In the field of PM&R, people generally talk about programs based on the name of the Rehab Center at an institution, not the institution itself (RIC, Rusk, Kessler, Spaulding, not Northwestern, NYU, UMDNJ, or Harvard). So when the OP used the term Harvard as an example of a difficult training program to get into, it struck me as an a generic term, rather than a slight to other fine institutions. I also immediately assumed (and I may have been wrong here) that he was an outsider looking in on our field, since he referred to it as Harvard. Now I know the folks at Harvard are trying to get us to stop calling it Spaulding, but that is real inside baseball. I took it in its generic form, as used in characterizations like "the Harvard of the South, West, etc"
The old pros on here know this, but for newbies, US News rates HOSPITALS, NOT residencies. So when they rate REHAB HOSPITALS, RIC may be #1, but that does NOT mean the residency is necessarily the best in the country (a line I believe axm has blurred in the past). Several of the hopsptials ranged on the US News list only have peripheral relationships with rehab residencies.
Axm's posts have consistently suggested that part of your decision as a med student of what programs to rank highly should factor in the network of graduates you will join when you emerge from that institution. Inherent in that recommendation is th assumption that that a big program is better than a small one, (afterall, they will have a bigger networks) and the subtext is, since RIC has the strongest network, you should chose RIC (admittedly, she has never said that, but that's what I read into those words). Dr. Press has created an amazing network, with Drs Akathota, Frank, Geraci, Prather, and Chou now all playing leading roles in academics and the Academy. But that's the point - Axm wants to go that route. If you do, then her recommendations are useful to you. But if, like the vast majority of residents, you plan on going into private practice, then get the absolute best training you can,. in the place you feel you are the best fit. Maybe that is assumed. RIC was the best fit FOR Axm - it may or may not be for you.
I went to LSU, in large measure because I knew from the get-go I wanted to do interventional. For me, it was a terrific place. On the other hand, the program has glaring weaknesses. Drusso has spoken about the flaws he saw at Mayo. I would challenge Axm, especially now that she is removed from RIC, to look at it with a more critical eye, stop acting as a cheerleader, and give us the unvarnished truth about the program's flaws as well as its virtues.
As for UCLA, I can only say that there must have been a huge turnaround between a few years ago and now. Fellowship positions used to go begging there, and some of their own residents, even when offered fellowship positions, chose to go to other institutions. Alternatively, an RIC person went there a year or two ago, and carved out a path that more RIC people have now followed. This does not reflect on the quality of the fellowship, but rather the familiarity current residents have with the pathway. Oregon was a program few had heard about, until a few years of Mayo residents went there. Emory/GPP took two shlubs like Steve and me, but now a few years of Mayo residents have found there way to Georgia as well! Actually, a better measure might well be places that don't seem to have legacy pathways like that (ie. Press's very own SSRC fellowship).
In short, when someone, even someone as respected as Axm, makes a pronouncement on here, ignore, at least in part, their SDN reputation, and look behind the curtain (Wizard of Oz reference) to see their motivation, their experience, and figure out why they are saying it. None of us on here have all the answers, and quite honestly, the answers are different for a specific individual's circumstances. We argue a lot on here (or at least I do) - but all that heat generates light. Thus endeth the rant.
Thanks for the plug though. 
