Official 2015 Rank Order List and "Help me rank" thread

[OldPsychDoc]

Agree, except for the Harbaugh/Blue part. Michigan is a great program and UMass is average for an academic place. And I don't really like Boston - too expensive, the roads are terrible, the weather is stupid, and the Red Sox keep beating the Cardinals in the World Series... if I didn't have family in Boston, I'd never go there. If not for the fact that you'd have to root for the Big 10, I'd say that Michigan is good from every perspective.

You don't have to root for the B1G.
Go EMU Eagles!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FranzLO]

Not sure how it isn't Michigan hands down, especially given the situation.

 

[notdeadyet]

I would agree with slappy that if youre in boston you will have access to a larger proportion of the top researchers in the country, but this may be moot if you're not in the research track and don't have more than a 1/2 day a week until 4th year to make use of that.

I think folks see research existing in more of a vacuum than it does. When you are at a place with strong research in an area, it tends to make its way into the curriculum and training. If you are interested in early psychosis, the training you will walk away with in a program with good research In this area tends to be better. At a place like UW, you'd likely get better DBT training and opportunities in residency than most other places even if you never met Dr. Linehan.

That said, for this whole discussion, I think we're talking about a list of pretty high quality programs and even though the OP says they don't care about location, they probably should.

The difference in quality of training between UCSF, UCLA, UW, Yale, and Longwood is much less than the difference in quality of life for a particular individual between SF, LA, Seattle, New Haven, and Boston. Happy residents work harder and smarter and learn more. When you're talking about programs of this calibre, I'd heavily consider where you'll be happiest and would most like to live.

If anything, location is particularly undervalued for folks looking at private practice, which seems healthily represented on SDN. Establishing a thriving practice in Seattle as a UW grad will be much, much easier than for a Longwood grad even many years after graduation and much easier in LA for someone from UCLA than UCSF.

 

[johnhoedack]

I think folks see research existing in more of a vacuum than it does. When you are at a place with strong research in an area, it tends to make its way into the curriculum and training. If you are interested in early psychosis, the training you will walk away with in a program with good research In this area tends to be better. At a place like UW, you'd likely get better DBT training and opportunities in residency than most other places even if you never met Dr. Linehan.

That said, for this whole discussion, I think we're talking about a list of pretty high quality programs and even though the OP says they don't care about location, they probably should.

The difference in quality of training between UCSF, UCLA, UW, Yale, and Longwood is much less than the difference in quality of life for a particular individual between SF, LA, Seattle, New Haven, and Boston. Happy residents work harder and smarter and learn more. When you're talking about programs of this calibre, I'd heavily consider where you'll be happiest and would most like to live.

If anything, location is particularly undervalued for folks looking at private practice, which seems healthily represented on SDN. Establishing a thriving practice in Seattle as a UW grad will be much, much easier than for a Longwood grad even many years after graduation and much easier in LA for someone from UCLA than UCSF.

Very nice summary of my thoughts. I interviewed at many of these programs and am mostly considering location at this point.

 

[ziggyhope]

I think folks see research existing in more of a vacuum than it does. When you are at a place with strong research in an area, it tends to make its way into the curriculum and training. If you are interested in early psychosis, the training you will walk away with in a program with good research In this area tends to be better. At a place like UW, you'd likely get better DBT training and opportunities in residency than most other places even if you never met Dr. Linehan.

That said, for this whole discussion, I think we're talking about a list of pretty high quality programs and even though the OP says they don't care about location, they probably should.

The difference in quality of training between UCSF, UCLA, UW, Yale, and Longwood is much less than the difference in quality of life for a particular individual between SF, LA, Seattle, New Haven, and Boston. Happy residents work harder and smarter and learn more. When you're talking about programs of this calibre, I'd heavily consider where you'll be happiest and would most like to live.

If anything, location is particularly undervalued for folks looking at private practice, which seems healthily represented on SDN. Establishing a thriving practice in Seattle as a UW grad will be much, much easier than for a Longwood grad even many years after graduation and much easier in LA for someone from UCLA than UCSF.

I agree, even though I didn't apply on the west coast due to personal reasons, I am nonetheless placing a huge importance on location because once you reach a certain caliber of programs, the actual quality of training is more similar than they are different (aka all strong), and for me at least, it comes down to the "peripheral" things a program has to offer such as location, job market for my spouse, etc.

 

[scoobyer3]

Not sure what I will go into in terms of psychiatry; I am just looking for a balanced program to get a broad exposure. I'm not sure if I will do a fellowship, but it would be nice to not clos any doors. I'm having a hard time ranking these programs , as they have their own pros and cons. I keep changing my rank list everyday and feel more confused than ever haha. any input would be appreciated!

Emory
Harvard South Shore
U-Maryland
U-Michigan

 

[liquidshadow22]

LIJ vs MUSC , with the goal of becoming an academic psychiatrist, who wins?

 

[slappy]

LIJ vs MUSC, with the goal of becoming an academic psychiatrist, who wins?

You.

 

[liquidshadow22]

You.

so you're saying it's a win-win

 

[HarryMTieboutMD]

I think it is ridiculous when people claim that neurological problems are untreatable. they are on the whole no less untreatable than psychiatric disorders, and the rare degenerative disorders are just that, rare. psychiatry shares some of these neurodegenerative disorders (dementias) with our neurology colleagues. epilepsy and migraine - which are are amongst the most common - are eminently treatable. MS and parkinson's disease are about as treatable as chronic schizophrenia or severe bipolar disorder. Most conditions in medicine are not curable, and many are fatal or terminal. For the right person, there is nothing more rewarding that managing those problems for which we have no cure, or for which relief of symptoms is sub-optimal.

Neurologists are not largely dissatisfied with the field because it is boring (the brain has the widest range of possible diseases of any organ), nor because of poor renumeration (they do on average make significantly more than psychiatrists). It is because the kind of person who often goes into neurology is interested more in disease than in patients, only to find that most of what they are seeing is psychiatric (headaches, fatigue, vague weakness, chronic pain, non-epileptic attacks, depression, anxiety, personality disorder, conversion disorder) that they have no interest in dealing with.

This is 100% true. Clinically, neurology can be the most intellectually demanding, yet satisfying discipline in medicine. The neurological exam is the most difficult of all of the physical exams in medicine, takes years to learn how to do accurately and consistently, and is still very much relevant. I am loving my neuro rotations as a resident- seeing both the classic pathologies as well as the zebras- and the finesse with which the experienced attendings diagnose at bedside is just incredible. Being at a huge academic medical center with one of the nation's premier neuro departments has definitely provided me with an unforgettable experience. I agree with Splik- neurologists get disgruntled when they step away from academia and enter private practice, where they have to deal with the "uninteresting" conditions Splik mentioned- and they have to see a TON of patients to keep up RVUs. The ones who stay in academia, however, seem very satisfied and never want to retire.

I really hope that I am alive to see a revolution in psychiatry where we can be as sophisticated as neurologists in our diagnostic methods- meaning it takes an actual MD using skill sets from years of basic science, clinical science, and residency to truly be able to reliably and accurately diagnose pathology. DSM III was a great step forward in terms of reliability, but now, as anyone who has ever worked in an inpatient psychiatry knows, now with operational, disjunctive criteria, everyone who works on the unit- nurses, techs, SWs, etc etc etc think that they are the diagnosticians. And to some extent, it's true- our diagnostic methods are taught to every mental health professional, essentially qualifying them as diagnosticians (at least in their minds).

Relating to that last point, because of its deeply intellectual and difficult nature, neurology is one of the fields most protected from midlevel encroachment, which is definitely a good thing. The neuro department at my institution hired a few NPs, but they are largely confined to clerical roles. I have personally seen a neuro NP completely miss pseudohyponatremia and different neuro NP have no clue what a Wallenberg is. Seriously, Hughlings Jackson, Paul Broca, Carl Wernicke, Jean-Martin Charcot, Pierre Marie, Norm Geschwind etc would be absolutely irate that people so unqualified are allowed to "practice" neurology!

In any case, psychiatry is intimately linked with neurology, without question moreso than any other field, and for the advancement of our field, neurology is absolutely invaluable.

 

[liquidshadow22]

In terms of patient care, isn't internal medicine almost more useful to a psychiatrist than neurology? There is a high chance of a psych patient having a co-morbidity in all the other organ systems rather than a co-morbid neurological problem.

 

[MedChic]

Does anyone on the west coast have an idea of how the UCLA affiliates (specifically Harbor and SFV) compare to the main UCLA program? With the west coast programs I have trouble fleshing out whether "affiliated with" UCLA means community program with some financial backing, or actually a pretty significant part of the UCLA system, and it's tough to know the nuances without knowing these programs well.

Also is anyone familiar with how these UCLA-affiliates compare with mid-tier Massachusetts programs like UMass, BU, Tufts, and Harvard South Shore in terms of academics and reputation? I'm not looking at other factors in asking (i.e. location etc.), just opinions on the academics from those familiar with any of the above.

 

[notdeadyet]

Does anyone on the west coast have an idea of how the UCLA affiliates (specifically Harbor and SFV) compare to the main UCLA program? With the west coast programs I have trouble fleshing out whether "affiliated with" UCLA means community program with some financial backing, or actually a pretty significant part of the UCLA system, and it's tough to know the nuances without knowing these programs well.

They are related by name, but Harbor is the only program that shares a real relationship with NPI, and it's because NPI folks do their PES rotation there. There is also an NPI program in which an NPI resident does their first year at Harbor (this was to attract folks to NPI who are public-oriented as NPI does not have a county hospital of its own).

I personally wouldn't view any of the UCLA programs as being part of a "system" as such (nor would I do that with UCSF and UCSF-Fresno or UCI and Kaweah Delta). People in the field don't think of them as being counterparts to one another. I know a lot of applicants will give these programs added weight because of the UC name that the program (as I think folks likely do at Harvard South Shore), but that is more marketing than substance.

It's more healthy to look at a program for what it is independently of vague associations with better known counterparts. SFV fulfills its role absolutely fine, as does Kern and Fresno, even though they don't have much relationship with "the motherships." Harbor is actually a stronger program than NPI if you're looking at doing public psychiatry. But get the UC out of your head when looking at the programs so you can see their strengths and weaknesses of the programs themselves, without having it skewed falsely by preconceived associations.

 

[Pediatrician87]

I'm having a lot of trouble finalizing my list. Can anyone offer some help? Thank you!

UMaryland
Hopkins
Jefferson
Statin Island Univ.
Cooper
LSU
UAB
U.of Illinois in Peoria
Michigan (Livonia)
East Tennessee Univ.
U.of South Carolina (Greenseville)
Wake Forest
Medical College of Georgia
U. of Iowa

 

[MedChic]

They are related by name, but Harbor is the only program that shares a real relationship with NPI, and it's because NPI folks do their PES rotation there. There is also an NPI program in which an NPI resident does their first year at Harbor (this was to attract folks to NPI who are public-oriented as NPI does not have a county hospital of its own).

I personally wouldn't view any of the UCLA programs as being part of a "system" as such (nor would I do that with UCSF and UCSF-Fresno or UCI and Kaweah Delta). People in the field don't think of them as being counterparts to one another. I know a lot of applicants will give these programs added weight because of the UC name that the program (as I think folks likely do at Harvard South Shore), but that is more marketing than substance.

It's more healthy to look at a program for what it is independently of vague associations with better known counterparts. SFV fulfills its role absolutely fine, as does Kern and Fresno, even though they don't have much relationship with "the motherships." Harbor is actually a stronger program than NPI if you're looking at doing public psychiatry. But get the UC out of your head when looking at the programs so you can see their strengths and weaknesses of the programs themselves, without having it skewed falsely by preconceived associations.

Thanks. That helps. I think my judgment is clouded by the UCLA name, but definitely agree that it's vital to look at a program independently and focus on its characteristics.

Anyone have opinions about Mass program rankings? To me, BU = Tufts = UMass in terms of training

 

[Abby_Normal]

Planning to go into academics. Pretty sure about most of my rank list, but thought I've been stewing over it so long, thought some objective input might be good for perspective.
1. Yale, 2. Longwood, 3. Brown, 4. UMass, 5. BU, 6. Dartmouth, 7. UVM, 8. MMC, 9. UConn

I keep on going back and forth on BU and Dartmouth. Any thoughts on how they compare in terms of psychotherapy training? I really liked Dartmouth, but I got the sense they don't really prioritize psychotherapy. I don't know if it was just the people I spoke to...

 

[Leo Aquarius]

They are related by name, but Harbor is the only program that shares a real relationship with NPI, and it's because NPI folks do their PES rotation there. There is also an NPI program in which an NPI resident does their first year at Harbor (this was to attract folks to NPI who are public-oriented as NPI does not have a county hospital of its own).

I personally wouldn't view any of the UCLA programs as being part of a "system" as such (nor would I do that with UCSF and UCSF-Fresno or UCI and Kaweah Delta). People in the field don't think of them as being counterparts to one another. I know a lot of applicants will give these programs added weight because of the UC name that the program (as I think folks likely do at Harvard South Shore), but that is more marketing than substance.

It's more healthy to look at a program for what it is independently of vague associations with better known counterparts. SFV fulfills its role absolutely fine, as does Kern and Fresno, even though they don't have much relationship with "the motherships." Harbor is actually a stronger program than NPI if you're looking at doing public psychiatry. But get the UC out of your head when looking at the programs so you can see their strengths and weaknesses of the programs themselves, without having it skewed falsely by preconceived associations.

I only disagree with your first statement. UCLA-Harbor and UCLA-NPI have a strong connection to each other, with Harbor more involved in NPI than NPI in Harbor. NPI students rotate for 1 month in the Psych ED at Harbor (one of the top Psych EDs I can think of). Harbor residents can spend an entire year at NPI clinics in their 4th year (clinics run 1 day a week typically). Some say by going to Harbor you enjoy the best of both worlds. I've heard that the residents from both program went to retreat at the same location, allowing residents from both programs to make friends with each other. SFV, Fresno, or Kern have no such close interplay with NPI or Harbor. NPI and Harbor are like brother and sister, and the reputation of these two programs are the strongest in Southern California in my opinion.

The UCLA name will carry you far, make no mistake.

Folks can PM me for tips on ranking Cali programs if they want.

 

[notdeadyet]

UCLA-Harbor and UCLA-NPI have a strong connection to each other, with Harbor more involved in NPI than NPI in Harbor. NPI students rotate for 1 month in the Psych ED at Harbor (one of the top Psych EDs I can think of). Harbor residents can spend an entire year at NPI clinics in their 4th year (clinics run 1 day a week typically).

You're right that Harbor residents can visit NPI for 4th year electives. I didn't realize SFV couldn't too.

Harbor is one of the best programs in the state. But it's very different from NPI and folks who'd love Harbor would likely not flourish at NPI and vice versa. Harbor is all about county and NPI is everything but. I feel uncomfortable when Harbor sometimes gets portrayed as an NPI-lite. They are VERY different from their NPI counterpart and I feel sometimes that SDN overinflated the similarities and de-emphasizes the differences. And it's in the differences that Harbor's strength lies. Harbor has one of the best PES's in the country and has some of the best county-experience and training in providing care to the underserved. If folks don't care for that mission and would prefer an NPI experience but can't get in there, they'd likely be better off at a program more similar to NPI than Harbor is. Harbor has more in common with USC and San Mateo than it does with NPI when it comes to its mission, its strengths, and the patients it serves (though I'd rate it's academic opportunities higher than those two). I just really stress that applicants try to look at programs for what they are rather taking the branding too much to heart.

 

[Mass Effect]

In terms of patient care, isn't internal medicine almost more useful to a psychiatrist than neurology? There is a high chance of a psych patient having a co-morbidity in all the other organ systems rather than a co-morbid neurological problem.

No. Internal medicine is useful since a psychiatrist is a medical doctor, but thinking there's a high chance of a psych patient having a co-morbidity in all the other organ systems rather than neurology is just untrue. Also, your language is off. We aren't talking about "co morbities," per se. It's not like we're saying that all bipolar patients will have carpal tunnel. What we're saying is there is a neurologic basis for most psychiatric pathologies. There is no other field closer to psychiatry than neurology. Learn your neuroscience and you'll realize just how true that is.

 

[hopeful3488]

.

 

[saxandviolins]

Really picking over the minor details now that we're approaching D-day.

Can someone clarify UCLA's moonlighting policies?

I vaguely recall some grumbling from the residents that all internal moonlighting goes into an academic enrichment fund. Residents are still permitted to pursue outside moonlighting though, yes? Starting in what year? As LA can be ridiculously expensive and UCLA doesn't provide a housing stipend, income supplementation is a consideration.

 

[notdeadyet]

At least at NPI, you can definitely do outside moonlighting. In fact, NPI allows you to moonlight doing outpatient private practice, something many programs specifically forbid. I know of one who earns (or claims to earn) in the $400/hour range doing this. Though it seemed extremely high touch and he fielded several calls from patients when I spent the day with him. Caveat emptor.

 

[liquidshadow22]

. What we're saying is there is a neurologic basis for most psychiatric pathologies. There is no other field closer to psychiatry than neurology. Learn your neuroscience and you'll realize just how true that is.

I understand that but at the end of the day. For the most part, psychiatrists aren't managing neurological conditions. Just because there is a neuroscience basis for psychiatric illness doesn't mean that a psychiatrist needs the skillset of a neurologist to do their job on a daily basis. There is a big difference between neuroscience and neurology. Neurologists themselves don't even use much neuroscience, atleast from what I have seen.

If neurology is so important for a psychiatrist, then why are we required to spend more time doing medicine months during residency? Also, why are there so few combined neuro/psych programs? It's because they are not practically useful. So I agree neuroscience is useful in psychiatry, I'm just not so sure about CLINICAL NEUROLOGY.

 

[Mass Effect]

I understand that but at the end of the day. For the most part, psychiatrists aren't managing neurological conditions

At the end of the day, psychiatrists don't manage internal medicine problems either. That doesn't mean they don't need a good grasp of it to be a competent psychiatrist.

Just because there is a neuroscience basis for psychiatric illness doesn't mean that a psychiatrist needs the skillset of a neurologist to do their job on a daily basis

Where in this thread was it stated that they do? You're taking what people say, injecting your own bias, twisting words around, and then trying to disprove things that were never stated.

Neurologists themselves don't even use much neuroscience, atleast from what I have seen

This statement right here demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the field of neurology.

If neurology is so important for a psychiatrist, then why are we required to spend more time doing medicine months during residency? Also, why are there so few combined neuro/psych programs? It's because they are not practically useful. So I agree neuroscience is useful in psychiatry, I'm just not so sure about CLINICAL NEUROLOGY.

You might want to wait until you're actually practicing psychiatry before making such statements. Just a suggestion.

 

[liquidshadow22]

At the end of the day, psychiatrists don't manage internal medicine problems either. That doesn't mean they don't need a good grasp of it to be a competent psychiatrist.



Where in this thread was it stated that they do? You're taking what people say, injecting your own bias, twisting words around, and then trying to disprove things that were never stated.


Reply: You previously argued in a previous thread, there is "a lot of overlap between the two fields". Which to me means there is a lot of neurology that needs to be used to practice as a psychiatrist? I guess what you really meant to say was there is a lot of neuroscience in the field of psychiatry, correct?



This statement right here demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the field of neurology.

Reply: Can you give me multiple examples where this is the case? From what I have seen, you need to use good history, physical exam skills, neuroanatomy and neuroimaging and pharmacology. That sums up neurology from what I have seen.

You might want to wait until you're actually practicing psychiatry before making such statements. Just a suggestion.

Reply: This statement has been made by countless attending physicians that have commented to me about doing a combined program and it seems to make sense from the rotations I have been on thus far. I don't see how you legitimately use both the skill of a neurologist and a psychiatrist, except for the one sub-specialty of neuro-psychiatry/behavioral neurology. But you can have the last word I guess based on experience.

 

[coilette]

Really picking over the minor details now that we're approaching D-day.

Can someone clarify UCLA's moonlighting policies?

I vaguely recall some grumbling from the residents that all internal moonlighting goes into an academic enrichment fund. Residents are still permitted to pursue outside moonlighting though, yes? Starting in what year? As LA can be ridiculously expensive and UCLA doesn't provide a housing stipend, income supplementation is a consideration.

NPI allows third and fourth year residents to moonlight externally and their options range from joining private practices to (more commonly) working in community mental health clinics. However, the residency recently created a back up call system (for when the ER gets busy) where first and second year residents can be called in for extra money. AS of right now, this type of internal "moonlighting" yields only academic funds (can be used for books, boards, computers, etc). The UCLA GME institution currently doesn't allow for internal moonlighting in any department, which is why the funding is set up the way it is, but that might change in the future.

 

[JohnBender]

Looking for some help with the midwest(-y) programs on my list. WashU, UIC, Pittsburgh.

In terms of location, Chicago wins for me by a wide margin. I also felt like I personally clicked the most with the residents (based on the handful I talked to at all three) however they were really friendly and enthusiastic at each. The only thing holding me back from ranking UIC above the other two is that it seems WPIC and WashU have stronger reputations in psych nationally. Also, you can't deny the amazing facilities, research and infinite opportunities at WPIC. I also really liked the PD at WPIC. I'm not sure about Pittsburgh as a city, however. Didn't get much of a feel for it while I was there and the residents didn't seem to rave about the location, but seemed happy enough.

Shan's done a great job detailing the many benefits of Wash U and St. Louis in many posts (thanks, Shan). What makes me hesitate is 1) I'm just not into St. Louis, despite the fact that residents there seem to like the city, it's cheap, etc. 2) I'd like more of a psychotherapy emphasis. I don't doubt that WashU residents get strong psychotherapy training (more than enough to be well-rounded and well-exposed before graduating), but it was made abundantly clear that it's not their "thing". I guess my main question here is if its reputation and clinical and research opportunities surpass UIC enough to rank it higher.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Looking for some help with the midwest(-y) programs on my list. WashU, UIC, Pittsburgh.

In terms of location, Chicago wins for me by a wide margin. I also felt like I personally clicked the most with the residents (based on the handful I talked to at all three) however they were really friendly and enthusiastic at each. The only thing holding me back from ranking UIC above the other two is that it seems WPIC and WashU have stronger reputations in psych nationally. Also, you can't deny the amazing facilities, research and infinite opportunities at WPIC. I also really liked the PD at WPIC. I'm not sure about Pittsburgh as a city, however. Didn't get much of a feel for it while I was there and the residents didn't seem to rave about the location, but seemed happy enough.

Shan's done a great job detailing the many benefits of Wash U and St. Louis in many posts (thanks, Shan). What makes me hesitate is 1) I'm just not into St. Louis, despite the fact that residents there seem to like the city, it's cheap, etc. 2) I'd like more of a psychotherapy emphasis. I don't doubt that WashU residents get strong psychotherapy training (more than enough to be well-rounded and well-exposed before graduating), but it was made abundantly clear that it's not their "thing". I guess my main question here is if its reputation and clinical and research opportunities surpass UIC enough to rank it higher.

No, rank UIC #1. OK, don't listen to advice from random strangers on the internet, but my thoughts -- UIC is relatively well-known, and I'm sure has a strong local reputation. It fits more closely with your training interests, and you have a strong preference for being in Chicago, which is huge. For most psychiatrists, the reputation of their residency program is not that significant.

 

[JohnBender]

No, rank UIC #1. OK, don't listen to advice from random strangers on the internet, but my thoughts -- UIC is relatively well-known, and I'm sure has a strong local reputation. It fits more closely with your training interests, and you have a strong preference for being in Chicago, which is huge. For most psychiatrists, the reputation of their residency program is not that significant.

Thank you, Doc Bagel. I agree location is huge, and I loved the program. Just being indecisive.

 

[Abby_Normal]

Any thoughts?
Planning to go into academics. Pretty sure about most of my rank list, but thought I've been stewing over it so long, thought some objective input might be good for perspective.
1. Yale
2. Longwood
3. Brown
4. UMass
5. BU
6. Dartmouth
7. UVM,
8. MMC
9. UConn

I keep on going back and forth on BU and Dartmouth. Any thoughts on how they compare in terms of psychotherapy training? I really liked Dartmouth, but I got the sense they don't really prioritize psychotherapy. I don't know if it was just the people I spoke to...

 

[Armadillos]

Any thoughts?
Planning to go into academics. Pretty sure about most of my rank list, but thought I've been stewing over it so long, thought some objective input might be good for perspective.
1. Yale
2. Longwood
3. Brown
4. UMass
5. BU
6. Dartmouth
7. UVM,
8. MMC
9. UConn

I keep on going back and forth on BU and Dartmouth. Any thoughts on how they compare in terms of psychotherapy training? I really liked Dartmouth, but I got the sense they don't really prioritize psychotherapy. I don't know if it was just the people I spoke to...

I wouldnt stress it too much unless you feel your interviews went really bad at any of your top 3 for whatever reason.

 

[NickNaylor]

No, rank UIC #1. OK, don't listen to advice from random strangers on the internet, but my thoughts -- UIC is relatively well-known, and I'm sure has a strong local reputation. It fits more closely with your training interests, and you have a strong preference for being in Chicago, which is huge. For most psychiatrists, the reputation of their residency program is not that significant.

To add to this, FWIW @JohnBender our clerkship director did his training at UIC, and he has nothing but good things to say about his experience there.

 

[MedChic]

ahh ok, so who thinks: location/closeness to family > program quality or vice versa?

 

[enoughsaid12]

ahh ok, so who thinks: location/closeness to family > program quality or vice versa?

Who gives a flying f*ck about the program... It's all about location. You want to be at a place where you will be happy. Yes, you don't want to be at a program that is falling apart , but if the basic elements of an average psych program appear to be present, it's all about if you will be in a location where you can feel like you can thrive.
If you hate the cold and have family (that you would like to be near) in Cali, I don't care if a program in Chicago has the best Child Anorexia Trichotilimania clinic/research, you probably should rank it low. IMO at least

 

[NickNaylor]

ahh ok, so who thinks: location/closeness to family > program quality or vice versa?

Whatever is most important for you. For me, location is most important. I didn't even bother applying to programs in New England and LA (which obviously leaves out most/all of the "prestigious" programs) because I knew I wouldn't want to end up there. But not everyone shares those priorities.

 

[ziggyhope]

Any thoughts?
Planning to go into academics. Pretty sure about most of my rank list, but thought I've been stewing over it so long, thought some objective input might be good for perspective.
1. Yale
2. Longwood
3. Brown
4. UMass
5. BU
6. Dartmouth
7. UVM,
8. MMC
9. UConn

I keep on going back and forth on BU and Dartmouth. Any thoughts on how they compare in terms of psychotherapy training? I really liked Dartmouth, but I got the sense they don't really prioritize psychotherapy. I don't know if it was just the people I spoke to...

A PD told us at an interview that most (>80%) of candidates end up at their top 2 choices, ofc this should be taken with a huge grain of salt, but I think it speaks to the general trend nonetheless. Also, hope we end up working together at our top choice

 

[psychattending]

Alphabetical list:

Columbia
Cornell
Johns Hopkins
MGH/McLean
Pittsburgh

Interests: Academic psychiatry in tertiary care setting, likely on an inpatient unit; leadership/administrative training; robust psychotherapy exposure; will likely do a fellowship, with addiction, forensics, and psychosomatic being front-runners.

Specific questions:
1. Are there any real/perceived qualitative differences between programs on this list?
2. How would these be arranged: (a) if money were no matter? (b) and if a cost-of-living balance were most important?

I think the bottom three do a better job overall than Columbia and Cornell.

My order would be Pitt>Hopkins=MGH
With $ it would be Pitt>Hopkins>Boston

Also I believe that Pitt does a better job of training/supporting young academic psychiatrists.

 

[hopeful3488]

Can anyone comment on RWJ-Piscataway vs. University of Maryland Sheppard Pratt in terms of work/life balance, faculty teaching, academic rigor, good exposure to diverse psychopath and demographics?

 

[Abby_Normal]

A PD told us at an interview that most (>80%) of candidates end up at their top 2 choices, ofc this should be taken with a huge grain of salt, but I think it speaks to the general trend nonetheless. Also, hope we end up working together at our top choice

My mentor keeps telling me the same thing. I just tend to be insecure, esp with the relative competitiveness of my top choices.

 

[SmallBird]

I think the bottom three do a better job overall than Columbia and Cornell.

My order would be Pitt>Hopkins=MGH
With $ it would be Pitt>Hopkins>Boston

Also I believe that Pitt does a better job of training/supporting young academic psychiatrists.

Given the priorities articulated by the poster, I disagree with this. I think Columbia and Cornell are great places if you are interested in robust psychotherapy training and have an academic career in mind.

 

[VMSmith]

Given the priorities articulated by the poster, I disagree with this. I think Columbia and Cornell are great places if you are interested in robust psychotherapy training and have an academic career in mind.

Especially given the poster's sub specialty interests, Columbia kind of stands out as a great choice.

Not that the others are bad choices.

I'd recommend thinking about where you want to live and going from there.

 

[Indodo]

I've noted Case in the top 3 or excluded altogether. I'll throw in my 2 cents.

CWRU has had ups and downs. I schooled in the ivys and trained in california but spent some time there in a fellowhisp.
I would recommend it without hesitation.

It is/was a great learning institution. I also spent some time at CCF. There is no comparison other than name recognition. Psychoanalaysis, gestalt, community mental health, college was all only at Case. Not to mention Resnick. Best Forensic program in the country, he is still the kingmaker. Then again I chose weather and went to california.

The weather is terrible. The food is great. The basketball is great. The football is great. The people (except for the racist d-nozzels...but that is flyover country in general) are great.

 

[Lorbis]

Wow, I can't believe it's been 4 years since I've posted...

I need help. I've had a great interview season with 12 interviews that I am having trouble with the top five. So here it goes:

CPMC
U of Chicago
U of Colorado
UTexas/Dell Austin
Vanderbilt

I like to think of myself as scrappy so when I have the opportunity to go to the best school, I TAKE IT. However, I've become more concerned about my happiness as a whole and I want a diverse city, a bit rough around the edges, where I can continue to play music as a hobby (please don't tell me to quit my hobby). I'm essentially flip-flopping back and forth with the rank considering the reputation, the fabulousness of the city, and the music scene. I just want to know I'm not crazy, which is appropriate considering the thread. Thank you, comrades in psychiatry!

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I definitely plan to do a fellowship, perhaps forensics, but have an open mind.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Wow, I can't believe it's been 4 years since I've posted...

I need help. I've had a great interview season with 12 interviews that I am having trouble with the top five. So here it goes:

CPMC
U of Chicago
U of Colorado
UTexas/Dell Austin
Vanderbilt

I like to think of myself as scrappy so when I have the opportunity to go to the best school, I TAKE IT. However, I've become more concerned about my happiness as a whole and I want a diverse city, a bit rough around the edges, where I can continue to play music as a hobby (please don't tell me to quit my hobby). I'm essentially flip-flopping back and forth with the rank considering the reputation, the fabulousness of the city, and the music scene. I just want to know I'm not crazy, which is appropriate considering the thread. Thank you, comrades in psychiatry!

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I definitely plan to do a fellowship, perhaps forensics, but have an open mind.

Might almost depend on your chosen genre of music, given that list. ;-)

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Wow, I can't believe it's been 4 years since I've posted...

I need help. I've had a great interview season with 12 interviews that I am having trouble with the top five. So here it goes:

CPMC
U of Chicago
U of Colorado
UTexas/Dell Austin
Vanderbilt

I like to think of myself as scrappy so when I have the opportunity to go to the best school, I TAKE IT. However, I've become more concerned about my happiness as a whole and I want a diverse city, a bit rough around the edges, where I can continue to play music as a hobby (please don't tell me to quit my hobby). I'm essentially flip-flopping back and forth with the rank considering the reputation, the fabulousness of the city, and the music scene. I just want to know I'm not crazy, which is appropriate considering the thread. Thank you, comrades in psychiatry!

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I definitely plan to do a fellowship, perhaps forensics, but have an open mind.

Hmm, I wonder if playing music in Austin and Nashville would be harder since they are big deal music towns -- my understanding is that amateur musicians can do more in less well-developed music scenes, but I could be totally wrong and I don't know what your thoughts are about playing music (like do you want to perform a lot?). Otherwise, I'd think Austin and Nashville would have the "best" music scene thing happening. I've always had the impression that Nashville is pretty upscale and not rough around the edges, but hey, I could be totally wrong about that one, too. Austin is I guess pretty diverse and has some rough around the edges elements. It's not super urban, although I think it's getting more urban. Denver has an old city rough around the edges vibe, too -- not sure about diversity. San Francisco and Chicago would have both. Very different climates with these cities -- do you care about that?

Regarding the programs, hasn't UT Austin had like a ton of changes in a pretty short period of time. When I was applying, I think they were a relatively new (re-opened) program just starting an affiliation with UT-Southwestern. It looks like the affiliations have changed, so I'm guessing it's probably not the best place to be if you dislike change. Colorado is a big, academic type of program with a reputation for being a little more on the intense end, but who knows? U Chicago historically had a bad reputation here, although the information on that is old and probably not worth much now.

 

[nicnic]

I keep going back and forth on my first choice and I need help!

St. Luke's Roosevelt vs Montefiore

I did a year of research and although I'm mostly clinically oriented I do want to be somewhere with opportunities to continue. I know Montefiore is stronger in that sense, but SLR with it's new Mt. Sinai affiliation seems like a good option also. I'm very interested in psycotherapy, and both programs are strong that way. I tend to view Montefiore as slightly more prestigious but I would prefer to be in Manhattan so I wonder if it's worth trading location or if the difference is not all that significant? Afther residency I might want to do child fellowship or women's mental health, but not sure yet.

Thanks!!!!

 

[GreenBirch]

Anyone have opinions on UMass and BU?

Other than location (Boston > Worcester) and the PD (Dr. B at UMass is a gem), I have some trouble really differentiating between the two programs.

 

[bonvivant07]

Beth Israel vs. LIJ ?

mostly for better work/life balance, lesser scut work, less call/workload, better faculty teaching, didactics

in terms of what I think so far
BI: better location, residents seem to hang out together in the area,
area is expensive, not sure if PD is super approachable

LIJ: beautiful new psych hospital, great salary,
relatively new PD so don't think all the old reviews raving about the PD apply, 4 months of medicine instead of 3 months

Both seems to have very nice residents, but didn't meet all of them.

 

[zxg]

Beth Israel vs. LIJ ?

For what its worth, I met both PDs and found them both to be approachable. Neither are incredibly touchy-feely, so I see why you might have got an unapproachable vibe.

As for your pro/cons list, the salaries are not all that different, although I was only able to find BI salaries for 2013 on their web site. Comparing 2013 salaries, LIJ was 3.5k more PGY1 and then converged with BI. Things might have changed however. LIJ now starts at 67k with a 2k+1.5k COL bump every year. If you have updated salary info for BI, please post. I know I would be interested. The availability of moonlighting however, seems vastly different at the two programs, with BI not being particularly supportive of it, and LIJ seeming to have many different options and to let you do it as soon as you have a license. That might make a bigger difference in your standard of living then a 5 or 10k difference in salary.

As for the medicine months, my understanding is that they both have 4 months, but at BI one month is FM, and at LIJ 1 month is exclusively medicine consults to the psych hospital. Both let you substitute peds for some or all of the inpt med. You do neuro 2nd year at BI, as opposed to most programs were you do med and neuro in 1st yr, if not in the first 6 months.

 

[sunlioness]

I think the bottom three do a better job overall than Columbia and Cornell.

My order would be Pitt>Hopkins=MGH
With $ it would be Pitt>Hopkins>Boston

Also I believe that Pitt does a better job of training/supporting young academic psychiatrists.

I love Pitt. Great program. You could do a lot worse than get trained at WPIC. Pittsburgh is a great town to live in too. Low cost of living and still with lots of culture and things to do. Beautiful landscape. Lots of outdoorsy stuff if you're into that.