The Post-Interview Thread - Post Interview Experiences Here

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Florida was great. Residents were receptive and seemed to get along very well. faculty is young and many are recent residents. Good interaction btwn residents and attendings. Call is ridiculously resident friendly (4/mnth and its from home). Lots of flexibilty...if you have and interest a way can be made to pursue it. Not many negatives really...have to be self-motivator...effciency is key because you can be easily overwhelmed. Medicine can be intense...but doable....you push 80hrs. Outpatient begins in 2nd yr and you can pick up a therapy patient in 1st year if you have a interesting case.

Gainesville is nice. Has lots of young professionals. Pop. of 100,000 w/ U of F accounting for half. Not alot of diversity in the faculty and residents...but that may or may not matter to most...I happen to be an AA male..so it kinda matters. Gas is outrageous and housing cost are creeping up, but otherwise cost of living is okay (Most residents own homes) Schools are excellent and there is lots of outdoorsy type stuff to do. Close to Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa

Feel free to ask for any additional info. Happened to have loved it and am planning to rank them very highly.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Dinner the night before was pleasant. Good, plentiful food, and lots of wine. The residents were very friendly and seemed to really be enjoying the free meals that are the fruits of interview season. Not sure if this is because they are particularly sociable or because Boston is so expensive.

The morning of the interview opens with an intro by the PD who states that there are three particular strenghths of the program: C/L, community psych, and psychotherapy (psychodynamic, CBT, and DBT). The clinical experiences are more diverse than most programs including a Child Psych inpt at Boston Childrens, Partial Hospital, Community outreach (going into homes), and working as a psychiatrist in a primary care clinic. The residents all seemed pleased with the quality of these experiences and confident in their clinical abilities, yet did not seem overworked.

The PD and residents stressed the importance given to CBT and neurobiology in the program and that their enthusiasm for psychoanalysis was not dogmatic. Yet many of the residents are in analysis and plan on opening largely psyhotherapy-based practices. The leadership is made up mostly of analysts and this shows in their interviews. One interviewer just didn't seem to know what to say to me about the program. In fact, he seemed to have trouble articulating, as if he had spent too many hours pretending to listen and had lost his verbal coherence. The PD himself opened the interview by asking where I came from and who my parents were. He went on to probe my adolescence and ask me if I had a significant other. Everyone was nice and I honestly didn't mind at the time as I was in interview-mode, but looking back the whole thing was creepy, inappropriate, and just downright uninspiring. I did not have the impression that these were people who were going to harness the recent explosion of knowledge and move the field forward. But if you plan on charging rich Bostonites and Manhattanites $300 for an indulgent hour at the expense of thousands who don't have access to mental health care, then this may be the program (and the city) for you.
 
nortomaso said:
Dinner the night before was pleasant. Good, plentiful food, and lots of wine. The residents were very friendly and seemed to really be enjoying the free meals that are the fruits of interview season. Not sure if this is because they are particularly sociable or because Boston is so expensive.
The morning of the interview opens with an intro by the PD who states that there are three particular strenghths of the program: C/L, community psych, and psychotherapy (psychodynamic, CBT, and DBT). The clinical experiences are more diverse than most programs including a Child Psych inpt at Boston Childrens, Partial Hospital, Community outreach (going into homes), and working as a psychiatrist in a primary care clinic. The residents all seemed pleased with the quality of these experiences and confident in their clinical abilities, yet did not seem overworked.

The PD and residents stressed the importance given to CBT and neurobiology in the program and that their enthusiasm for psychoanalysis was not dogmatic. Yet many of the residents are in analysis and plan on opening largely psyhotherapy-based practices. The leadership is made up mostly of analysts and this shows in their interviews. One interviewer just didn't seem to know what to say to me about the program. In fact, he seemed to have trouble articulating, as if he had spent too many hours pretending to listen and had lost his verbal coherence. The PD himself opened the interview by asking where I came from and who my parents were. He went on to probe my adolescence and ask me if I had a significant other. Everyone was nice and I honestly didn't mind at the time as I was in interview-mode, but looking back the whole thing was creepy, inappropriate, and just downright uninspiring. I did not have the impression that these were people who were going to harness the recent explosion of knowledge and move the field forward. But if you plan on charging rich Bostonites and Manhattanites $300 for an indulgent hour at the expense of thousands who don't have access to mental health care, then this may be the program (and the city) for you.


Holy Shink Norto, that was the FUNNIEST review I've ever read :laugh: :laugh:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
1. Important questions you asked/were asked
With the exception of one interviewer who asked about my personal weaknesses and challenges and whatnot, the interviews were all very laid back. Everyone had obviously read my application/personal statement. Most of my interviewers wanted to talk about my research, and wanted to know what I was looking for in a program. The PD gives us all a talk at the beginning about the structure of the program, so during the individual interviews (one in the morning and one in the afternoon) it's all personal stuff. He obviously wants to get to know each applicant. Unfortunately, the chair Dr. Nemeroff was out of the country, so we didn't get to meet with him.

2. Big highlights of the program
- outstanding research opportunities! The Center for Behavioral Neuroscience was started by Tom Insel, who recently left to head NIMH, and has over 100 PIs working together in five "co-laboratories." Imaging, animal work (including primate), clinical studies, genetics... And the chair Charles Nemeroff (whom everyone calls Charlie) is a research giant. They don't have a formal research track, but one or two residents a year end up doing research. There's not much time during the first two years. I talked to one resident who started writing review papers as a PGY2 though. Most residents start going to lab meetings and dabbling during the third year, then the entire fourth year is electives, so aside from your therapy patients, you can devote the rest of your time to research if you wish. There is talk of developing a 5-year research track, but they haven't worked out funding issues yet. This would be geared towards residents who didn't come in with a strong research background but discovered they liked it and wanted more training during residency.
- Diversity of patient populations. Grady is the county hospital, so a large indigent population. Grady has its own PES. You also work at Emory, where you see a wealthier higher functioning population, and a geriatric hospital.
- the psychoanalytic institute is physically in the psych dept administration building, so you get lots of psychodynamically oriented supervision
- very strong community psychiatry emphasis. They have a fellowship in it, even though it's not yet an official specialty.

3. Estimated call hours
It's a front loaded program.
PGY1: 6 consecutive months of psych + 6 consecutive months of non-psych. Half of the residents do non-psych first, and vice versa. Non-psych consists of 1 month neuro + 1 month neuro consults at the geriatric hospital. You can divide the other 4 months between medicine and peds however you want: 4 medicine, 4 peds, 2&2. One month is ER, either med or peds ER. As usual, medicine/peds is q4. Psych is at Grady. Call is q6 and you have lots of autonomy. There is a moonlighter in the PES until midnight, then you're on your own. You call the attending if you discharge someone. Otherwise you do what you wanna do. I got the impression that calling the attending a lot was discouraged. There is a 23 hour hold area for people you're not sure about, and a crisis management center for < 7 day stays.
PGY2: Call is also q6, at Emory and the VA, but much of this can be done from home. Emory is private, so there is much less autonomy. You have to check in with the attending a lot. The residents consistently said that it was weird and somewhat annoying to have a leash put on you after being at Grady, but that in retrospect they appreciated the teaching. This is also when you get your first therapy patients.
PGY3: All outpatient. You have certain days and half-days alloted for patients at Grady, patients at Emory, pharmacotherapy clinic, children, etc. And your supervisors are all over Atlanta, so lots of driving this year. But there is a shuttle that goes to all of the sites. And free parking.
PGY4. All elective, besides your therapy patients.

4. Friendliness of the program residents, faculty and staff
Residents seem very happy and friendly. Because the PGY1s get split in half the interns don't know the other half very well, but then that gets resolved in the PGY2 year. They seem to hang out with each other, even the ones with kids.

5. Location pluses and minuses
I had heard such awful things about Atlanta's sprawl problem, but I was pleasantly surprised. Atlanta is surrounded by a beltway, and if you live outside of it because you want an inexpensive big house in the burbs, you have a horrible 1.5 hour commute via interstate. But if you live inside the beltway, you never have to get on the interstate and everything is 10-20 minutes away. There are various little neighborhoods with restaurants and stores that you can walk to. Many of the residents buy decent-sized condos or townhomes for around $200K. As far as stuff to do, there is lots. Atlanta is very urban - the so-called "new south" - with tons of good restaurants, a new aquarium, sports, music scene. Large black and latino populations. Apparently it's the hip hop capital of the world. I had no idea. I think I would like it here. There is a train system, but oftentimes it doesn't seem to go where you want it to go, and there is no stop at Emory. And if you have a couple kids and want to buy a big house in the burbs, the commute would suck. The climate: mild winters, long spring and summer, but 4 months out of the year it is hot as hell.

6. Most positive aspects of program
- world-class research
- diverse patient population
- excellent psychodynamic training
- responsive PD and strong chairman

7. Most negative aspects of program
- the driving
- the supervision is very heavily geared towards psychodynamic. You can get supervision in other areas - one faculty member is well-known in CBT for example - but you have to seek it out.
 
I know that it sounds cheezy, but I would actually be happy at either of the programs where I've been fortunate enough to interview thus far! I really think that psych. departments have very nice people in general. I can't even imagine what my ROL will look like. Oh well, it's still early December and I'm heading north in three weeks -- that may alter my love affair with snow.
 
atsai3,

Where have your reviews gone? I wanted to piggyback your UCSF review :)
 
I was just browsing this thread since hearing different points of view was so helpful to me last year when I was applying to residency programs. If you browse my posts from last year, you’ll see that I matched at Harvard Longwood, and I wanted to offer an insider’s view of the program that may contrast with what has recently been posted here.

I have found the program to be extremely well-balanced in terms of the emphasis on neuroscience and psychotherapy (both psychodynamic and behavioral). In fact the first year didactic series is heavily weighted toward the biological basis of mental illness, with psychotherapy training coming later in the program. While therapy training is emphasized, there is no formal psychoanalytic training available within the program; you would have to look at a psychoanalytic institute for that.

In terms of what our graduates pursue, looking at our current 4th year class, none of them are planning on a career in psychoanalysis. 3 matched in child fellowships last year, another 3 are matching in child fellowships this year, 3 have matched in consult-liaison fellowships, 3 are looking for jobs in community psychiatry, 3 are looking for general practice jobs, and one is pursuing research in neuroimaging. This is pretty typical for the distribution of interests in the classes. And yes, the free meals are a nice perk in an expensive city :p If you guys have any questions regarding the program, I would be happy to address them.

Best of luck with the match :luck:
 
JerJer said:
I was just browsing this thread since hearing different points of view was so helpful to me last year when I was applying to residency programs. If you browse my posts from last year, you’ll see that I matched at Harvard Longwood, and I wanted to offer an insider’s view of the program that may contrast with what has recently been posted here.

I have found the program to be extremely well-balanced in terms of the emphasis on neuroscience and psychotherapy (both psychodynamic and behavioral). In fact the first year didactic series is heavily weighted toward the biological basis of mental illness, with psychotherapy training coming later in the program. While therapy training is emphasized, there is no formal psychoanalytic training available within the program; you would have to look at a psychoanalytic institute for that.

In terms of what our graduates pursue, looking at our current 4th year class, none of them are planning on a career in psychoanalysis. 3 matched in child fellowships last year, another 3 are matching in child fellowships this year, 3 have matched in consult-liaison fellowships, 3 are looking for jobs in community psychiatry, 3 are looking for general practice jobs, and one is pursuing research in neuroimaging. This is pretty typical for the distribution of interests in the classes. And yes, the free meals are a nice perk in an expensive city :p If you guys have any questions regarding the program, I would be happy to address them.

Best of luck with the match :luck:


Thanks for balancing out my review. Its getting at that point in the interview season when hours of planes and trains are taking their toll on my objectivity. As I said in my review, my discomfort was not with the program content, as the clinical training is convincingly solid and the residents I met were all great. For me it was more the style of the interviewers. Since one was the PD and the other an assistant PD, and I was told that the chair of the Brigham was an analyst as well, I felt that it was a fair point to make. I'm hoping to find a program where I feel 100% comfortable with the leadership...and being asked right off the bat about my parents, significant other, and personal problems as a teenager by the program director struck me as frankly unprofessional, which for me was enough to make my choice of program a little bit easier. At other programs, the PD's were more interested in hearing about why I chose psychiatry, what my professional interests were, and in turn gave me an excellent idea of how the program fit with those interests and how it could nurture them. I don't doubt that my career or anyone else's could flower at Longwood no matter what your interests are as the resources are vast and the faculty seemingly very supportive. But I'm sure it can as well at many of the other programs where the PD's conducted themselves more professionally.
 
Please make these points:

1. Important questions you asked/were asked

I had the worst interview experience this season as my final interview here. Please PM me if you need details about it.


The other interviewers were very nice and it was the same type of deal as the rest. I think I felt like Norto did after his weird experiences with regard to my last interviewer.

2. Big highlights of the programs

They have some great facilities and the research opportunities are great. The residents are unbelievably great - I loved spending time with them. They all had a great sense of humor and got along well - definitely some of the most adventurous and normal I've met so far (except for at USC ofcourse ;) )

3. Estimated call hours

2 ward calls (home), 2 er calls (home) per month - one weekend (round in am)

4. Friendliness of the program residents, faculty and staff

Fantastic minus that weird interviewer guy

5. Location pluses and minuses
Gainesville is nice but getting pricey - 200,000 avge for a house, cheaper if you move futher away from campus. pretty area and nice family enviornment, tough for young singles that are over 22 since this is a college town.
6. Most positive aspects of program

residents and faculty get along well, facilities are like new, and everything osiris said in his review. limited scutwork, call is SWEET, area is nice.

7. Most negative aspects of program
 
has anyone interviewed at u of miami i would like to know their impression of the program
 
1. Important questions you asked/were asked

I had incredible interviewers! Most of the time I got to talk about myself and just ask questions. Everyone was so friendly. One question that did come up over and over was whether I had friends or family in the Bay area. I guess they want to see if people had a reason to go to SF. As a gay man, I found the point rather moot :)

2. Big highlights of the programs
I think I would have to list everything! There are so many pluses for me.
1. Call - it isn't that bad and has a very get your feet wet mentality for internship.
2. Residents - I clicked really well with everyone I met! I was expecting a lot of MD/PhDs who didn't favor social interaction as much as working in a lab. Boy, was I wrong. I insstantly connected with everyone I met.
3. Diverse patient population - SF is right up there with NYC as far as patients are concerned. You'll see everything here. Plus, I have a huge interest in lgbt issues. I can't think of a better place to get to work with such a large, diverse subset of this population.
4. Inpatient units at the General. They are arranged by minority/ethnicity/extremely connected group of people. I am so interested to see how this works!
5. Therapy begins halfway through second year. They really balance all different modalities.
6. Resident ownership of the program - lots of change occuring in the program due to resident induced initiatives.
7. Chair seems to be very approachable.


3. Estimated call hours
Q8 on psych as PGY1, only for crosscover issues. Medicine is roughly Q4, but you only do 2 months of inpt med.
PGY2 roughly does 3-4 weeks of night float per year and a couple of weekend shifts per month.
PGY3 and 4 see fewer weeks of nightfloat.

4. Friendliness of the program residents, faculty and staff
I've commented on this above. I absolutely loved them. It's a perfect match for me. I got the feeling that the program director and chair really look to residents to help improve the program. It's only getting better.

5. Location pluses and minuses
I think that the only thing not to love about SF is the cost. They are trying to help with that though.

6. Most positive aspects of program
I listed most of these above.

7. Most negative aspects of program
The program director is a little hard to connect with. But, I got the sense that he cared a lot about the program and would go to bat for people. Opportunities are vast here, but you have to seek them out. I like how that makes me more in control of my education.

Good luck everyone. Where are some other reviews?
 
Hurricane said:
My friend who is applying to UW IM said that the probation is for hours violations, and as you said, they've fixed it and hope to be off probation next year.

That's scary about the UW IM hours violation. At the same time as a first year resident at the program, I really have enjoyed my first 6 psychiatry months. Fairly long workdays (8ish to 5-6:30 ish), but a great variety of patients, knowledgable even scholarly fellow residents and attendings, and an incredible variety of patients to learn from. Call has been limited to two nigtfloat weeks every 3 months + a weekend 12 hr shift every other week. We have many training calls at each site, which provides a unique opportunity to hang out with upper level residents. Overall, the department has a lot of heart and is a good place to be at for me as a trainee.

My fellow residents in IM say the hours are long, but overall worth it and well supported- It will be tough to shift gears into medicine next month though Please e-mail many questions about the program in general- I really like it!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I was absolutely blown away by this program. I find that it is very well rounded, receptive, family friendly, and dedicated to the underserved population - all things I find to be very important for a program I train at. I am particularly impressed that psychiatry is so well respected by all other specialties here. I loved that residents have the ability to pursue almost anything they choose from research to psychoanalysis, to fellowships to academic tracks - just about any aspect of psych you want to get into, you can do it by training here. Of great note are the people that have helped to build the rep UNC has - i.e. Dr. Leiberman, need I say more? The new chair is the clinical director at the NIMH - Dr. Rubinow - WOW, I'm sure with him as chief, the program is going to get a lot of additional funding and expanded research opportunities - especially in behavioral endocrinology - his specialty.

I was underwhelmed by the program. Normally, psych residents are the people with whom I get along with the best, but I found most of these people to be rather flat, save a couple of people. I'm really shy until I get to know people, unless I am feel comfortable around them. Let's just say I didn't say much.

Please make these points:

1. Important questions you asked/were asked

This program focuses on getting to know you as a person, and how you will fit in. Dr. Dawkins has an amazing presence and her interviewing skills are on POINT - when you interview with her, she will get the truth out of you about anything she deems important in deciding whether or not you would be a good fit. I liked that a lot - I didn't feel any games were being played which was refreshing for me. I really enjoyed talking with her and so did the other applicants. A lot of us forgot ourselves and let our guards down, laughing and smiling and getting very expressive with our hands - all things that show she is definitely skilled at making you comfortable!

I had a different experience. While I really liked Dr. Dawkins, I found that she tried to size me up more than any other interviewer at any program. It wasn't that uncomfortable, but most of the interview was spent on seeing whether I would come to the program. My interview with another faculty member was horrendous. I told them I was interested in psychotic disorders, and I was paired with a researcher completely devoid of personality. I actually had dry mouth, tachycardia, and sweaty palms---I'm never nervous in an interview. The rest of the day as ok, but just that, ok.

2. Big highlights of the programs

Child psych is the big thing here. If I had more experience with Child I could say more, but apparently its one of the best around. But if you want research, you can do that too in about any capacity you want. You can even get a mentor to help you design your own project. Child is fit in throughout the whole program so that you don't just get exposure to it in 3rd year. You get your first exposure in first year, more in second and so on - its nice and gives you the skills you would need to be a good general psych - I liked that.

Medicine is done at Dorothea Dix which is an inpatient state psych hospital. I LOVED this concept and idea but I can see where a lot of other people would find the responsiblity of this daunting. When you are on medicine you cover the medicine side (infermary type place) and when you are on psych call, you cover just the psych side. You will be the only person here, no one with you, but attendings are a phone call away.

There is NO VA - you will be at Dorothea or other satellite programs (AHEC) or at the self standing psych hospital on campus

I don't have much to add to this except to say that I didn't like the idea of being the only person at Dix for psych. It seems like a lot of scut. The residents contradicted themselves about how many people you would be seeing but then extolled the fact that people came with paperwork, so you didn't have to do much. Sounds like mundane admit orders and tucking people in--not a lot of thinking.

3. Estimated call hours

Tough - Q4 which used to be Q3, it still averages Q3-4 according to residents depending on whats going on with the other residents. VERY FRONT LOADED - all intern year you will work your buns off, but after that call lets up to about 2xmonth in second year and is nonexistent in 3rd and 4th year.

The call schedule can seem scary but no overnight call is done except for on Friday and Saturday night, according to residents they are within their work hours but work up to them 70-80 hours per week is the average intern year.

This bothers me a little bit. It seemed like the people think they work more than they actually do. All call during the week on psych is short call. You always get to go home at 10. Regardless of how busy you are, it's shift work and then sleeping in your bed. To me, coming from a pretty tough medical school, this is nothing.

4. Friendliness of the program residents, faculty and staff

Dr. Dawkins is top notch but she is not hand holding - she appears to be a very effective PD though and I liked that a lot. The residents are friendly and happy they chose this program. The staff is unbelievably nice, they treat everyone well, and everyone seems to get along with everyone else. Some residents even hang out with eachother and have formed a band. Lots of married residents with children.

I've commented on this quite a bit. I didn't connect with the residents I met. I feel like we have dissimilar interests and just didn't get a strong sense that I would be happy there.

5. Location pluses and minuses

PLUS PLUS PLUS - cost of living, location location location. weather - need I say more?

Negative, negative, negative. You are in anycollegetown, USA. For someone looking for a larger city, this fact likely clouded my judgment quite a bit. A huge house that doesn't cost a lot isn't worth much if it's the only place in town to go.

6. Most positive aspects of program

I loved all the aspects of this program, its a tough program but when you complete it, you will be respected and people will know your training was top notch. Unlimited possiblities to pursue what you want if you're a go getter, and this is a non-competitive residency which they pride themselves on. They don't seem to want residents that compete with eachother or try to outdo eachother which I found to be very impressive considering the caliber of this program. They have a lot of funding and are consistently in the top 15 in the country for gov't funds - many of the residents receive grants from various programs/companies and seem to obtain whatever goals they have for themselves.

They are a very proud bunch with lots of accomplishments and they've earned it - I give them a lot of respect and I love how proud they are.

More than 80% for first time pass rate of ABPN - which made me wonder what other programs first time pass rate was! Especially the "more cush" programs!

Yes, they are a proud group. But the program does seem top notch for research and does have a diverse patient population for such a small city. Most people think that a purely therapy second year is a plus. I'd like it half and half, but I think it is beneficial. I'll just echo most of what poety said.

7. Most negative aspects of program

Front loaded heavy call - it seems a bit daunting but its only for 1 year. Call on Family Practice service can be hard (its done at Dorothea Dix while doing family practice service)

No option to do pediatrics in lieu of medicine service

I've been pretty negative so far. Obviously, the program wasn't for me, but I wanted to write something since so many people are providing great reviews. Using the words of Dr. Dawkins, I didn't have a eureka moment here. It was anything but.
 
Someone wrote earlier about interviewers taking a psychoanalytic approach. Just had one today. Really annoying. I thought, "There's a time and a place for that, and its not the job interview". Oh well, I guess if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
 
manc said:
Someone wrote earlier about interviewers taking a psychoanalytic approach. Just had one today. Really annoying. I thought, "There's a time and a place for that, and its not the job interview". Oh well, I guess if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

:thumbup:
 
manc said:
Someone wrote earlier about interviewers taking a psychoanalytic approach. Just had one today. Really annoying. I thought, "There's a time and a place for that, and its not the job interview". Oh well, I guess if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.


Manc: very, very well put. And I think it would be wrong not to see such an approach as a reflection on the program, at least if it is present in the majority of the interviewers or the PD.
 
Since psychiatric training involves becoming a psychotherapist, and since becoming a psychotherapist involves no small degree of insight and self-awareness, why would it be odd or inappropriate for a future trainee to be gauged on these factors? This is the equivalent of applicants to surgery being pimped on anatomy during their interviews. It's all very well to spend your time chatting about how you're fascinated by the neurobiology of schizophrenia, but that gives no indication on how well you're going to be able to treat your patients without using medications (gasp!). BTW, the "psychoanalytic" approach is probably more accurately described as the psychodynamic approach, since most of these folks are not psychoanalysts.
 
I think I see Samson's point--my frontrunner is in that position right now because the three PGY-2s who interviewed me in the afternoon had such terrific skills, I felt like, hey, if this program can start psychodynamics early enough to get residents up to speed THIS QUICKLY I might want to be here.

Case in point: I am going into psychiatry for a pretty personal reason, one I don't like to offer up to interviewers unless I feel very comfortable, and 2 out of the 3 residents at this program were able to organically get the information out of me. Now there's insight-oriented interviewing!
 
Doc Samson said:
Since psychiatric training involves becoming a psychotherapist, and since becoming a psychotherapist involves no small degree of insight and self-awareness, why would it be odd or inappropriate for a future trainee to be gauged on these factors? This is the equivalent of applicants to surgery being pimped on anatomy during their interviews. It's all very well to spend your time chatting about how you're fascinated by the neurobiology of schizophrenia, but that gives no indication on how well you're going to be able to treat your patients without using medications (gasp!). BTW, the "psychoanalytic" approach is probably more accurately described as the psychodynamic approach, since most of these folks are not psychoanalysts.

First off, it is not the equivalent of pimping future surgeons on anatomy; it is rather the equivalent of performing surgery on them. If you want to guage someone's potential in dealing with their patients, you can give them clinical scenarios and ask how they would deal with them. Secondly, psychodynamic psychotherapy is not the only psychotherapy, and there are several others that have been much more extensively validated. Now if someone feels compelled to use it on an applicant, that suggests to me that they have a pretty strong, possibly exclusive, attachment to an unvalidated technique. This is why I found Manc's hammer-nail comment very apt.

Your "gasp" comment suggests that those of us who do not like to be analyzed at an interview are inclined to formulate and treat our patients' symptoms in purely biological terms; or at least that even if we were open to using therapy, the only way to assess how good we would be at it would be to do it on us. This plays into the common equation of "psychotherapy" with "psychodynamic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis". But this equation does injustice to a growing list of therapies (CBT, DBT, IPT, CBASP, MBCT, etc) which are proven to work. So essentially you are using an unproven modality to guage someone's ability in a whole spectrum of treatments.
 
nortomaso said:
First off, it is not the equivalent of pimping future surgeons on anatomy; it is rather the equivalent of performing surgery on them. If you want to guage someone's potential in dealing with their patients, you can give them clinical scenarios and ask how they would deal with them. Secondly, psychodynamic psychotherapy is not the only psychotherapy, and there are several others that have been much more extensively validated. Now if someone feels compelled to use it on an applicant, that suggests to me that they have a pretty strong, possibly exclusive, attachment to an unvalidated technique. This is why I found Manc's hammer-nail comment very apt.

Your "gasp" comment suggests that those of us who do not like to be analyzed at an interview are inclined to formulate and treat our patients' symptoms in purely biological terms; or at least that even if we were open to using therapy, the only way to assess how good we would be at it would be to do it on us. This plays into the common equation of "psychotherapy" with "psychodynamic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis". But this equation does injustice to a growing list of therapies (CBT, DBT, IPT, CBASP, MBCT, etc) which are proven to work. So essentially you are using an unproven modality to guage someone's ability in a whole spectrum of treatments.

I agree with norto and manc on this - save that for when you're my preceptor - I don't need that when I'm on a JOB INTERVIEW - regardless of what the job is for.
 
I agree that there are many other valuable other therapeutic modalities that we should be (and are) trained to use. However you feel about insight oriented psychodynamic therapy (and it's extensive evidence base), the ACGME mandates that it is part of the training and competency required for board certification, so it's going to be a part of you life, like it or not (along with the other mandated modalities of CBT, supportive, brief, and integrated).

As far as interviewers "doing" therapy on you... they are not. They are simply trying to see if you are capable of engaging in the type of conversation required for therapy. Being a dynamic therapist requires that you put yourself "out there" to some extent. If you refuse to do it in the relatively safe environment of a residency interview, why would anyone think you'd be willing to do so for your patients. Your future mentors are all very interested in how much you know, but there's significantly more to being a good therapist than just "book learning." The only way anyone can tell what you can bring to the table as a therapist is to ask you (life experience, insight, etc.). It's not asking a surgeon about anatomy, it's making sure that they have eyes and hands.
 
I'm not sure what is remotely psychodynamic about questions regarding h/o mania or depression. Those questions are 1) psychiatric history, and 2) a match violation. They are certainly weird and creepy, but not (even remotely) psychodynamic. Associating "weird and creepy" with psychoanalysis seems to be an unfortunate prejudice shared by a lot of folks. Asking about your childhood, asking if you've ever felt victimized, asking about your parents (and other authority figures), all seem perfectly reasonable questions for someone who's planning on a career treating folks who often have significant issues in these areas.

On other specialty threads, applicants are complaining about inappropriate questions from interviewers, but no-one blames it on the specialty. An inappropriate question is just that - inappropriate. Not "psychoanalytic".
 
Doc Samson said:
I'm not sure what is remotely psychodynamic about questions regarding h/o mania or depression. Those questions are 1) psychiatric history, and 2) a match violation. They are certainly weird and creepy, but not (even remotely) psychodynamic. Associating "weird and creepy" with psychoanalysis seems to be an unfortunate prejudice shared by a lot of folks. Asking about your childhood, asking if you've ever felt victimized, asking about your parents (and other authority figures), all seem perfectly reasonable questions for someone who's planning on a career treating folks who often have significant issues in these areas.

On other specialty threads, applicants are complaining about inappropriate questions from interviewers, but no-one blames it on the specialty. An inappropriate question is just that - inappropriate. Not "psychoanalytic".

Asking someone if they've ever felt victimized when perhaps they have been victims of physical or sexual abuse or about their parents whom they perhaps lost or who perhaps victimized them IS inappropriate in the setting of a 20-60 min interview. True, you will have to discuss these issues with your patients and --arguably-- it will be necessary to be comfortable about your own issues. But these subjects should only be brought up in a therapeutic setting, and there is nothing therapeutic about a job interview. Just because you have worked on your own issues does not mean that they do not still cause any pain and having them probed as some kind of test of character IS pretty damn creepy. Again, you can test the sophistication of someone's interpersonal skills by giving them clinical scenarios and WITHOUT discussing their own personal life. One interviewer did this with me and I just invented ridiculous psychoanalytic interpretations (I pretended all I had was a hammer and looked for the nail) which she thought were fantastic.

And that's assuming that this stuff is even helpful to patients. Given the paucity of studies validating psychodynamic psychotherapy and a recent study showing that debriefing victims of pschological trauma patients actually INCREASES their risk of PTSD, I am skeptical of that assumption.
 
Residency training is definitely not a job. These folks aren't looking to hire you because of the skills you have (relatively negligible in even the best medical students, no matter what the specialty), they're trying to see if you want to learn what they have to teach. If you don't like the "feel" of dynamic treatment, and don't think it's useful, then don't go to a program that emphasizes it. Unfortunately, that rules out almost all of the top-rank programs with the notable exceptions of Hopkins, WUSTL, and (to a certain extent) Penn. Even so, you're going to have to demonstrate competency in psychodynamic formulation to graduate from residency and pass the the boards.

The research on measuring outcomes on psychodynamic therapy shows, essentially, that you can't measure psychodynamic therapy because what actually happens in the therapy varies from patient to patient (even with the same treater). It's much easier to colelct data on algorithm based treatments like CBT. But, absence of data is never a conclusive argument one way or another.
 
Please feel free to tell me to butt out... but in clinical psychology, what you are describing would be considered a violation of our ethical code (I'm assuming that something similar is in place for psychiatry).

Indeed, it is mandated that we are not to engage in any therapeutic or related activities unless there is a "defined professional relationship" with the person we are talking with. As these interviewees did not provide informed consent to treatment or psychiatric assessment, I don't see how asking them about personal histories re: abuse, family psychiatric illness, etc. is at all ethical.

I am in 100% agreement with nortomaso - there are several ways that one can gauge someone's current knowledge base and interpersonal skill set without violating the boundaries of what is a job interview.

And regarding theoretical orientation, it does seem to me that individuals who are psychodynamically inclined seem to have a tougher time divorcing their professional selves from their personal selves. But that's just an observation...
 
Doc Samson said:
Residency training is definitely not a job. These folks aren't looking to hire you because of the skills you have (relatively negligible in even the best medical students, no matter what the specialty), they're trying to see if you want to learn what they have to teach. If you don't like the "feel" of dynamic treatment, and don't think it's useful, then don't go to a program that emphasizes it. Unfortunately, that rules out almost all of the top-rank programs with the notable exceptions of Hopkins, WUSTL, and (to a certain extent) Penn. Even so, you're going to have to demonstrate competency in psychodynamic formulation to graduate from residency and pass the the boards.

The research on measuring outcomes on psychodynamic therapy shows, essentially, that you can't measure psychodynamic therapy because what actually happens in the therapy varies from patient to patient (even with the same treater). It's much easier to colelct data on algorithm based treatments like CBT. But, absence of data is never a conclusive argument one way or another.

Outcomes data cannot show that something can't be tested. There is always a way to test something, its just that practioners of therapies based in Freudian theory have been resisitant to testing their methods empirically, probably in part because they don't have the research skills, but likely also due to a religious-like fixity of belief. You could test efficacy in a sophisticated way by establishing measures of reliabilty in psychodynamic therapists--this is in fact how the new ACGME psychodynamic competency test was devised (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/9/1658)). Then have reliable psychodynamists screen pts for suitability to this modality and randomly allocate them to either other reliable psychodynamists or practioners of manualized CBT. Alternatively, you could run a naturalistic effectiveness study where pts are randomly allocated to be treated by members of a psychodynamic or CBT organization, and then reassessed at the end of a fixed term. While you are right that absence of data does not conclusively prove or disprove anything-- it doesn't prove that psychodynamic psychotherapy works, nor does it prove that it does not HARM-- the fact is that for now there is abundance of data demonstrating the efficacy of CBT, IPT, and DBT and almost nothing on psychodynamics. Pending more data, you would think that a responsible physician would use treatments that are proven to work and to do no harm.

With regards to the ACGME competency and emphasis on this form of therapy, I would add to your list Duke, MGH, and Stanford. Dr. Thrall at Duke mentioned at interview orientation that most of the PD's were protesting the ACGME requirement and would likely get it overruled in the near future. Another PD told me that he gave his residents a quick crash course in how to pass the test, and they had done marvelously. To my surprise and delight, even UCSF is moving towards an emphasis on evidence-based psychotherapies (and no one there pulled any creepy interviewing on me), adopting many of the curriculum innovations developed at Duke.
 
A large part of my motivation to pursue psychiatry has to do with my mother being bipolar--which I mentioned in my personal statement and expected to be asked about. Most of my interviewers were generally appropriate...wondering if she was okay now, what was it like growing up with a mother with bipolar d/o, etc. A couple asked outright if I have ever had any problems with mental illness myself, a reasonable concern I suppose. It still felt a little strange having to allay their concerns that basically I wasn't going to flip out during residency. One interviewer even mentioned that my openness about my mother may have the effect of "closing certain doors to you." I'm not exactly sure what he was getting at and I didn't want to be overly confrontational on an interview but the comment really bothered me at the time. My overall impression after doing four interviews so far is that there is still much residual bias against mental illness even within the profession. I actually found this fairly shocking, but I suppose I shouldn't have. In Kay Jamison's "Unquiet Mind," she talks about how she witnessed many medical students and residents at UCLA who were not allowed to continue to train when signs of mental illness began to appear. She herself struggled with the consequences of self-disclosure when some of her colleagues thought less of her after revealing she was bipolar.
Many people who are drawn to psyciatry have first hand experience with mental illness in their own families. Some may have struggled themselves. I sensed that many interviewers were aware of this as well and asked questions that sometimes pushed the bounds of propriety. Academic psychiatry is the last place I expected to see this sort of suspicousness and narrow-mindedness. I may be naive but I couldn't live with myself if I were less than fully honest about my mother's condition and the role it played in my career plans. Interviewing for psychiatry has been an eye-opening experience for me. We are a long way from de-stigmatizing mental illness if some of our nation's best training centers still are guilty of it themselves.
 
Interviewed at OHSU and UC Davis this week, which brings my total up to three. Already did Cincinnati and only have UT San Antonio left. I cancelled UW, UTSW, U Wisc, and UC Fresno. (I add these details b/c I personally thought it was helpful to know when I am seeking feedback from other applicants). I tried to whittle my list down to only places I know would be possible #1. I am also fairly confident in a sure bet for at least one location, so I used it as a benchmark when deciding where I would interview. Anyway, these were my west coast choices.

Overall I really liked both OHSU and UCD as mid-sized programs with child/adolescent fellowships and at least some active research, all factors that are important to me. I am also choosing a place to live for at least the next five years so I am picky about the city. I look at things like diversity, cost of living and weather. Its useful to know that I had already done a pre-ERAS visit with my wife at UC Davis.


OHSU and UC Davis
I'll try to avoid duplicating any info you can get from their websites.

1) Important questions and other interview points :
BOTH:
a) wanted to know why I was headed out to the west coast from the midwest (any family ties, previously resided there, etc).
b) wanted to know why I wanted to do psychiatry, especially why child psychiatry
c) In contrast to the Cinci interview, neither program was much interested in where else I had applied.
d) I cant remember which location, but I was asked about a small gap in my CV.
d) I have a some relatively uncommonly found items on my CV that prompted many questions and I think this might be excluding some more routine questions that other applicants might be getting. (I have PhD in psychology, did my dissertation on cross-cultural adjustment of foreigners in Japan, lived in Japan 5+ years, have 2 kids, and had some interesting work experience.) I have found that in several interviews there isn't enough time for me to ask the questions I have. At UCD it was too important so I kept two interviewers 15 minutes extra in order to get some essential questions answered.

OHSU:
a) Seemed more focused on recruitment and helping me to decide whether it would be a good match.
b) Only one resident interview with a chief, which was very informative, but I wish I could have had some more one to one with a 2nd or 3rd year. The chief is simply too close to being admin and too far away from the intern year. Besides, he's going to be gone when I get there. They had a big group lunch with residents but I dont think that format is conducive to really frank answers. I liked the Cinci interview schedule that gave me private time with three residents.

DAVIS:
a) Aware that they can be choosy, and perceived themselves to be in a seller's market.
b) Used the first three interviews in the morning to assess the candidates. IN other words, these interviews "counted". The afternoon had the extensive and well executed tour, the lunch with residents, and a final group Q and A by the PD. I had one on one with the dept. chair but wish it could have been with the PD. I think the PD interview is THE most important hour of the visit and was disappointed that he did in a group format. With that said, he does seem like an excellent PD.
c) PD said that we could call him in January and he will tell applicant the exact rank (a number). He also told us they interview about 60, don't rank everyone, and typically go about 20 deep to fill. He also said their rank was independent of how they think the applicant will rank.
d) Despite knowing that I was highly interested in child/adolescent and research, they didn't really give me easy access to people who could talk to me about either. I was sure glad I did my pre-ERAS visit in the spring, which gave me face time with two child/adolescent fellows, faculty and the dir. of the MIND institute.


2) Important characteristics

OHSU:
a) highly valued resident education, which was hammered in by PD who pointed out that the first room when entering the bldg that housed psych was the resident's lounge, the next one was the associate dir. for training and the next was the PD's office.
b) The intercultural clinic is unique and is a big check in the plus column for me. It was bigger (>1,200 patients) and more comprehensive than I expected.
c) Heavy on the VA scheduled rotations, but their VA is relatively new and looked like a great place to work. One of my interviewees was a woman who decided to stay there and took a job at the VA and loves it. (People tend to complain about the VA in Cinci, so I was relieved to hear that the Portland VA was a nice place to work).
d) Moonlighting available all over the place and insurance is covered. The market for psychiatrists is way undersaturated there and OHSU is the only game in town so residents can really pad their pockets if they so choose.

DAVIS:
a) Tendency to compare themselves to other Cali programs during the intro, interviews, and final round-up speech/Q and A session.
b) NO overnight call 2nd year, and NO weekends.
c) Moonlighting galore in a variety of settings.
d) VERY light, almost too light, on the VA rotations but may change a few years down the road b/c they are building new facilities.
e) program is expanding and will be increasing # of residents and salaried faculty in next few years
f) no opportunity to replace IM with general PEDS, but can do a month of ped oncology (no child neuro option until you start child/adolescent fellowship)
g) does cultural diversity/competency training for which it has won awards
h) lots of new buiding in the medical center, and their academic reputation is climbing the charts, not to mention increasing $ for research

Location:
Before I list a few (probably obvious and already known) items I would suggest typing in a city name on the Epinions website for interesting and well-written opinions about the target location by vistors and residents

OHSU:
cons:
a) very very very white demographic (in other words, not much racial or ethnic diversity) but idealogical diversity might be another matter
b) cloudy, rainy weather---might take some adjustment time

pros:
a) city is beautiful and had lots to do
b) a heaven on earth for outdoorsy types (this pleases my wife)
c) cost of living and housing cost still very manageable (but recently going up)

UCD: medical center located in Sacramento, so you might never go to Davis (don't even bother to check Davis for housing possibilities unless you already have a lot of money)
cons:
a) Housing and cost of living in Sacramento are better than the coast, but still very high (this might be the deal-breaker for me b/c it would be a big step down in square footage)
b) heat in Jul, Aug, Sept is oppressive (although it always cools down at night)
c) the city and metro area is small and doesn't have a lot to do so you have to chew up some highway miles to get to San Francisco or Lake Tahoe.
d) traffic sucks, much more than it should in a city of that size

pros:
a) lots of good schools (if you have kids)
b) sunny weather
c) day trips doable to San Fran and other interesting outdoor adventures
d) probably one of the most ethnically/racially diverse cities


Overall impressions:
These are both potential #1 for me, but then again, all four of my interviewing locations are potential #1. Nothing on this trip made me move any program to the top or bottom of my rol.

OK, I'm tired of typing. I'll field any questions.
 
This is a very unique program. Its the only one where I was encouraged to attend didactics and therapy instruction, which they are obviously and justifiably proud of. I got the impression that this program was a mess a few years ago, so that when the current PD (Thrall) and chairman (Krishnan) took over they were able to completely revamp it.

The didactics are based on the ideal of self-directed learning. The actual information that you learn is to be taken in at home with assigned readings and then applied during problem-solving sessions. This really makes sense. It encourages continued independent learning. More importantly it gives you the opportunity to interact with your peers on an intellectual level and keeps residents awake when powerpoints would certainly put them to sleep.

Psychotherapy training is very heavily emphasized. But it is evidence-based to no lesser degree than pharmacotherapy. Heavy use is made of one-way mirrors and videotape and several therapeutic modalities are taught with evidence being the only determinant of preference.

Much has been made in these forums of how nice Dr. Thrall is. True, she is a nice lady. I don't know of any other PD who bakes cakes for her residents. weekly. But more importantly, she is also sharp as a razor and very well versed in the psychiatric literature. The chairman also struck me as one of the most brilliant people I've come across on the trail and by all accounts both of them are very responsive to resident feedback and have a knack for helping residents tailor their training.

Now the reservations: The inpatient facilities seem more limited than in other programs. 5 months are spent at the State Hospital where residents supposedly have lots of "autonomy". Not sure what this implies regarding the quality of attendings and the learning experience. Compare this to a place like Hopkins where in five months you will have rotated through five different specialty services and worked closely from expert supervisors in each specialty. Ditto for the outpatient experience. There are apparently no attending clinicians in the clinic, just attending supervisors. On the website the faculty are divided into research and psychotherapy supervisor faculty. What about pharmacotherapy? What about clinicians whom residents can observe at work? In sum, the fear is that the visionary leaders and their fabulous didactic and psychotherapy currriculum are not backed up with the clinical resources you would want to learn quality bread and butter psychiatry.

Lastly, the location is either a big plus or big minus, depending on your tastes. Very affordable, yes. But you must drive 80 miles just to find a sidewalk.
 
nortomaso said:
With regards to the ACGME competency and emphasis on this form of therapy, I would add to your list Duke, MGH, and Stanford. Dr. Thrall at Duke mentioned at interview orientation that most of the PD's were protesting the ACGME requirement and would likely get it overruled in the near future. Another PD told me that he gave his residents a quick crash course in how to pass the test, and they had done marvelously. To my surprise and delight, even UCSF is moving towards an emphasis on evidence-based psychotherapies (and no one there pulled any creepy interviewing on me), adopting many of the curriculum innovations developed at Duke.

I think there are two ideas floating around in this discussion, 1) inappropriate questions during interviews (many of the above examples are grossly inappropriate), and 2) the inherent value of training in psychodynamic psychotherapy. Certainly some interviewers may have the hammer-nail approach which is to say that someone sitting in front of them they will treat more like a patient than like a residency applicant, using all of their tools. I had a CBT therapist ask me about how my self esteem would be affected if a patient suicided? Would I blame myself? Would I develop irrational rituals for my other depressed or suicidal patients to overcompensate?

With regard to the value of psychodynamics, outside of the limited frame of insight-oriented psychotherapy, some of the smartest and most highly regarded psychopharmacologists I've met use psychodynamics to understand more about their patient's response or lack of response to medications. It's also very helpful to being able to identify and work with your own countertransferences in a psychopharm practice - am I making a change in meds now because the patient will benefit or because the patient is looking for me to not fail him like his father did and I don't want to tolerate his devalution of me if I fail to act? As much as it would be great if everyone responded to medications exactly as they should based on reuptake inhibition and receptor occupancy, perception of treatment efficacy also plays a very important role in symptom improvement or lack of.
 
Hi MBK, I appreciate your post and response - but I would ask wouldn't all of medicine have a bit of countertransferance re: any pharmacology then? I completely understand the difference in the respect that we are going to be psychiatrists but I also think there is a point where we should be able to practice without having to constantly check/double check and keep re-evaluating our reasons for our decisions. I may be the only person who is thinking along these lines but I thought I would throw that in there. Can you tell me your thoughts on this?

I'd also like to move this conversation of the thread to a new thread. I will start it as "Psychodynamic therapy, the risks, the benefits and when it is appropriate"

I'm just doing this because I feel partly responsible for taking this thread in this direction and for the sake of future applicants, I'd like to keep it limited to post interview reviews :oops:
 
The residents here seemed very bright and energetic. They denied feeling overworked. The setting is amazingly beautiful and the three training sites very diverse: SFGH (county hospital), the VA, and Langley Porter (university hospital). The main distinguishing feature of the program is that you only do 9 months of inpatient, 6 of which are in the 1st year. They want you to get outpatient experience early, which seems reasonable to me, but I could see it argued the other way.

There are several tracks: Basic research, clinical research, psychotherapy, and community psych. Every resident must choose one and devotes one-third of their time in the 3rd year plus most of the 4th year to it. The residency director was described to me by one resident as "less than fuzzy" and by another as "not the strength of the program". He is an analyst by training, and while I agree that he's not very fuzzy (although he does have quite a hairy chest), I personally did not have a problem with him. He struck me a straight-shooter and didn't seem like he was trying to shove his Freudian ideas down anyone's throat. In any case, the impression I got was that the PD here has less of an important role here than elsewhere, with resident committees and other faculty members setting the agenda in an unruly democratic fashion.

The program seems to be moving in a direction towards the hands on teaching of diverse evidence-based psychotherapy. See my review of Duke, what I saw at Duke in this regard was described to me at UCSF. What I actually saw at UCSF was the following interview with a faculty member. I have changed the names and altered some of the content to protect the innocent, but the logical form is true to the original:

Interviewer: Tell me about an interesting pt you have encountered
Me: [tell her about a schizophrenic with a psychotic exacerbation]
Interviewer: Vy do djou tink zat zis happened, uh?
Me: Well, its interesting. The pt gorged himself on bananas preceding the episode. Afterwards, I found several case reports and animal studies citing a link between pottassium rich foods and psychotic episodes.
Interview: Yes, fine. But vy ze bananas? Vy did djour pt eat zee bananas; zat is zee real question!
Me: Well, his cousin sent him a big box of bananas. Plus he was anxious because his brother lived in New Orleans and the hurricane had just struck. So he probably was sitting at home watching tv news and nervously muching on the fruit that his cousin sent him.
Interviewer: But vy zee bananas and not somezing else in his khouse? Vy not zee peanuts. He must have zee peanuts too.
Me: Well since you asked, Dr. Fromkopf. You see, maybe it wasn't really pure-hearted concern for his brother's safety that drove him to eat zee-- I mean the-- bananas. I think there was a lot of guilt there. I think that maybe part of him wanted his brother to perish because he has always been jealous of his brother's large penis. And rather than admit that to himself, on the conscious level he maintained concern, while his jealous rage expressed itself unconsciously through the symbolic act of devouring a phallic snack.
Interviewer: Ah, yes. I see zat djou are tinking about djour patients. Good. Good.


It really was like that. That was just one interviewer though. Everyone else seemed brilliant and forward thinking. I'm hoping this was just a relic left over from another era.
 
mollywobbles said:
zat was hillarious.


norto IS hilarious - what colorful evals, great stuff~
 
1. Important questions you asked/were asked

* I was asked the general questions, and was grilled on my research experiences. Everyone seemed to worry that my decision would be based on my impressions of the Triangle area; so a significant amount of time was spent trying to sell me on the area -- I think that that is a significant detail, especially after reading Nortomaso's review above.


2. Big highlights of the programs

* I will yield here to the great reviews already given; however I will add that there is ample opportunity to pursue an additional degree while in residency, and it's paid for by the University. As far as moonlighting is concerned, everyone looked at me as though I was out of my mind. The individuals with whom I spoke were unaware of anyone in the program moonlighting. Finally, Duke does have domestic partner benefits; but according to one resident, Duke's benefits are not that great -- other than the educational benefit, which DOES NOT extend to spouses or partners.


3. Friendliness of the program residents, faculty and staff

* I have to say that I agree with previous posters' assessments of Dr. Thrall, she is an asset to the Duke program -- I especially appreciated her attention to detail prior to the interview. Everyone with whom I interviewed was also very friendly, and I also appreciated their candid responses to my questions.


4. Location pluses and minuses

* The Triangle area is definately NOT an urban area. I was very surprised/disappointed to discover that the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill towns are not really connected -- there is actually a considerable drive between the cities. Durham, the home of Duke University, is by far the most run-down city of the three.


5. Most positive aspects of program

* Definately a strong emphasis on psychtherapy and beautiful facilities.


6. Most negative aspects of program

* Everyone seemed very tired -- almost too tired. I was told by four residents -- at different times -- that if I come to Duke, I will be well trained; however, I will work harder than I've ever worked in my life. I began to wonder if they were trying to tell me something! One resident actually fell asleep during a lecture, and another resident told me that there "is always someone falling asleep". The most annoying part of the interview involved a resident who was playing with one of the centerpieces during the lecture -- pick up a rock, drop the rock; pick up a rock, drop the rock; pick up a rock, drop the rock; and so it continued for 30 minutes!
 
Just to let you all know that they are still out there…. I honestly thought that while on the interview trail, no one would do the typical “what are your strengths?”, “what are your weaknesses?” type interview, but I had one at San Antonio this past week. My last interview of the day was with one of the military faculty who was wearing fatigues and combat boots. He fired one after another of “job interview 101” questions at me. He used some really annoying probes like asking me to define a word that I used. It was more like an interrogation than an interview. His demeanor was cold, distant and ‘hard-ass’ with minimal eye contact. He took copious notes. At certain points he expressed displeasure when I wouldn’t play along. For example, he asked me why I like working with children and I flatly told him that “I like it because I like it.” He really pressed for a “reason” but I didn’t budge.

This interview was a sharp contrast to the whole interview day, and I wondered if the PD knew what this clown was doing. I think that Interviewers like this can really poison the well and sabotage the recruiting effort at a program, especially in a low competition specialty like psychiatry. UTSA is a good program, but I don’t think they can afford to be that proud and choosy (at least with the civilian half.) Anyway, it left me in a bad mood, and brought all the cons of the program/city to my immediate level of consciousness for the next few hours. I even cancelled my plan to drive around looking at some neighborhoods (for possible relo).
 
Hiya Manc,

I completely agree - and even a top program has turned me off with this attitude and gotten dropped in the rank - its just ugly to be like that.

Btw everyone - MCG :love: :love: was wonderful, I just love the chair Dr. Buckley! He's definitely a great asset to that department and super involved with all of this schizophrenia research. He is looking for residents that will do research with his guidance and will help them pursue academia. AFter visiting, they went up in my rank BIGTIME and I'm a bit torn now.

Call is Q5 overnight (but its home call, but you will be there overnight) they have the VA which is nice - excellent neuro program. Augusta isn't great, but I could definitely live there with my family. Its a bit sleepy in a southern kinda way.

MCG is very very high on my list and I would be very happy to train there. I think this program is up and coming.

They recruited Dr. Sexson (child) from Emory -shes awesome. They also have Dr. Kirkpatrick (I dont rmember where he is from) he is brand spanking new and will be running schizophrenia research there.

Residents are the friendliest I've met - one took me all over Augusta to show me the area and where I coudl buy a house all this AFTER he called his realtor to see where houses were for sale, and after taking me to a lovely dinner and out to see the savannah river which was gorgeous. This bunch of residents were the definitely top choice as far as friendliness goes. One resident, hes actually facutly now, came in to meet me since we had emailed even though he was doing another interview. I really was impressed by all this place offered.

The PD Dr. Shevitz is really nice, and sweet - thats the best way to describe him!

I think the program is solid. Call can be hard - they have a board pass rate of 80% of the 90% that took it. Mock boards and mock orals, responsive to resident requests, etc etc. Any questions please ask. Oh, and btw moonlighting is CRAZY HERE - You can make 4500 in a WEEKEND THATS RIGHT!!!! And I talked to the residet and he said if you moonlight, you must NOT put economic hardship for deferment, yo have to put "in training" as your reason for deferment so that you don't get screwed and have a huge bill - I will do a true head to head comparison on these two programs in January :)
This is gunna be a really hard decision! :love: :love:
 
This thread has been viewed ~7000 times and yet a relatively small handful of us have actually written most of the reviews (then there's Atsai who deleted a bunch of great ones).

I would like to make a plea to more people to contribute their impressions of the programs they have visited. Since we are making such an important decision based on such short visits, it is extremely helpful to have others' observations as well. And if you need a selfish reason to do it, writing it out for others does help you to clarify what you observed, what you liked and did not like, and what you want for yourself.
 
nortomaso said:
This thread has been viewed ~7000 times and yet a relatively small handful of us have actually written most of the reviews (then there's Atsai who deleted a bunch of great ones).

I would like to make a plea to more people to contribute their impressions of the programs they have visited. Since we are making such an important decision based on such short visits, it is extremely helpful to have others' observations as well. And if you need a selfish reason to do it, writing it out for others does help you to clarify what you observed, what you liked and did not like, and what you want for yourself.

I actually have 3 of them saved up, so I'll post them. It does help to write it all out. I'm going to have an impossible time coming up with my ROL, because I have really loved most of the programs I've been to so far...
 
1. Important questions you asked/were asked
Mostly what are you looking for in a program, why Vanderbilt, kind of stuff. The most interviewish question I got was "what do you bring to psychiatry and this residency?"

2. Big highlights of the program
- The dept has been without a chair for the past few years, but they just recruited a new chair Stephan Heckers, from Mass General/Harvard McLean, who will be starting this January. Everyone seems to be excited about the new chair, and they say he has a commitment to teaching and integrating more research (esp imaging and genetics) into the training program.
- As far as research goes, Vanderbilt has a strong neuroscience research program with 100 grad students in their PhD program, and a nice imaging center run by clinical psychology. However, research hasn't been really been integrated into the residency program, but this is expected to change with the new chair.
- They are starting a new track called Addictions Research Scientist track where you spend your 4th year elective time doing the clinical requirements for the Addiction fellowship, then 2 years of research, so when you finish you get a MS and the Addiction fellowship. (which makes me wonder - if you can do one year of the child fellowship, or the entire addiction fellowship during the 4th year, then why not the other fellowships too?)
- Very strong child program. There is a child unit and an adolescent unit in the psych hospital, plus the Kennedy Center that deals with developmental issues, and the Center of Excellence that deals with trauma/foster care issues. The PD is a child psychiatrist, and is very supportive.
- They have an 88 bed psych hospital with separate units for child, adolescent, adult mood disorders, psychotic disorders, and addiction.
- Lots of flexibility. Starting in the second year, you get 2.5 hours a week for "academic enrichment." This can be whatever you want. Residents have used this time for research, working with policy people at the state legislature, student health at the undergrad campus, courses, etc.

3. Estimated call hours
Call for the first 3 years
PGY1: Call is very light. You are on call Q5 at Venderbilt but only from 5-10PM, then the PGY2 night float takes over, and you go home. You are never on call alone.
PGY2: 6 weeks of night float at Vanderbilt. You also do a couple months at the state hospital.
PGY3: Q8 at the VA, plus outpatients at Vanderbilt and the VA clinics.
PGY4: all elective, no call

4. Friendliness of the program residents, faculty and staff
Everybody was very friendly and very enthusiastic about the program. The residents seem close. Quite a few of them have had kids during residency.

5. Location pluses and minuses
- Nashville is a fun city with a fantastic music scene. Everybody makes a point of letting you know that it's not all country music. Lots of clubs downtown, and recording studios in Music Row. You can be in a little 40 person club on a weeknight and the Rolling Stones can randomly show up. Besides Vanderbilt, music and tourism are the major industries. And because of the tourism, the city is well kept. It is a very southern city too. When I was walking around downtown, there were a bunch of blue-haired old ladies on the corner waiting to get on a tour bus, and 20 feet away there were guys in camo showing off the dead deer in the back of their pickup.
- Housing is cheap. Many residents buy houses. In town you live 5 minutes away. In the burbs you live 15 minutes away.
- It's both diverse and not diverse. It's diverse in the sense that you can have a homeless guy and a country music star sharing a room on the Addictions unit. Not diverse in the sense that there is not much of a latino or asian population.

6. Most positive aspects of program
- The PD. Everyone raves about her. She's very committed to teaching and will call attendings on other services if they aren't getting the residents out in time for their protected didactic time. They all say she's very responsive to resident feedback.
- Excellent child program
- Strong CBT training. They have some sort of relationship with the Beck institute.
- new chair?

7. Most negative aspects of program
- strong research at Vandy but not well integrated into the program so far
- call in the PGY3 year
- new chair?
 
1. Important questions you asked/were asked
Mostly what am I looking for in a program, are there specific people I'd like to work with, what are my career goals...

2. Big highlights of the program
- I interviewed on one of two "basic science days" for people who are interested in the research track, so the day was geared towards that. The fact that they even do this shows their commitment to research training. They have a research track in which you get 30% protected time as a PGY-3, and 90% as a PGY4. You can have another funded PGY5 year - kind of like a built-in research fellowship, during which they facilitate you applying for K-award type funding. Quite a few of their graduates go on to faculty positions at UCSF. And several have gone into industry, which I found interesting.
- Outstanding research opportunities. UCSF is building a new campus at Mission Bay, and many of the psych researchers have already moved over there into their brand-new, very nice facilities.
- They are very evidence based. They gave an example about how the residents do Beck Depression Inventories on their depressed patients at every visit and use that to help guide whether to augment or change treatment.
- They recently revamped the didactics, and it appears to be a very comprehensive, well thought out curriculum. They bring all of the residents together on Wednesdays for didactics and it's protected time. They also have "support groups" that are ongoing throughout the residency, for the residents to air their views, and also see what it's like to actually be in group therapy.
- One of the most unique things is how they divide their inpatient psych units based on culture: gay/lesbian/HIV, Latino, Asian, Black, Women, etc.
- strong community psych
- strong psychotherapy. There is a psychoanalytic institute, a Jung institute, and others

3. Estimated call hours
PGY1: 6 months medicine/Neuro/ER with the typical call. 6 months inpatient psych at SF General with Q8 call
PGY2: 3 months C/L at SFGH or UCSF, 3 months inpatient at UCSF, then 6 months outpatient at the VA. You have three weeks of nightfloat - 2 at UCSF which are usually pretty easy, and one at the VA which is hard.
PGY3: All outpatient, plus 2 weeks VA night float, one week UCSF night float.
PGY4: all elective, no call

4. Friendliness of the program residents, faculty and staff
- The residents all seemed very happy and enthusiastic about the program. We had a group meeting in the morning with a bunch of the research faculty, and lunch and a social hour before dinner with faculty and residents, and everyone was friendly and joking around with each other. I got a warm fuzzy feeling :)
- I was told a couple times that the program director comes across as a little "cold" to some people, but that's just his demeanor, and that he cares very deeply for the residents and the program. And that he was very responsive to resident input, and runs the program very well.

5. Location pluses and minuses
- Nothing I can say here that people don't already know. SF is a fantastic city, but very expensive. Everybody rents. The BART is nice. In addition to your salary, you get an extra $500/month housing subsidy, plus a couple $K for moving expenses, which helps. Oh, and don't get me started on all of the wonderful restaurants. I'd gain 20 lbs in the first week if I matched there...

6. Most positive aspects of program
- outstanding research opportunities
- a student or two does the research track every year, so it would be nice to have others around in the same boat as you
- outstanding training

7. Most negative aspects of program
- high cost of living
 
1. Important questions you asked/were asked
Nothing majorly hard. Mostly what are my career goals, and what am I looking for in a program.

2. Big highlights of the program
- awesome PD
- very strong didactics, deeply rooted in EBM. My interview was during one of their "academic half-days" which are protected time for didactics. We sat in on a case-based problem solving session, in which the residents are divided into 3 permanent teams. (I sat with "Pavlov's Dog") They are assigned pre-reading (~3 hrs/week) then come in to discuss a case with an expert in whatever field. The residents all seemed to really enjoy it. I overheard one resident say that Thursday was her favorite day because of it. They also have to present papers at chairman's rounds, and work closely with the chief to teach elements of EBM and clinical trials methodology. And instead of the PRITE, they have developed their own inservice exam where you find out if you got the right answer instantly, because studies show that you learn better that way compared to getting your results 3 months later. And the exam incorporates questions about the current literature.
- Parts of the psychotherapy training is done with one-way glass with live feedback via a phone in the room. When I first heard about this, I thought it was going to be a very stressful environment, but it totally wasn't. I saw 2 family/couples therapy sessions. Basically, you are in a group with other residents, psychology students, and a psych attending or a clinical psychologist. Before the patient comes, you have a 15 minute "pre-process meeting" in which you discuss the goals for today's therapy, and you can go over what you're going to say about difficult issues. Then the patients come, and you start the session, with the rest of the group behind the glass. The session is audiotaped, and the attending will add feedback to the tape for you to listen to later, like "that was good" or "try to do this" etc. And the group talks quietly among themselves about what's going on, but in a non-judgemental manner. If the attending wants you to do something, they push a buzzer, and you pick up the phone in the room, and talk to the attending. Then after the session, there is a post-process meeting with the group. It seems like a great way to learn therapy, esp if you are a person who craves feedback.
- You get therapy training in all modalities. There is a psychoanalytic institute here. Dr. Thrall says that the ACGME requires proficiency in 5 modalities, which you get, but she recommends that residents pick one they like the most and become really good at that one, because studies show patients do better when they're not treated with a mishmash.
- Excellent research opportunities. Lots going on. The medical center and undergrad campuses are all together, and you can work pretty much wherever you want. Med students are required to do a year of research, so the faculty are used to having students in the lab. There is a "4th year first" research track, as well as the traditional track with research in the 4th year, which I prefer. There is also the opportunity to take masters level classes in clincial research and genetics. The chair is very into hiring graduates from the program, esp women.
- There are currently 2 state psych hospitals - one for Duke and one for UNC. They are merging in 2008 into a new 400+ bed facility.

3. Estimated call hours
PGY1: Medicine is much lighter than I would have thought, given Duke's reputation for intense medicine. 4 months, including 2 months on the Med/Psych service, 1 month Duke Gen Med, 1 month Duke regional, 1 month outpatient. Call is q4 at Duke Regional (which is easy) and Gen Med only. 1 month neuro with hard q4 call. 1 month psych consults q6. Then 4 months inpatient psych at Duke Williams Ward (no call - the psych ER resident covers the floor) and the VA (q6). Then 3 months outpatient at the VA walk-in clinic.
PGY2: this year is hard. 5 months at the state hospital (Umstead) which is ~q5, then 2 months at the VA or Williams/ER. 1 month child, 2 months consults, 1 month day float at the VA (easy), 1 month night float at Duke PES.
PGY3: all outpatient. Call 6x per year.
PGY4 all outpatient/elective. Call 4x per year.

4. Friendliness of the program residents, faculty and staff
Everybody was VERY friendly. The residents all seemed like a fun bunch of people who genuinely enjoy hanging out with one another. At the family therapy evening I went to, one resident cooks dinner for everybody each week. The residents know residents from other departments too. The residents said that the staff at the VA were super-friendly and really into teaching.

5. Location pluses and minuses
- very cheap to live here, and there are programs in place to help residents buy houses without a down payment.
- My friends moved here last year, and they say that nobody is from here, so most everyone is into meeting new people, so people are very social. They live right by the Duke campus, which is beautiful, and within walking distance to shops and restaurants. It's a short drive to Chapel Hill, with more upscale shopping and food. Many residents buy houses in new developments, but there are plenty of old houses, which is more our thing.
- with UNC and research triangle nearby, lots of job opportunities for spouses

6. Most positive aspects of program
- Rigorous clinical training. I feel like I would get excellent training here. Esp good for those who like interactive teaching and instant feedback.
- Great program director
- Great research opportunities
- Location - low cost of living, easy to buy a house

7. Most negative aspects of program
- Durham's not a major city, if that's an issue for some people
- I'm not sure about their child program. One resident said "go here if you want to do research in child, go to UNC if you want to practice child."
- NC law prohibits you from moonlighting in your specialty. Some people do back up medicine call somewhere (I forget where). Not many people moonlight.
- One resident said that the medicine residents "have a stick up their butt." But another resident said they got along great with the medicine residents...
- Being from Louisiana, and having recently been to Nashville, I'd have to say I prefer Texas-style BBQ > Tenn BBQ > NC BBQ. Although all BBQ is, by definition, tasty.
 
Hurricane said:
- Being from Louisiana, and having recently been to Nashville, I'd have to say I prefer Texas-style BBQ > Tenn BBQ > NC BBQ. Although all BBQ is, by definition, tasty.

Do I smell a ROL here Hurricane? :laugh:

Great reviews Hurricane, and Norto is right - can others please post for the up coming years?
 
apologies in advance for condensed summaries - I realized that I could either write a short summary of my interviews or nothing (I have a toddler who drags me away from the computer at every chance when I'm home; and at the hospital, it doesn't look so good to be typing away on the web...).

UCSD - proud residents, reasonably happy. they do get offices (large ones) from the get-go. plenty of research, and surprisingly ample psychotherapy training, despite its research reputation. Mostly benign interviews - asked me what questions I had for the program. I spoke to the faculty mostly about their research, the program director about how long he planned to stay (he's staying for at least another 5 years, so we're all fine if we go there), and how many of them were past grads of the program. Most grads stay in the area, but it's not necessary. One of the PGY-4, who transferred from Harvard South Shore, told me to go East if I truly wanted a psychodynamic psychotherapy-strong program. She said I could get it here at UCSD, and that I would fit in with the residents, but if I really wanted that kind of training, I should go back east. I was grateful for this info - and I thought I fit in pretty well with the residents too, though not OVERLY so... I mean, some of them were very... uh, proud, of their research... And seemed to be fluffing their feathers, so to speak, regarding their research. But, I don't know that this reflects the program so much as the individual, if you know what I mean. On the plus side, there was a limo ride tour of the beautiful beaches - actually, sometimes it's a van, depending on how many people show up on interview day (psych-family med folks increase the # of folks).
Overall - research strong, beautiful weather, psychotherapy training available - in fact, they are the only program I've encountered that offers EVERY RESIDENT an entire YEAR FREE of Pychotherapy. This is ridiculously awesome, and one of the reasons I'm considering it. Moonlighting can be done.

2. UC-Irvine - happy residents. Perhaps not as research-oriented as UCSD, but very resident-focused. The Program Director, Jerold Maguire (yeah, like the movie) is renown for being the force behind this program, and I suppose that is true, though he didn't seem particularly SPECTACULAR during my interview. He was fine, but perhaps his reputation had built him into a super-human in my mind, so I found him quite normal. He, too, has no plans of leaving the program any time soon, so all of us will be fine should we go here. The reason they have so many UC-I med students going into this program is apparently because no one wants to leave, not that they can't get anyone else to fill the spots. More than 20% of their med school class is entering psychiatry - that's a ton. Most want to stay at UC-I. They can't all get in, but they generally love it and want to stay. My impression was - well, it's fine. I think it would be a fine place to train. They seemed, on the whole, less... brainy than some others, but that might be a plus. Interestingly, no one had read any of my application prior to my interviews - so this was very different than everywhere else. Mostly, they just wanted to know "why psychiatry." They do have a psychiatry cinema night that sounds like fun. And the weather here is gorgeous too. Moonlighting can be done.

3. San Mateo - A program I desperately wanted to adore. I'm not sure how I feel about this program. The interviews were very friendly, and I enjoy most of the faculty interactions I've had. The interactions with the residents, however... I'm not sure. They all kept asking me "Why do you want to come here?" And they all stressed how light their call schedule was. I thought I wanted to go there for the psychotherapy training, but whenever I mentionned this aspect, I mostly received blank looks. ??? If anyone else has anything to add regarding this program, I'd love to hear it. The interviews all centered on how I found the program, why did I want to go there, and who I was. The interview with the program director is 2-3 hours long, and traces the applicants life from... elementary school on up. Basically, he wants to know when we started wanting to go into psychiatry and why. I did not feel scrutinized or judged, but I did feel a bit stretched to explain exactly the point in my life when psychiatry became a possiblity. This could be a good thing. He is planning to stay at least 5 years, so again, all of us are safe from upheaval should we choose to attend this program. I was told that because the first-year class only has 4 spots, that maternity leave during the first year and a half of residency would not be optimal. However, since fellow residents do not have to take up the slack in call, at least you're not hindering them. Mostly, it's a matter of making up the rotations that are missed. As far as I could tell, this is the only residency that does not use its residents as work-horses, that exists for the sole purpose of education. There is NO Overnight CALL - EVER. The residents seem very laid back, though perhaps defensive, at their choice. Moonlighting opportunities abound.

4. Cambridge - Happy intelligent residents, no boasting or preening about research, though there is plenty of research going on - they work together in an adult-learning-model; they have all day wednesdays devoted to lectures. The only weird thing is that their call schedule is very hidden... Especially for the intern year. It's impossible to find the specifics of it in anything we're given or that is publically available online. I believe it is Q3 for one month, in the ICU; and Q4 short-call (home by 10pm) the rest of the time, unless it falls on a Friday or Saturday or Sunday, in which case it's overnight. The month of Q3 sounds like hell, but I suppose it's only a month... Moonlighting opportunities abound at any of the Harvard hospitals. This program director also plans to stay around for at least another 5 years, so we're all safe if we come here as well. There is a focus on psychotherapy training modalities, evidence-based medicine, and biological therapies. Not much C-L experience, but I don't want to do that, so it's okay by me. I like the community focus b/c I don't plan on doing inpatient psych when all is said and done. I highly recommend the pre-interview dinner (it starts at 7pm the night before), as this was when I really got to know the residents and fellow applicants. This is the warm and fuzzy Harvard program, and the residents seem very personable, fun, happy, intelligent, and deep. :love:

Ok, so that wasn't all that short, but it's just stream of consciousness and now I'm typing one-handed as the toddler pulls me away. Hope this was helpful.
 
Poety said:
Do I smell a ROL here Hurricane? :laugh:

Great reviews Hurricane, and Norto is right - can others please post for the up coming years?

No, no, I'm not ranking in order of BBQ sauce. But you asked for negatives.

Do you think PDs read this stuff? I wouldn't want my reviews to affect how I'm ranked...
 
Interview experience:
Fast paced interviews here (20-30min each with 2 residents, 4 staff incl. pd); mostly casual, conversational, and quite pleasant with one exception that I can't really hold against the program, esp. since I was warned about him by the residents beforehand. The "exception" involved the interviewer pursuing a negative comment by the resident on one of my clerkship evals to excess - I suspect he was more interested in my reaction to this line of questioning vs. my actual responses. One of his questions prior to that was how I dealt with stress, setbacks or something to that extent.

Program +s:
+well balanced biologic-therapy wise (group tx seems to be a particular strength here)
+very supportive whatever interests/subspecialty you pursue with plenty opportunities/mentoring in almost any area (psychotic d/o's may be the one exception but I don't know that for a fact)
+light schedule (see their website for details), I think at least half the residents do some moonlighting
+good variety pt. population because of the number of training sites

Program -s:
-will not be able to get the most out of training here unless very proactive; nothing is spoonfed or forced upon you here. If you do the bare minimum to get by, you will get the bare mimimum training in the end.
-number of training sites is intimidating (Butler, Bradly, RIH, Memorial, Miriam, VA). This is not a huge problem distance-wise in this small city but I'm not sure I'd appreciate being shuffled from one place to the next, having to re-learn how things get done in each, and all the while being on my own (it's a small program so residents get dispersed quickly).
-the pager call thing. Not a big deal according to the residents once you get used it but personally I prefer to leave work at work, sorry. Even if they're my own pt's, unless it's a life or death dillema, I don't want to be potentially bothered 24/7.

Residents:
Residents seem genuinely happy here. Not one hint of being overworked, overtired, or underappreciated. Program draws (actively selects?) similar personality traits so I didn't pick up on any conficts b/w residents. A close-knit group overall, though how close does vary by year (seems to be based in large part on the single to married ratio within a given class).

Faculty:
Judging by the interview experience and residents, more approacheable than average and quite invested in teaching.

Location:
Personally I don't find location be a particularly useful area to comment on since perceived +s and -s of a given area depend entirely on what it is you're looking for and that's different for everybody. Anyway, Providence is your typical small city. Fairly low cost of living, good number of housing options, and for a city this size, it's got a fair night life, dining scene, and number of things to do overall. Oh, and it's got alot of Dunkin Donuts joints, and in case you get pimped on an interview, DD is the #1 coffee brand in Providence.
 
DUNKIN DONUTS!!!!!!!!! mmmm great review jschwartz!
 
jschwartz said:
Interview experience:
Fast paced interviews here (20-30min each with 2 residents, 4 staff incl. pd); mostly casual, conversational, and quite pleasant with one exception that I can't really hold against the program, esp. since I was warned about him by the residents beforehand. The "exception" involved the interviewer pursuing a negative comment by the resident on one of my clerkship evals to excess - I suspect he was more interested in my reaction to this line of questioning vs. my actual responses. One of his questions prior to that was how I dealt with stress, setbacks or something to that extent.

One question: I am not applying this year, so I am not entirely sure how this works -- forgive me in advance if this is a silly question. Why would your interviewer know about negative comments from a clerkship evaluation? I thought that your Dean normally put your best foot forward in your letter, and I can't think of any other reason why the program would have that information. This makes me sort of worried because there was one surgery resident who didn't like me (I still got a good grade in the clerkship, though) -- will I have to explain during my interviews why he wrote not-so-stellar comments? I was assuming that the programs wouldn't even see that....Thanks!
 
Top