How much does the residency director matter?

[Brainwave2000]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hi everyone. I'm new here and just finishing my IVs in psych. I was really lucky and got interviews at big research places - that's been my interest, mostly - and now I'm trying to figure out where I'll fit, where would be a good place to start out. I've read up on the posts and I'm not trying to make a big deal about "prestige" places, except that I think that to do the kind of work I want to do, it would make sense to be at a place that has a lot of research opportunities.

Soooo.... I've been to the big NY/Boston/SF/PA places and thought I'd have really good research opportunities at most of them. BUT I had a pretty different reaction to the different program directors, with some seeming really down-to-earth, mentor-types, and other seeming more like big-shot types.

My question is, how much does the residency director really matter? Do you spend a lot of time with them in residency? Are they the main mentors? My gut instinct is that it does really matter, but I'd really like to hear what you have to say about it... Also, and this is probably going out on a limb, does anyone have experience with the PD's at the big research places (MGH, Pitt, Columbia)?

Thanks for any advice!!!

Brainwave 2000, MS-IV (6 mos to go!!!)

 

[whopper]

Depends on a lot. The PD will have a lot to do with a program but each will have his or her own style. Weaknesses on the part of the PD could be overcome by other strengths the PD has and others in the program could still make a program worth it in spite of a less than perfect PD.

 

[IAmAUser]

.

 

[myPsychAlt]

Hi everyone. I'm new here and just finishing my IVs in psych. I was really lucky and got interviews at big research places - that's been my interest, mostly - and now I'm trying to figure out where I'll fit, where would be a good place to start out. I've read up on the posts and I'm not trying to make a big deal about "prestige" places, except that I think that to do the kind of work I want to do, it would make sense to be at a place that has a lot of research opportunities.

Soooo.... I've been to the big NY/Boston/SF/PA places and thought I'd have really good research opportunities at most of them. BUT I had a pretty different reaction to the different program directors, with some seeming really down-to-earth, mentor-types, and other seeming more like big-shot types.

My question is, how much does the residency director really matter? Do you spend a lot of time with them in residency? Are they the main mentors? My gut instinct is that it does really matter, but I'd really like to hear what you have to say about it... Also, and this is probably going out on a limb, does anyone have experience with the PD's at the big research places (MGH, Pitt, Columbia)?

Thanks for any advice!!!

Brainwave 2000, MS-IV (6 mos to go!!!)

(MSIV perspective here)

well chances are if you're at a big shot residency, the fact that the PD is going to be a big shot as well, is probably a given. So, a down to earth PD is something to look positively at. I'd say the 3 PDs that I've really really like on the trail have been at Michigan, Pitt, and Hopkins (even though I didn't really like the JHU program and disagreed with a lot of what he had to say, he was very open minded and we had a great back and forth discussion.)

 

[nitemagi]

The PD can make a huge difference, not just in the aspects listed above. While sorting out logistics during the entire residency and being your main and final advocate, your PD also is a major resource for jobs down the road. PD's all talk to each other (AADPRT), and your PD may be the one that helps you make the connection you need for your future jobs.

 

[Brainwave2000]

Thanks for the quick replies! Sounds like it's important to have a pretty good relationship with the PD whether they're a big-shot or a down-to-earth type. I didn't think about how they could be the link to jobs after residency. Makes sense. I have to say that most of the residency directors seemed like they were super accomplished, but some just seemed to have closer bonds with the residents that others. I agree with you, myPsychAlt, that the Pitt and Hopkins folks seemed close like that. I didn't go to Michigan, but felt like MGH was warmer than I expected and I liked that. Cambridge was awesome but I think I need a bigger research presence. Does anyone know if Cambridge residents work with the other Harvard programs? Columbia was weird... I wanted to like it but got the feeling that there are some bad vibes between the residents and the residency directors. Maybe I was just there on a bad day. Ok thanks again.

 

[Brainwave2000]

Oh and if anyone would rather discuss over PM, please feel free, though I think it would be great to get broad views out in the forum.

 

[rss56]

Columbia- not warm or fuzzy. The residents told me "if you want a mommy PD, Oquendo is not for you." She is an accomplish researcher, very bright, but very business. For me, that is my big concern about Columbia. I, too, want to love it, but that holds me back. But it is one hell of an impressive program. Rivaled by few.

Cambridge- Now that's a place with a great PD. Can't beat him. Super warm and supportive to residents.

For the research, I was told on the interview day that you can do research with anyone in the harvard system. I don't know how often that happens but I don't get the impression there is bad blood between the HA programs. So I dont' see why you could not.

If u want basic science research, Cambridge is prolly not for you. It's just not what they emphasize. Most of what they are big on is outcomes, health disparities, clinical research. The guy I interviewed with is involved in some big long-term study looking at outcomes for children of gay fathers.

Thanks for the quick replies! Sounds like it's important to have a pretty good relationship with the PD whether they're a big-shot or a down-to-earth type. I didn't think about how they could be the link to jobs after residency. Makes sense. I have to say that most of the residency directors seemed like they were super accomplished, but some just seemed to have closer bonds with the residents that others. I agree with you, myPsychAlt, that the Pitt and Hopkins folks seemed close like that. I didn't go to Michigan, but felt like MGH was warmer than I expected and I liked that. Cambridge was awesome but I think I need a bigger research presence. Does anyone know if Cambridge residents work with the other Harvard programs? Columbia was weird... I wanted to like it but got the feeling that there are some bad vibes between the residents and the residency directors. Maybe I was just there on a bad day. Ok thanks again.

 

[atsai3]

Columbia- not warm or fuzzy. The residents told me "if you want a mommy PD, Oquendo is not for you." She is an accomplish researcher, very bright, but very business. For me, that is my big concern about Columbia. I, too, want to love it, but that holds me back. But it is one hell of an impressive program. Rivaled by few.

Cambridge- Now that's a place with a great PD. Can't beat him. Super warm and supportive to residents.

For the research, I was told on the interview day that you can do research with anyone in the harvard system. I don't know how often that happens but I don't get the impression there is bad blood between the HA programs. So I dont' see why you could not.

If u want basic science research, Cambridge is prolly not for you. It's just not what they emphasize. Most of what they are big on is outcomes, health disparities, clinical research. The guy I interviewed with is involved in some big long-term study looking at outcomes for children of gay fathers.

I am a big fan of Oquendo. I have only encountered her in research contexts, but she has been friendly, bright, energetic, etc. Not totally relevant for evaluating her as a PD, but just another data point.

If you match to Cambridge vs. MGH vs. Longwood you can "do" research with anyone within the Harvard system. In general, the issue is not "will a MGH researcher take me into her lab if I am a BWH resident?" It is more important to think about the researcher's incentives (or lack of incentives) for mentoring junior researchers from other institutions, and the ease with which a senior researcher at one institution can use discretionary money to support a junior researcher from another institution. Doesn't matter if both MGH faculty and CHA faculty have HMS appointments. It really is kind of a pain for a MGH researcher to move money around to pay for travel for a Cambridge resident or HSPH MPH student.

-AT.

 

[Brainwave2000]

I went back and asked some Columbia residents specifically about their PD and they echoed that she's pretty rough and vindictive. Not really the kind of experience I'm looking for. I guess that makes my list a little shorter! Thanks for the feedback, everyone, it's really helpful.

 

[mahasanti]

This has been a very interesting discussion! In interviewing, I know that my impressions of a program seemed to be quite correlated with how much I liked the PD. I can think of one program (University of Washington), where the PD really made the program awesome. I'm not sure how much I would have liked UW if Dr. Cowley wasn't so amazing.

My question is, what if you don't meet the PD? When I interviewed at UCLA (Semel) the PD was out of town, so I didn't get to meet him. I did get to meet with one of the assistant PDs, and enjoyed our meeting, but kind of feel shafted. I really liked the program, but am a bit nervous about not meeting or knowing how the PD is like. Now, how can I make an informed decision!!???!?!?

 

[strangeglove]

In addition to looking at the PD, who is very important for helping you to progress through the residency and to find work afterward, you should also look at who is working with the PD. In some smaller programs, the PD is pretty much the only person whose primary job is residency training. Larger programs will usually have an assistant PD, as well as sub-directors for various aspects of psychiatry training (e.g. Columbia has a director for neuroscience and psychopharmacology training, as well as a director for psychotherapy training). In addition, the chief residents may often play a fairly high-level administrative role. Often, the PD will delegate a lot of day to day responsibilities to these persons (e.g. writing letters of recommendation; career counseling; mediating disputes between residents), so that they can focus on their administrative strengths (e.g securing funding; muscling to ensure that residents are not just service machines, but are primarily engaged in learning). You also need to look at the larger department and its history of being supportive to residents. You can have the nicest PD in the world, but if the department as a whole does not view its residency as a core mission, it won't really be a good experience (and then you'll really need your PD to be warm and fuzzy, since you will go to her often to cry on her shoulder when your in-patient service chief unilaterally tells you that you have to double your cap, for example). So, while it would be great to have a PD who is both a highly capable administrator and a real nice person, in practice, these two things are rarely contained in the same person. If I had to choose, I would prefer the colder but more administratively capable type over the loving but ineffectual type. That may say something about me psychodynamically, but that's for another thread.