Official 2019 Rank Order Lists

[DrGoon]

Hate to derail the NE livability debate...

Does anyone have any insight into the likelihood of being ranked highly by a program that pulls you off the waitlist? I was invited to interview at a mid tier university program within the past week and am pretty excited about it due to location. Is it likely that I am just going to round out the bottom of their rank list or are all things pretty much equal once you get to interview day. I realize it may be specific to individuals but am hoping a PD or aPD could offer some insight.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Is it likely that I am just going to round out the bottom of their rank list or are all things pretty much equal once you get to interview day. I realize it may be specific to individuals but am hoping a PD or aPD could offer some insight.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. It is likely that those interviewed without waitlist have better applications. You are entering interviews at a disadvantage. With that said, psych is not just about what is seen on paper. Good applicants can destroy their chances with poor interviews, and weak applicants can rise above with great interviews.

 

[unicornhorn]

Top 8 of my rank list are fairly set in stone (order to be determined with my SO) but really struggling with the bottom 4. Priorities: resident cohesiveness/friendly culture, COL, diverse clinical sites, opportunities in medical education, strong-ish psychotherapy training. See myself working in academia on the education side--would love to be a PD or clerkship director at some point.

In no particular order...

University of Washington: Loved Seattle and Harborview but the COL is a big turn-off and it's also far away from my family and my SO's family. Came away certain that I'd receive excellent training here, but the workload seemed a little ridiculous. The residents also seemed tired and overworked and I'm not sure how much resident cohesiveness there is with such large classes.

Stanford: Driving distance to my family. Liked the program except for the exceptionally high COL and a distaste for Palo Alto. Didn't really vibe with the residents, either. Perhaps too academic for me, on the weaker side as far as community psych offerings? Not sure if the Stanford name is worth the high COL, and I'd *really* like to not live with roommates come residency.

Case Western: Very cheap COL, seems strong in community psychiatry (and forensic psychiatry obviously), driving distance to my SO's family. However, was my least favorite interview day by far, didn't really vibe with the residents (and very much did not vibe with the other applicants that day which may have tainted my experience), didn't get a good feel for the residents or program culture, Cleveland was ... maybe not for me, to say the least. To be blunt, the only thing that's keeping me from ranking this program at the bottom is the COL and being close to my SO's family.

San Mateo: Driving distance to my family, strong community psychiatry/psychotherapy exposure, affiliation with Stanford for child psychiatry should I choose to go that route. Wouldn't really be able to do any medical education here. Big detractors are high COL, lots of driving to different sites in Bay Area traffic, small program, not sure if I want to be at such a cush place. I know you can moonlight a lot here because the program is so cush but does that makeup for the COL?


Thoughts on weighing COL/location with these programs?

 

[TexasPhysician]

Top 8 of my rank list are fairly set in stone (order to be determined with my SO) but really struggling with the bottom 4. Priorities: resident cohesiveness/friendly culture, COL, diverse clinical sites, opportunities in medical education, strong-ish psychotherapy training. See myself working in academia on the education side--would love to be a PD or clerkship director at some point.

In no particular order...

University of Washington: Loved Seattle and Harborview but the COL is a big turn-off and it's also far away from my family and my SO's family. Came away certain that I'd receive excellent training here, but the workload seemed a little ridiculous. The residents also seemed tired and overworked and I'm not sure how much resident cohesiveness there is with such large classes.

Stanford: Driving distance to my family. Liked the program except for the exceptionally high COL and a distaste for Palo Alto. Didn't really vibe with the residents, either. Perhaps too academic for me, on the weaker side as far as community psych offerings? Not sure if the Stanford name is worth the high COL, and I'd *really* like to not live with roommates come residency.

Case Western: Very cheap COL, seems strong in community psychiatry (and forensic psychiatry obviously), driving distance to my SO's family. However, was my least favorite interview day by far, didn't really vibe with the residents (and very much did not vibe with the other applicants that day which may have tainted my experience), didn't get a good feel for the residents or program culture, Cleveland was ... maybe not for me, to say the least. To be blunt, the only thing that's keeping me from ranking this program at the bottom is the COL and being close to my SO's family.

San Mateo: Driving distance to my family, strong community psychiatry/psychotherapy exposure, affiliation with Stanford for child psychiatry should I choose to go that route. Wouldn't really be able to do any medical education here. Big detractors are high COL, lots of driving to different sites in Bay Area traffic, small program, not sure if I want to be at such a cush place. I know you can moonlight a lot here because the program is so cush but does that makeup for the COL?


Thoughts on weighing COL/location with these programs?

I value family highly. If you do as well, I think that is more important than keeping costs down in random other cities, especially if they allow moonlighting.

 

[unicornhorn]

I value family highly. If you do as well, I think that is more important than keeping costs down in random other cities, especially if they allow moonlighting.

Appreciate your thoughts. What do you think re:Case Western which is close to my SO's family and cheap but a program that I wasn't too keen on?

 

[Old&InTheWay]

Top 8 of my rank list are fairly set in stone (order to be determined with my SO) but really struggling with the bottom 4. Priorities: resident cohesiveness/friendly culture, COL, diverse clinical sites, opportunities in medical education, strong-ish psychotherapy training. See myself working in academia on the education side--would love to be a PD or clerkship director at some point.

In no particular order...

University of Washington: Loved Seattle and Harborview but the COL is a big turn-off and it's also far away from my family and my SO's family. Came away certain that I'd receive excellent training here, but the workload seemed a little ridiculous. The residents also seemed tired and overworked and I'm not sure how much resident cohesiveness there is with such large classes.

Stanford: Driving distance to my family. Liked the program except for the exceptionally high COL and a distaste for Palo Alto. Didn't really vibe with the residents, either. Perhaps too academic for me, on the weaker side as far as community psych offerings? Not sure if the Stanford name is worth the high COL, and I'd *really* like to not live with roommates come residency.

Case Western: Very cheap COL, seems strong in community psychiatry (and forensic psychiatry obviously), driving distance to my SO's family. However, was my least favorite interview day by far, didn't really vibe with the residents (and very much did not vibe with the other applicants that day which may have tainted my experience), didn't get a good feel for the residents or program culture, Cleveland was ... maybe not for me, to say the least. To be blunt, the only thing that's keeping me from ranking this program at the bottom is the COL and being close to my SO's family.

San Mateo: Driving distance to my family, strong community psychiatry/psychotherapy exposure, affiliation with Stanford for child psychiatry should I choose to go that route. Wouldn't really be able to do any medical education here. Big detractors are high COL, lots of driving to different sites in Bay Area traffic, small program, not sure if I want to be at such a cush place. I know you can moonlight a lot here because the program is so cush but does that makeup for the COL?


Thoughts on weighing COL/location with these programs?

Along the lines of the reply just above, you may need to re-evaluate your priorities and values for these programs which are not perfect mactches for you. Or perhaps another way to think about is, “where do you think you will be least miserable?” The training will be adequate for almost whatever you want to to at any of these places.

Also, if these are your bottom 4 out of 12, I highly doubt you’ll get this deep in your list so I wouldn’t agonize over it too much.

 

[DrGoon]

Also, if these are your bottom 4 out of 12, I highly doubt you’ll get this deep in your list so I wouldn’t agonize over it too much.

Yeah I'm really hoping they aren't interviewing at any of the programs at the top of my list...

 

[TexasPhysician]

Appreciate your thoughts. What do you think re:Case Western which is close to my SO's family and cheap but a program that I wasn't too keen on?

If you aren’t keen on the location plus in-laws (could go either way), I’d probably rank them last. It isn’t that I think Case is bad, but I agree that I wouldn’t ever desire to live there. I think all 4 are fine training options. I haven’t checked recently, but historically San Mateo allowed ample moonlighting. Stanford with the name plus near family is a plus. Washington is at least an interesting area.

 

[kewlboy88]

The truth is somewhere in the middle. It is likely that those interviewed without waitlist have better applications. You are entering interviews at a disadvantage. With that said, psych is not just about what is seen on paper. Good applicants can destroy their chances with poor interviews, and weak applicants can rise above with great interviews.

I have a question about this, though. Given the high volume of applications, is it really that those that get an interview (vs. waitlist) have a better application on paper? I just feel like it's possible especially with this interview cycle that there are far more qualified applicants than there are interview spots. I'm a medical student so I don't know the process of what goes into deciding who gets waitlisted vs. who gets an interview. But, from what I know about my classmates application vs. mine, it's really variable. They have gotten interviews at places I was waitlisted, I have gotten interviews at places they were waitlisted (or rejected from).

 

[miz apply]

Struggling to order the following: Tulane, Tufts, Maine Med, Rush, Loyola
I'm interested in a program with good psychodynamic training, a diverse mix of patients (high functioning to underserved), opportunities to explore palliative care. Not interested in research, but could possibly see myself doing some academic/educational writing of some sort down the road. Side interests include culture/arts, food, yoga, writing.

- Tulane: liked the faculty/residents, nice facilities, academic track available, new orleans is very romantic but gritty, somewhat afraid of flooding, have never lived in the south, new VA leadership might indicate upcoming changes?
- Tufts: good psychodynamics, well connected faculty, early therapy training, good diversity of patients (except no VA), tons of stuff to do in the city but COL is so high and program feels small with somewhat worn facilities
- Maine: liked the PD and program coordinator, has a nice supportive community feel, pretty scenery/nature, cozy small town but not that ethnically diverse
- Rush/Loyola: Chicago is great and I have connections there, but I'm not sure if either program is the perfect fit. I like the faculty/residents at Loyola but they mainly train at the state facility or the VA. Rush has good opportunities but I worry about the work/life balance. Not sure if either program has a psychodynamic focus.

Bumping for any helpful insight!

 

[TexasPhysician]

I have a question about this, though. Given the high volume of applications, is it really that those that get an interview (vs. waitlist) have a better application on paper? I just feel like it's possible especially with this interview cycle that there are far more qualified applicants than there are interview spots. I'm a medical student so I don't know the process of what goes into deciding who gets waitlisted vs. who gets an interview. But, from what I know about my classmates application vs. mine, it's really variable. They have gotten interviews at places I was waitlisted, I have gotten interviews at places they were waitlisted (or rejected from).

First, keep in mind that I’m generalizing. Every program is different. There is generally little difference between the last 10 selected for an initial interview and the first 10 off the waitlist. However there can be a considerable difference on paper between the average initial interview offer and a waitlist applicant.

Secondly, programs look for different types of people. There are PD’s that believe every resident should publish or at least present a big project. These PD’s will give more weight to applicants that have already published. There are other PD’s that are heavily involved in a free clinic that become more excited by those that volunteer more or take on leadership roles with charitable organizations. Some in state capitals are bigger on advocacy/politics and want to see such activities. Some create various Step cut-offs and below each arbitrary number is a “step down” in quality. I’ve seen places that pride themselves in creating “leaders in the field” and others that want to improve care in their more rural state.

Where 1 PD may see equal applicants, another can see big differences.

Regardless interviews can play a big role, and I’ve seen great programs go unfilled. Waitlisted or not, put your best foot forward. You never know what will happen.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Bumping for any helpful insight!

It’s hard to compare Maine and Tulane. Very different weather, geography, culture, diversity, etc. I think Tulane has a lot of what you are looking for. It certainly has diversity and culture. I don’t know much about your other options though.

 

[Evidence Based]

Question especially for the residents/attendings @Evidence Based @SmallBird etc

How likely is it that we will match into our top 3 if we're pretty much interviewing at only competitive places (per Doximity rankings)? I'm afraid that the competition is super tough at the top programs

tbh it's super hard to know. I interviewed at mostly "competitive" programs and matched at my #1, but an n of 1 is basically meaningless. I hate to be cliche but I think it does somewhat depend on fit- if you mesh really well with the mission of more "competitive" places then you'll have a better chance of matching there (ex. lots of research at big academic places, along track record public service or health service experience at certain other programs, etc).

Other than that it's tough to parse, aside from knowing that a large majority of people overall match in their top 3.

 

[FlowRate]

I have a question about this, though. Given the high volume of applications, is it really that those that get an interview (vs. waitlist) have a better application on paper? I just feel like it's possible especially with this interview cycle that there are far more qualified applicants than there are interview spots. I'm a medical student so I don't know the process of what goes into deciding who gets waitlisted vs. who gets an interview. But, from what I know about my classmates application vs. mine, it's really variable. They have gotten interviews at places I was waitlisted, I have gotten interviews at places they were waitlisted (or rejected from).

It's entirely dependent on how the program creates and refines their rank list. Most programs quantify applicants in some way to generate at least their initial rank list. Some programs give you a score for the items on your application and add/average your interview performance. Other programs go entirely off of interview performance. Obviously the latter will be more likely to match someone pulled off the wait list than the former. Some programs that quantify application also send interviews in decreasing order of score while others might extend interviews to fit certain other goals, without totally sticking to the quantified metric.

 

[kewlboy88]

First, keep in mind that I’m generalizing. Every program is different. There is generally little difference between the last 10 selected for an initial interview and the first 10 off the waitlist. However there can be a considerable difference on paper between the average initial interview offer and a waitlist applicant.

Secondly, programs look for different types of people. There are PD’s that believe every resident should publish or at least present a big project. These PD’s will give more weight to applicants that have already published. There are other PD’s that are heavily involved in a free clinic that become more excited by those that volunteer more or take on leadership roles with charitable organizations. Some in state capitals are bigger on advocacy/politics and want to see such activities. Some create various Step cut-offs and below each arbitrary number is a “step down” in quality. I’ve seen places that pride themselves in creating “leaders in the field” and others that want to improve care in their more rural state.

Where 1 PD may see equal applicants, another can see big differences.

Regardless interviews can play a big role, and I’ve seen great programs go unfilled. Waitlisted or not, put your best foot forward. You never know what will happen.

Thank you for clarifying. Most of my classmates and I have been getting interviews at the top places, including the top 5 rated by doximity. But, other than that, the other schools we've been invited to have been variable.

I guess I just have a hard time believing, in the specific circumstances of my classmates, that if they were waitlisted or rejected from a program that I was invited to, that there is a considerable difference between them and I. But, again, I appreciate that you say you're generalizing because this process is so variable and program dependent it's hard to know exactly what each program looks for despite what they say in their mission statement/website/etc.

 

[ridethecliche]

This worked the same for med school remember? They're all looking for different things that are sometimes intangible. The fact that you've all been getting them at similar places means that you're all equally qualified.

Don't stress the small stuff.

 

[Psych Person]

Thank you for clarifying. Most of my classmates and I have been getting interviews at the top places, including the top 5 rated by doximity. But, other than that, the other schools we've been invited to have been variable.

I guess I just have a hard time believing, in the specific circumstances of my classmates, that if they were waitlisted or rejected from a program that I was invited to, that there is a considerable difference between them and I. But, again, I appreciate that you say you're generalizing because this process is so variable and program dependent it's hard to know exactly what each program looks for despite what they say in their mission statement/website/etc.

You make the assumption that every application gets evaluated thoroughly and objectively. The process is not some refined scientific unfolding. There is a lot of randomness, subjectivity and unpredictability—like with any human-dependent process. If you’re objectively outstanding, it’s more likely you get noticed and appreciated more easily. But for the rest of the psych application pool, the methods and selections for interviews and rankings are more arbitrary than I think most MS4’s appreciate. Even if an applicant is given a concrete, quantifiable “score” to compare to other applicants, plenty of the criteria will still be subjectively interpreted and then connected with a concrete value that “seems about right”. For example, on a scale of 1-10, how well does an applicant fit into the mission of the program they are interviewing at? Humans are complex, and the feelings plus the cognitive interpretation of the person evaluating an application/applicant will ultimately be translated into a # from 1-10. Each place has their own way, but these kinds of subjective interpretations —> rating scale scorings are common in this process. There are too many variables to control for, which is why it doesn’t really make sense when you’re an applicant who is hoping for things to work out. And honestly, a lot of people at programs will also let influence their decisions the sentiment “How much do I think this person wants to come here/ is likely to come here?” Geography is the #1 factor in the end I have observed for what creates a sense of security in a program feeling that you may truly desire them. If you’re on the mid-west or east coast near the majority of psych residencies and/or have lived in multiple states in your life thus far, especially for an average to below average (whatever these adjectives mean) applicant, your interview yield and match outcomes increase significantly.

 

[uhmocksuhsillen]

You make the assumption that every application gets evaluated thoroughly and objectively. The process is not some refined scientific unfolding. There is a lot of randomness, subjectivity and unpredictability—like with any human-dependent process. If you’re objectively outstanding, it’s more likely you get noticed and appreciated more easily. But for the rest of the psych application pool, the methods and selections for interviews and rankings are more arbitrary than I think most MS4’s appreciate. Even if an applicant is given a concrete, quantifiable “score” to compare to other applicants, plenty of the criteria will still be subjectively interpreted and then connected with a concrete value that “seems about right”. For example, on a scale of 1-10, how well does an applicant fit into the mission of the program they are interviewing at? Humans are complex, and the feelings plus the cognitive interpretation of the person evaluating an application/applicant will ultimately be translated into a # from 1-10. Each place has their own way, but these kinds of subjective interpretations —> rating scale scorings are common in this process. There are too many variables to control for, which is why it doesn’t really make sense when you’re an applicant who is hoping for things to work out. And honestly, a lot of people at programs will also let influence their decisions the sentiment “How much do I think this person wants to come here/ is likely to come here?” Geography is the #1 factor in the end I have observed for what creates a sense of security in a program feeling that you may truly desire them. If you’re on the mid-west or east coast near the majority of psych residencies and/or have lived in multiple states in your life thus far, especially for an average to below average (whatever these adjectives mean) applicant, your interview yield and match outcomes increase significantly.

To feed off of this...there were mid-tier university programs I sent a letter of interest to, who within <60 minutes of receiving my letter sent me an interview invite. These programs had already sent out at least 2 rounds of interviews. I fully believe some programs simply dont even fully review every application before spots are full. Had I waited another week or so before sending my letter, I wouldn't have even gotten the invite.

 

[uhmocksuhsillen]

Can anyone tell me more about Tulane vs musc? Like both of these programs a lot, having a hard time deciding which to rank higher.

 

[SourceOfDenial]

To feed off of this...there were mid-tier university programs I sent a letter of interest to, who within <60 minutes of receiving my letter sent me an interview invite. These programs had already sent out at least 2 rounds of interviews. I fully believe some programs simply dont even fully review every application before spots are full. Had I waited another week or so before sending my letter, I wouldn't have even gotten the invite.

My residency got 800 applications for 9 spots when I was chief. No way were we going to read all of them. Not feasible and not enough time.

 

[TexasPhysician]

My residency got 800 applications for 9 spots when I was chief. No way were we going to read all of them. Not feasible and not enough time.

For as long as the current system has been in place, applications have not all been read. I can narrow the number by dozens of criteria. With a few clicks, I can have a list of AMG’s with Step scores above 220 that have completed med school in 4 years with no class/step failures and have never completed other post-graduate training. That will greatly reduce the number. I can change and re-change search criteria to expand or narrow my list.

If an applicant expresses desire in my program, I can quickly pull up the application. If this person was screened by 1 point on Step (for example), I may choose to interview them as I now know this is someone with strong interest in my program.

 

[uhmocksuhsillen]

For as long as the current system has been in place, applications have not all been read. I can narrow the number by dozens of criteria. With a few clicks, I can have a list of AMG’s with Step scores above 220 that have completed med school in 4 years with no class/step failures and have never completed other post-graduate training. That will greatly reduce the number. I can change and re-change search criteria to expand or narrow my list.

If an applicant expresses desire in my program, I can quickly pull up the application. If this person was screened by 1 point on Step (for example), I may choose to interview them as I now know this is someone with strong interest in my program.

The thing I find interesting is, my app wouldn't have been screened out at these places unless they screen everyone from California, west coast, etc. My steps are high, no fails, etc. It felt like they literally just never even looked at mine for no obvious reason. One PD wrote back saying I'd be worthy of an interview but they didn't review me before they were full and he'd email if something opened up. I get it, they're inundated. I'm not complaining. But I do think sending letters of interest earlier than before is more prudent given the current environment we're in.

 

[Old&InTheWay]

The thing I find interesting is, my app wouldn't have been screened out at these places unless they screen everyone from California, west coast, etc. My steps are high, no fails, etc. It felt like they literally just never even looked at mine for no obvious reason. I get it, they're inundated. But I do think sending letters of interest earlier than before is more prudent given the current environment we're in.

Except eventually, everyone will send LORs all the programs they apply to and programs will be inundated with LORs rendering them meaningless and ineffective.

The arbitrary screening and randomness of the process is just something that will come along with popularity.

 

[uhmocksuhsillen]

Except eventually, everyone will send LORs all the programs they apply to and programs will be inundated with LORs rendering them meaningless and ineffective.

The arbitrary screening and randomness of the process is just something that will come along with popularity.

This is true...however for the applicant now or next year, there is only harm done by not sending. But yes, the earlier and more often this happens, the less effect it will have in successive years.

 

[TexasPhysician]

The thing I find interesting is, my app wouldn't have been screened out at these places unless they screen everyone from California, west coast, etc. My steps are high, no fails, etc.

There are tons of screening options, and many are not obvious. Some programs screen out people with Step scores that are too high as odds of matching them are too low. Some screen out AMG’s. Some want to see published research.

 

[ridethecliche]

Except eventually, everyone will send LORs all the programs they apply to and programs will be inundated with LORs rendering them meaningless and ineffective.

The arbitrary screening and randomness of the process is just something that will come along with popularity.

This is true...however for the applicant now or next year, there is only harm done by not sending. But yes, the earlier and more often this happens, the less effect it will have in successive years.

This has likely been true for... well... ever.

I remember folks saying this for med school and also now saying it for residency. I think there's some self policing involved. I really can't see folks taking the effort to reach out to more than their top 2-3 programs at most, if they do decide to do more than just one.

 

[uhmocksuhsillen]

This has likely been true for... well... ever.

I remember folks saying this for med school and also now saying it for residency. I think there's some self policing involved. I really can't see folks taking the effort to reach out to more than their top 2-3 programs at most, if they do decide to do more than just one.

I can tell you from direct knowledge, people are writing far more than just 2-3. I personally wrote to many more than this with about a 40% success rate, which is great considering I likely wasn't getting an interview at those programs had I not written a personalized letter.

 

[ridethecliche]

I can tell you from direct knowledge, people are writing far more than just 2-3. I personally wrote to many more than this with about a 40% success rate, which is great considering I likely wasn't getting an interview at those programs had I not written a personalized letter.

Pre-interview or post interview? I picked up maybe half of my interviews by emailing places and expressing that I was interested in their program. None of those things were what I would call love letters saying that it's where I wanted to go etc.

I sent thank you letters to all my programs too. Again, none of those were like... sucking up or anything. I'm terrible at that and refrain from doing it.

I will be calling or emailing my top 2-3 programs in feb expressing interest. Maybe it's silly of me, but I don't really want to go around telling all the programs I interviewed at that they're my top choice because that's bogus. People know people and word gets around. I'd rather be honest even if it's never going to bite me in the ass.

ymmv

 

[uhmocksuhsillen]

Pre-interview or post interview? I picked up maybe half of my interviews by emailing places and expressing that I was interested in their program. None of those things were what I would call love letters saying that it's where I wanted to go etc.

I sent thank you letters to all my programs too. Again, none of those were like... sucking up or anything. I'm terrible at that and refrain from doing it.

I will be calling or emailing my top 2-3 programs in feb expressing interest. Maybe it's silly of me, but I don't really want to go around telling all the programs I interviewed at that they're my top choice because that's bogus. People know people and word gets around. I'd rather be honest even if it's never going to bite me in the ass.

ymmv

Yah these were all pre-interviews... basically letters of interest to land an interview. Got like 5 solid interviews this way.

As far as post interview...just thank you emails and a single email to my number one.

 

[ridethecliche]

Yah these were all pre-interviews... basically letters of interest to land an interview. Got like 5 solid interviews this way.

As far as post interview...just thank you emails and a single email to my number one.

My bad, I though we were talking about post interview communication related to hinting that xyz place was at or near your top.

I see nothing wrong with sending letters trying to get an interview. One should def do that if one has an interest in the program. You should plan to actually go interview there though... or atleast cancel with enough time to fill the spot.

 

[4malit]

Question especially for the residents/attendings @Evidence Based @SmallBird etc

How likely is it that we will match into our top 3 if we're pretty much interviewing at only competitive places (per Doximity rankings)? I'm afraid that the competition is super tough at the top programs

Yeah, this is what has me worried. I'd be ecstatic with any of my top 3, and I'm afraid of falling below that after building them up in my head. Though to be honest, I'd be happy with any of the programs I interviewed at.

Priorities:
-would like to end up in academics (leadership/administrative)
-public health or policy focus
-good child exposure (poor phrasing but y'all know what I mean)

In no particular order...
CHA:
+loved the whole CHA philosophy- the CIR, support for social justice/advocacy, public health
+great C&A exposure with the inpatient child/adolescent units, elective time starting PGY1
+sites are walkable/bikeable
-felt the "imposter syndrome" strongest here. just felt like everyone was so much cooler (which sounds so stupid) and noticed that residents tended to be older/married or partnered, and I don't know if I'd fit in as a non-married/single person

MGH:
+also got great C&A exposure
+the resident advocacy committe sounds right up my alley
+can potentially work with pubic health/policy leaders in psychiatry from Harvard
+would be a great path for an academic career
-requires a fair amount of driving, especially with MGH and McLean being split
-heard a lot from other applicants that MGH residents are really unhappy there, but I'm taking it with a huge grain of salt since it's coming from the mouth of applicants, and the residents seemed happy

Penn:
+really loved Hall Mercer, seemed like an adult version of wraparound services
+potential to work with Wharton and other policy folks
+strong psychotherapy focus (founder of CBT and all) and get to work with psychology interns
+walkable/bikeable, COL is lower than Boston
-a little heavy on VA
-no inpt child psych at CHOP
-child exposure seemed more sparse than the other two since it seems like CHOP and general adult track are silo'd
-a little too biomed/neuroscience research heavy for me

Would really appreciate anyone's thoughts on sorting out my rank list. Sorry it's a little long, but gotta say typing it out made me get my thoughts in order which was helpful.

 

[Monocles]

Yeah, this is what has me worried. I'd be ecstatic with any of my top 3, and I'm afraid of falling below that after building them up in my head. Though to be honest, I'd be happy with any of the programs I interviewed at.

Priorities:
-would like to end up in academics (leadership/administrative)
-public health or policy focus
-good child exposure (poor phrasing but y'all know what I mean)

In no particular order...
CHA:
+loved the whole CHA philosophy- the CIR, support for social justice/advocacy, public health
+great C&A exposure with the inpatient child/adolescent units, elective time starting PGY1
+sites are walkable/bikeable
-felt the "imposter syndrome" strongest here. just felt like everyone was so much cooler (which sounds so stupid) and noticed that residents tended to be older/married or partnered, and I don't know if I'd fit in as a non-married/single person

MGH:
+also got great C&A exposure
+the resident advocacy committe sounds right up my alley
+can potentially work with pubic health/policy leaders in psychiatry from Harvard
+would be a great path for an academic career
-requires a fair amount of driving, especially with MGH and McLean being split
-heard a lot from other applicants that MGH residents are really unhappy there, but I'm taking it with a huge grain of salt since it's coming from the mouth of applicants, and the residents seemed happy

Both MGH and CHA are Harvard and would have access to public health/policy leaders from HMS. That being said, one of the characteristics of MGH is to train "future leaders of psychiatry" (whatever that means) whereas CHA is more focused on community psychiatry, social justice, etc. Either place if you are interested in academia you'll do fine.

Anecdotal stories about resident happiness aside, one objective data point is that hours at CHA are much more humane. They are the only unionised residency in the harvard system and have been for about 2 decades. This means that they've had work hour restrictions ingrained into their philosophy for much longer than MGH. One reason why CHA residents may be older is that the schedule is much more conducive to having a family and easier for people past their 20s.

Overall they are both excellent programs, just a matter of personal fit.

 

[bber54]

Debating Mt. Sinai Beth Israel, Dartmouth, Hopkins, Rush, University of Miami and UF. Goal is child psychiatry with good psychotherapy training. Any feedback?

 

[blueforest]

I posted before on page 1, but things have changed since then and I want some honest opinions.

In no particular order:
-DMC/Wayne State
-SUNY Upstate
-Penn State Hershey
-Kansas Uni School of Med - Wichita

Broad geographic range, but I honestly don't care about location anymore I think. Interests include child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy. I think I want to rank Penn State #1 but it's ranked a lot lower on Doximity (yeah I know I need to stop with that). SUNY Upstate feels like it's my number one deep down inside but I don't know how I feel about Syracuse (SO thinks it's a poor choice in terms of location). I know these programs aren't top 10 or even top 40 (mostly top programs are discussed here), but if anyone has any advice I'd appreciate it. I'd be happy anywhere I think.

Also, I read some negative opinions on SDN about HCA hospitals in Florida, but after interviewing there it seems like an ideal location for residency and the residents all seemed happy and satisfied with their training. What do I need to know from others with more experience who possibly work at HCA hospitals? There is a program there that has the potential of being in my top 4 and I would love to be there, but it's a newer community program.

Thank you everyone and good luck in the match!

 

[Monocles]

I posted before on page 1, but things have changed since then and I want some honest opinions.

In no particular order:
-DMC/Wayne State
-SUNY Upstate
-Penn State Hershey
-Kansas Uni School of Med - Wichita

Broad geographic range, but I honestly don't care about location anymore I think. Interests include child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy. I think I want to rank Penn State #1 but it's ranked a lot lower on Doximity (yeah I know I need to stop with that). SUNY Upstate feels like it's my number one deep down inside but I don't know how I feel about Syracuse (SO thinks it's a poor choice in terms of location). I know these programs aren't top 10 or even top 40 (mostly top programs are discussed here), but if anyone has any advice I'd appreciate it. I'd be happy anywhere I think.

Also, I read some negative opinions on SDN about HCA hospitals in Florida, but after interviewing there it seems like an ideal location for residency and the residents all seemed happy and satisfied with their training. What do I need to know from others with more experience who possibly work at HCA hospitals? There is a program there that has the potential of being in my top 4 and I would love to be there, but it's a newer community program.

Thank you everyone and good luck in the match!

lol doximity

If all programs were "ranked" equally where do you feel most comfortable?

Keep in mind that psychiatrists just basically have to graduate to get their pick of jobs. I went to a state med school and friends who stayed there for psych said it was a breeze and they are getting 250k+ offers straight out of residency .. Whereas I go to a "name brand" residency now and attendings here are making 140k after being in the system for 10 years, purely for the name affiliation.

Go where you would be happy. Prestige is dumb.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Go where you would be happy. Prestige is dumb.

So you are saying that wearing my Harvard t-shirt around Lubbock would not make me more cool and worth training there?

 

[DrGoon]

So you are saying that wearing my Harvard t-shirt around Lubbock would not make me more cool and worth training there?

You’d catch raider rash real fast with that Harvard T-shirt

 

[ridethecliche]

So you are saying that wearing my Harvard t-shirt around Lubbock would not make me more cool and worth training there?

Skip the residency and rep the shirt. No one will know the difference! It'll be just like high school where everyone in an honors class had a harvard/yale/princeton shirt!

 

[@gainstAllOdds]

Hey All,

I need some help in ranking my first half of the list... Have immediate family in DFW (Texas), as well as NYC, SO's family lives in Canada

Important factors to me: Location (Texas (most family resides here), New York, Close proximity to Canada), Strength of Clinical Training and Variety of training Sites, Psychotherapy Emphasis (CBT, DBT, Psychodynamics), Collegial/Supportive Environment, Interested in CAP fellowship down the line.

First Half of the List Includes: (no particular order)... Please Help!

UT Austin
John Peter Smith (JPS)- i know this place doesn't have a lot of variety in training sites but the APD said their residents are "Highly Sought After" and I know that the program is work heavy, and does not have a great emphasis on psychotherapy.
Drexel University- interviewed for both general adult as well as the combined CAP. thoughts on the strength of their CAP fellowship!? so i can determine where to rank the combined program?
Penn State Hershey- Absolutely loved the PD and other faculty, residents seemed relatively happy.
Albany Medical Center- emphasis on psychotherapy, variety of clinical settings, close to NYC and Canada.
University of Buffalo (Interviewed for General Adult as well as Combined CAP program- 2 separate rankings)- feels like a solid program but do not like location (Buffalo winters/snow and lake effect) so feel conflicted.
UMMS-Baystate- not a lot of variety in training sites but got a great vibe from the leadership (PD, chair).

First preference is Texas but conflicted about ranking JPS (close to family) over other more balanced programs... what do you guys think? another part of me thinks that it doesn't matter how close i will be to family since i'll be busy working my life away, so why not go to a more balanced program? THOUGHTS?!?!

THANKS FOR THE HELP GUYS!

 

[kewlboy88]

Yeah, this is what has me worried. I'd be ecstatic with any of my top 3, and I'm afraid of falling below that after building them up in my head. Though to be honest, I'd be happy with any of the programs I interviewed at.

Priorities:
-would like to end up in academics (leadership/administrative)
-public health or policy focus
-good child exposure (poor phrasing but y'all know what I mean)

In no particular order...
CHA:
+loved the whole CHA philosophy- the CIR, support for social justice/advocacy, public health
+great C&A exposure with the inpatient child/adolescent units, elective time starting PGY1
+sites are walkable/bikeable
-felt the "imposter syndrome" strongest here. just felt like everyone was so much cooler (which sounds so stupid) and noticed that residents tended to be older/married or partnered, and I don't know if I'd fit in as a non-married/single person

MGH:
+also got great C&A exposure
+the resident advocacy committe sounds right up my alley
+can potentially work with pubic health/policy leaders in psychiatry from Harvard
+would be a great path for an academic career
-requires a fair amount of driving, especially with MGH and McLean being split
-heard a lot from other applicants that MGH residents are really unhappy there, but I'm taking it with a huge grain of salt since it's coming from the mouth of applicants, and the residents seemed happy

Penn:
+really loved Hall Mercer, seemed like an adult version of wraparound services
+potential to work with Wharton and other policy folks
+strong psychotherapy focus (founder of CBT and all) and get to work with psychology interns
+walkable/bikeable, COL is lower than Boston
-a little heavy on VA
-no inpt child psych at CHOP
-child exposure seemed more sparse than the other two since it seems like CHOP and general adult track are silo'd
-a little too biomed/neuroscience research heavy for me

Would really appreciate anyone's thoughts on sorting out my rank list. Sorry it's a little long, but gotta say typing it out made me get my thoughts in order which was helpful.

I did bump into some Harvard Medical students on the interview trail. And they didn't say that MGH psychiatry residents were malignant or mean, but they frequently said that they looked "overworked" and "tired." when they did their rotation... So, take that for what it is. On the other hand, they did say CHA residents seemed very happy.

 

[tellme_areyoufree]

I did bump into some Harvard Medical students on the interview trail. And they didn't say that MGH psychiatry residents were malignant or mean, but they frequently said that they looked "overworked" and "tired." when they did their rotation... So, take that for what it is. On the other hand, they did say CHA residents seemed very happy.

I rotate alongside some of the mgh/McLean residents. It does seem they work hard, but I didn't get the sense that they were in a malignant program. I really liked the residents I rotated with, those I've worked with have been cool. Granted, limited knowledge gleaned from resident-to-resident conversations. At McLean at least, the faculty are amazing.

 

[scruffy821]

Top 8 of my rank list are fairly set in stone (order to be determined with my SO) but really struggling with the bottom 4. Priorities: resident cohesiveness/friendly culture, COL, diverse clinical sites, opportunities in medical education, strong-ish psychotherapy training. See myself working in academia on the education side--would love to be a PD or clerkship director at some point.

In no particular order...

University of Washington: Loved Seattle and Harborview but the COL is a big turn-off and it's also far away from my family and my SO's family. Came away certain that I'd receive excellent training here, but the workload seemed a little ridiculous. The residents also seemed tired and overworked and I'm not sure how much resident cohesiveness there is with such large classes.

Stanford: Driving distance to my family. Liked the program except for the exceptionally high COL and a distaste for Palo Alto. Didn't really vibe with the residents, either. Perhaps too academic for me, on the weaker side as far as community psych offerings? Not sure if the Stanford name is worth the high COL, and I'd *really* like to not live with roommates come residency.

Case Western: Very cheap COL, seems strong in community psychiatry (and forensic psychiatry obviously), driving distance to my SO's family. However, was my least favorite interview day by far, didn't really vibe with the residents (and very much did not vibe with the other applicants that day which may have tainted my experience), didn't get a good feel for the residents or program culture, Cleveland was ... maybe not for me, to say the least. To be blunt, the only thing that's keeping me from ranking this program at the bottom is the COL and being close to my SO's family.

San Mateo: Driving distance to my family, strong community psychiatry/psychotherapy exposure, affiliation with Stanford for child psychiatry should I choose to go that route. Wouldn't really be able to do any medical education here. Big detractors are high COL, lots of driving to different sites in Bay Area traffic, small program, not sure if I want to be at such a cush place. I know you can moonlight a lot here because the program is so cush but does that makeup for the COL?

Thoughts on weighing COL/location with these programs?

In terms of San Mateo vs. Stanford, both are great but they are pretty different programs, particularly in the fact that San Mateo has no call (so like you mentioned, much lighter workload than average and more time for moonlighting), while Stanford is an academic program and university hospital that has call (generally considered to be within the average workload of academic programs), and San Mateo is smaller resident wise (~4/class, vs. ~12 at Stanford) and the residents are more spread out via sites. Have you looked at what the actual salary would look like at each place once you includes stipends and whatnot? That might give you sense of what the COL will feel like at each, as Stanford tends to have a higher baseline salary + stipends but San Mateo could have more time/money for moonlighting. Also, I would check in with San Mateo saying that they are affiliated with Stanford child psychiatry, because I'm not sure what that means practically, particularly in your general psychiatry training. I've known folks at both programs and they are essentially located in the same region of the Bay Area (South Bay) so housing prices look about the same, and the folks I know have managed to live without roommates in studios/1-bedrooms without issue.

 

[Shufflin]

Skip the residency and rep the shirt. No one will know the difference! It'll be just like high school where everyone in an honors class had a harvard/yale/princeton shirt!

That was so 1990s and 2000s c'mon. Gen Z-ers don't show honors. We subvert brands and capitalism while being creative. We're into skinny jeans, crop top, bodycon dresses, t-shirts with Fortnite upgrades and Supreme, even the whole 90s retro thing rules, we're obsessively on our phones shopping the Urban Outfitters, Lilly Pulitzer, and Vineyard Vines apps, and snapping selfies to share on Vsco, while wearing Glossier for that no-makeup makeup look.

where have you been

 

[ridethecliche]

That was so 1990s and 2000s c'mon. Gen Z-ers don't show honors. We subvert brands and capitalism while being creative. We're into skinny jeans, crop top, bodycon dresses, t-shirts with Fortnite upgrades and Supreme, even the whole 90s retro thing rules, we're obsessively on our phones shopping the Urban Outfitters, Lilly Pulitzer, and Vineyard Vines apps, and snapping selfies to share on Vsco, while wearing Glossier for that no-makeup makeup look.

where have you been

Apparently ... I just dated myself....

Also.

SUPREME.

 

[Shufflin]

Apparently ... I just dated myself....

Also.

SUPREME.

Coolio 👍

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Anyone else kind of find it difficult to rank programs outside of maybe their top one or two?

 

[4malit]

Anyone else kind of find it difficult to rank programs outside of maybe their top one or two?

yup. one thing that's helped is using a preference ranker tool like the one here Jon Aquino's Mental Garden: Elo Preference Ranker, it has you compare 2 programs at a time (which feels more manageable) and builds a rank list. credits to someone on reddit who recommended it. I'm still not settled on my rank list (esp the top 3) but it's forced me tap into my "gut feeling"

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

yup. one thing that's helped is using a preference ranker tool like the one here Jon Aquino's Mental Garden: Elo Preference Ranker, it has you compare 2 programs at a time (which feels more manageable) and builds a rank list. credits to someone on reddit who recommended it. I'm still not settled on my rank list (esp the top 3) but it's forced me tap into my "gut feeling"

Tbh, this is kind of what I was looking for. I'm happy something like it exists!

 

[TexasPhysician]

Anyone else kind of find it difficult to rank programs outside of maybe their top one or two?

Very common. I remember thinking that I would be excited with top 3, neutral to 4-6, and disappointed with 7-10. Anything within the neutral and disappointing groups was a toss-up.

 

[RRNMD]

Trying to decide between. Stanford vs. UCSF for my number one.

UCSF: I love everything about the program except call schedule.

Stanford: More flexibility with what I can do with my time there.

Location wise I'm from the Bay so I can live anywhere in the Bay and be okay with it.