Sep 13, 2012
143
11
Boston
How would you compare MGH and NYU's child psychiatry program, especially in terms of clinical training for fellows? Which one has a more balanced treatment approach (mess vs therapy), a diversity of clinical training sites, better teaching and supervision, and higher workload?

My rough uneducated wild guess (as a medical student on the interview trail) was that NYU had more inpatient and residential clinical sites, and a greater range of rotations, with sicker patients and higher workload; while MGH has more academically integrated clinical sites and may have better supervision and more balanced approach. This is based on very very little substantive understanding of the programs, so please help me out!

If anyone can also throw in UCLA comments that would be great.

What are some other differences you know of between the programs?
 

notdeadyet

Still in California
Moderator
15+ Year Member
Jul 23, 2004
11,728
1,885
Status
Attending Physician
With the programs you're looking at, the main consideration for me would be do I want to live and practice in Boston, NY, or LA. They're all great programs. Geography is a much bigger factor.
 
OP
M
Sep 13, 2012
143
11
Boston
That's a good point. In terms of training, what I also heard is that MGH is a little more nurturing and more psychodynamic; from NYU thy have significant opportunities and resources available.
 

billypilgrim37

Unstuck in Time
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
2,387
115
Status
Attending Physician
That's a good point. In terms of training, what I also heard is that MGH is a little more nurturing and more psychodynamic; from NYU thy have significant opportunities and resources available.
With regards to child, I would say the opposite re: MGH. It's clearly a very good program, but it has a reputation of being one of the most biologically oriented child fellowships among the "good" ones. The psychopharmacology group is quite controversial, which isn't to say it's not good training. A friend that graduated there from a few years ago was very happy and is certainly a good doc. At the same time, a fellow from there recently complained to me that there were plenty of kids she would diagnose with PTSD, or adolescents that probably just have the beginning of a PD, who wind up with a bipolar diagnosis and on atypicals. That might happen everywhere, but Boston was literally the epicenter of turning severe chronic irritability into a pediatric bipolar phenotype (sponsored by Johnson & Johnson).

I would say NYU is possibly the best clinical child program in the country. It is fairly balanced. There is really nothing negative to say about the place I know of. The PD is a superstar.

UCLA I don't know anything else about, but it clearly has a stellar reputation.

I agree that, unless you have a really good reason to pick one over another, you should decide primarily based on location fit for you.
 
Last edited:

sluox

15+ Year Member
Jan 4, 2002
1,788
871
Status
Attending Physician
I would say NYU is possibly the best clinical child program in the country. It is fairly balanced. There is really nothing negative to say about the place I know of. The PD is a superstar.
Even though I'm not into child anymore I second this based on my prior investigations. It certainly has that feel through the grapevine. I would say NYU and Yale are the top two programs in the country (in no particular order) for child just because they are the two with independent child centers. Both for research and clinical work they are phenomenal. I don't even think MGH is necessarily the best child program in Boston.
 

BritTrooper

5+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2009
20
0
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I think all three programs are very strong. UCLA and MGH benefit from a much stronger scientific base within the department and the Universities. They are both an order of magnitude more competitive to get into compared to NYU or any NY program. Yale was without doubt once a powerhouse for child, if you are aware of whats happening at the moment, then its research future is looking less certain. Still likely to get good clinical training though at any of the programs.
 

SmallBird

7+ Year Member
May 3, 2010
735
536
Status
Attending Physician
Yale was without doubt once a powerhouse for child, if you are aware of whats happening at the moment, then its research future is looking less certain.
Can you elaborate on this? I am genuinely interested to know 'what's happening', as you say.
 

billypilgrim37

Unstuck in Time
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
2,387
115
Status
Attending Physician
They are both an order of magnitude more competitive to get into compared to NYU or any NY program.
I disagree. NYU is not less competitive than MGH for child fellowship. I would agree that Yale is less competitive, though still thought to be a very good program. My friends there in the New Haven track tell me that the academic environment may be better than the clinical environment, however, my friend who graduated from the other track said the opposite (which makes sense).

My understanding is also that Stanford is a more competitive child fellowship than UCLA on the West Coast, but I say that as someone on the other coast. They are both elite programs.
 

BritTrooper

5+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2009
20
0
Status
Resident [Any Field]
My disclaimer is I just finished an extensive child interview season, and my impressions are from this year alone. Stanford was less competitive this year, pretty mediocre recruitment
 
OP
M
Sep 13, 2012
143
11
Boston
With regards to child, I would say the opposite re: MGH. It's clearly a very good program, but it has a reputation of being one of the most biologically oriented child fellowships among the "good" ones. The psychopharmacology group is quite controversial, which isn't to say it's not good training. A friend that graduated there from a few years ago was very happy and is certainly a good doc. At the same time, a fellow from there recently complained to me that there were plenty of kids she would diagnose with PTSD, or adolescents that probably just have the beginning of a PD, who wind up with a bipolar diagnosis and on atypicals. That might happen everywhere, but Boston was literally the epicenter of turning severe chronic irritability into a pediatric bipolar phenotype (sponsored by Johnson & Johnson).

I would say NYU is possibly the best clinical child program in the country. It is fairly balanced. There is really nothing negative to say about the place I know of. The PD is a superstar.
This is an interesting point. The reputation of MGH as a psychopharm and bipolar defn seems valid given how well-known and influential Biedermann and all those bio researchers are. However, I don't know much clinical training time is spent with those types of clinics. They also have schools and McLean, which seems to offer an alternative environment for clinical learning, I would guess.

I actually heard from another PD that MGH may be more therapy than NYU, because Dr. Beresin meets with each fellow every week and he is psychodynamically trained. He is senior enough to be able to carve out time to do this, and is clearly passionate about training.

On the other hand, NYU does not do this, and as a result may have weaker therapy training, perhaps?
 

billypilgrim37

Unstuck in Time
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
2,387
115
Status
Attending Physician
To Biederman's and his group's credit, he's been described to me as being a pretty big part of the clinical education up there, and he definitely supervises residents in clinics.

Moreso than in general psychiatry, I would say a lot of the big names in child psychiatry are more likely to be involved in clinical teaching. Part of the point of being a subspecialist focuses on particular clinical populations and clinical insights about them. Relatively speaking, you can be a really great schizophrenia researcher and be a terrible clinician, but I don't know that you can be a really great researcher in, say, the treatment and nosology of pediatric bipolar disorder if you're not a pretty good clinician. And that lends itself more to clinical education. Plus, on average, your child psychiatrists are just more likely to have the sorts of personalities that lend themselves to clinical education.

These aren't absolute claims, of course, but I think they have some relative merits.