the idosyncracies of the local community and presence of an analytic institute may have the greatest influence on the doors which open to you. So you may want to ask yourself what your goals are, what you have done to progress towards achieving them, and how you imagine your residency program may be important in helping you obtain them.

 

[wolfvgang22]

You will never not be in demand as a psychiatrist. Anecdotally, I attended a "top 10" ranked program and also a mid tier program through my training and got far more connections and "clout" from the relationships I made in the mid tier program. The big name program attendings were too busy polishing their own CVs a lot of the time.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I wholeheartedly agree. I guess the point of my question was to get an idea as to which programs based on national reputation were the best in regards to recruiting and producing Psychiatrists that are in demand.

Coming from a small liberal arts college and then a top 20 med program, I have seen first hand the doors that going to a "name brand" program can open for you. Hope that clarifies things a little, but I appreciate all the feedback so far.

"Name-branding" is extremely over-rated, unless you're headed for academia.

 

[Shikima]

"Name-branding" is extremely over-rated, unless you're headed for academia.

I'd even venture, those days where Pedigree mattered doesn't as much any longer.

 

[quiet pines]

It feels good to be at a prestigious program, but its quite unnecessary really. What for? Fellowships are wide open, and patients never ask.

 

[JustAGuy]

I've always been curious if the people who go to the ultra prestigious places get superior training, steal sharpening steel. Do residents at Harvard consistently score 90+ percentile on the Prite, or are they no better than the rest of us?

 

[clausewitz2]

I've always been curious if the people who go to the ultra prestigious places get superior training, steal sharpening steel. Do residents at Harvard consistently score 90+ percentile on the Prite, or are they no better than the rest of us?

I think you may be a little confused if you think that Prite scores bear a strong correlation with any measure of quality of training, as opposed to memory of trivia.

 

[JustAGuy]

I think you may be a little confused if you think that Prite scores bear a strong correlation with any measure of quality of training, as opposed to memory of trivia.

Sure, some of it is useless trivia, but there's also plenty of general psychiatry knowledge there.

 

[birchswing]

It feels good to be at a prestigious program, but its quite unnecessary really. What for? Fellowships are wide open, and patients never ask.

I look up every doctor I see on the state board web-site. This might sound bad, but if I have the option I avoid doctors who graduated in a particular area of the world (which happens to overlap with the only area of the world I see FMGs from); I word it that way because if I am being honest my reaction might be different if there happened to be a German graduate, for example (which I've never come across). I also avoid ones who graduated med school in the early 1960s or before. If there are multiple younger doctors, I'll go with one from a better school. Looking up every doctor you see comes with a price when you're having an emergency appendectomy though (found out my surgeon was found culpable in a death right before surgery).

Still, it's a doctor's market—none of them are wanting for patients no matter when or from where they graduated.

 

[chicagochildpsych]

I look up every doctor I see on the state board web-site. This might sound bad, but if I have the option I avoid doctors who graduated in a particular area of the world (which happens to overlap with the only area of the world I see FMGs from); I word it that way because if I am being honest my reaction might be different if there happened to be a German graduate, for example (which I've never come across). I also avoid ones who graduated med school in the early 1960s or before. If there are multiple younger doctors, I'll go with one from a better school. Looking up every doctor you see comes with a price when you're having an emergency appendectomy though (found out my surgeon was found culpable in a death right before surgery).

Still, it's a doctor's market—none of them are wanting for patients no matter when or from where they graduated.

"I'll take define bigotry for $400, Alex"


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[birchswing]

"I'll take define bigotry for $400, Alex"


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

I make a discernment based on the part of the world the person graduated from, not based on the person's ethnicity. This entire thread is about ranking programs within the US. I was talking about programs outside the US. Do you believe that there is uniformity in the quality of medical schools across the world? Keep in mind, the most recent graduates from these schools I've come across are from the 1960s and 1970s. These are still developing countries, and at the time they were still coming to grips with the struggles that having been under colonization led to. The institutions and governments were not necessarily as strong and cohesive as those in developed countries, and their priorities were more on the most basic needs of the people. Some recently decolonized countries did a better job at that than others. Some were focused far more on military power. Colonization was a huge impediment to the development of many nations around the world, and it's tragic. These countries were not developed by colonizers for academic or medical progress but for the most basic resources or forms of industry, which corroded and ******ed existing civil society.

EDIT: And let me point out, people come to the US because of our higher education system. They don't come for our secondary schools. We actually have pretty mediocre secondary education, but we have a competitive higher education system. One of my psychiatrists was from Pakistan. He got his medical degree there and then did his residency in the US. I didn't know it at the time, but while he was treating me he was under mandatory treatment for substance abuse. He eventually lost his license after failing to appear to jail and left the US. He is back in Pakistan. How does he advertise himself? As a US-trained psychiatrist. That's how he advertises himself in Pakistan. It's true; I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. But on his web-site the very first thing he mentions is that he is US-trained. So apparently it matters; it apparently carries clout.

 

[SmallBird]

I look up every doctor I see on the state board web-site. This might sound bad, but if I have the option I avoid doctors who graduated in a particular area of the world (which happens to overlap with the only area of the world I see FMGs from); I word it that way because if I am being honest my reaction might be different if there happened to be a German graduate, for example (which I've never come across). I also avoid ones who graduated med school in the early 1960s or before. If there are multiple younger doctors, I'll go with one from a better school. Looking up every doctor you see comes with a price when you're having an emergency appendectomy though (found out my surgeon was found culpable in a death right before surgery).

Still, it's a doctor's market—none of them are wanting for patients no matter when or from where they graduated.

You normally do a good job of making thoughtful contributions as a non physician to this forum but we don't really need to hear about your prejudice.

 

[birchswing]

You normally do a good job of making thoughtful contributions as a non physician to this forum but we don't really need to hear about your prejudice.

I am not prejudiced or bigoted against the people of a country but of the quality of the schools in those countries.

I also don't care for glass in my medicine, so I avoid generics from Ranbaxy (which even the FDA has finally shown some backbone about).

This thread is discussing the quality of UVA vs VCU or whatever. I mean, they're both good medical schools. There's are better and worse, but they all in exist in the framework of the same country which shares the same government.

You cannot be intellectually honest and say that medical schools across the board are held to an equal standard:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...edical-schools-very-according-to-new-reports/

That is an article about some of the issues in India with medical schools, but I would quick to point out that India is a country I would have actually not been as suspect of in terms of the quality of education. They have invested heavily and widely in education from the post-colonial era forward. Pakistan, on the other hand, has invested very little in education since decolonization and much more on military strength. Some of the countries I was thinking about, such as Egypt, have recently had totally failing governments.

This is not at all to say that people graduating from the decent to good schools these countries have aren't well qualified. Many are and do good research. Remember I was originally responding to someone saying patients don't check which schools a doctor attended, and the original post was about clout. That is what I am speaking to. I am not familiar with every medical school overseas. I am generally familiar with the political development of many countries, however, and how that would affect regulations and enforcement of regulations. I hold absolutely no view that there is such a thing as an innately better or worse person in terms of their potential to be good at any particular endeavor as determined by race or ethnicity.

 

[birchswing]

I am sorry.

I have been thinking about what I wrote and I keep thinking of a lot of counter-arguments.

In my first post, I wrote how I instinctively act. The flow chart I was describing for ranking doctors by age and what area of the world they graduated from is obviously crude and in many cases there's not even an option to follow it. I guess my point in saying this is that, while I do look up this information, I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about why I react to that information the way I do until it was alleged that it was bigoted to do so.

I still resist that allegation of bigotry and believe that my assessment is based on the state of the country a person graduates from and not the nationality/ethnicity of the person attending the university in that country.

However, here are some counter-arguments to what I said:

1) The best and brightest unfortunately tend to leave developing countries for the developed world (unfortunate in that it leads to unequal development and worse healthcare access in the developing world; it's fortunate for the US).
2) I didn't consider that doctors practicing in the US have completed a residency in the US and pass certification tests.
3) I didn't consider that attending a university outside the US could add to the diversity of knowledge based on how practices vary throughout the world.

No one wants to admit that they are bigoted. I will say that when I have looked at state board info, it has been glancing and I've made quick decisions that I never thought to think about much longer. Of course I resist the idea that I am bigoted toward a nationality or ethnicity; I think most people would resist that. And I truly don't believe I am bigoted in that way.

I will say, however, that in thinking about this in a less glib and glancing way, I don't think I will view the country a person graduated from the same after this introspection because of those counter-arguments I had against myself.