Top 25 psych programs

[vistaril]

You are right. The numbers don't lie. From NRMP Charting Outcomes in the Match.

2005 (NB: This is the only data available)
US-MD applicants: 681
All other applicants: 576
Total positions offered: 1032
Number of applicants per position: 1.32

2007
US-MD applicants: 648
US-MD matched: 626
US-MD match rate: 96.6%
All other applicants: 671
All other applicants matched: 326
All other applicants match rate: 48.6%
Total positions offered: 1073
US-MD applicants per position offered: 0.60
Number of all other applicants per position not taken by US-MD: 1.5

2009
US-MD applicants: 681
US-MD matched: 643
US-MD match rate: 94.4%
All other applicants: 882
All other applicants matched: 371
All other applicants match rate: 42.1%
Total positions offered: 1097
US-MD applicants per position offered: 0.62
Number of all other applicants per position not taken by US-MD: 1.94

2011
US-MD applicants: 658
US-MD matched: 630
US-MD match rate: 95.7%
All other applicants: 939
All other applicants matched: 402
All other applicants match rate: 42.8%
Total positions offered: 1097
US-MD applicants per position offered: 0.59
Number of all other applicants per position not taken by US-MD: 2.01

The bolded statistics are the relevant ones, I think. What I see is a gradual (but meaningful) decline in the match rate for non-US MD applicants. I also see a marked increase in the number of non-US MD applicants seeking the spots not taken by US MD applicants.

The relevance of that last statistic is contingent upon the assumption that programs, as a rule, prefer US MD applicants rather osteopaths or FMG/IMG applicants. This, at least, seems consistent with your assertion, Vistaril.

The numbers plainly show that it has already gotten significantly harder for non-US MD applicants to match into psychiatry programs. That appears to based not in an increase of US-MD applicants, but rather an increase in the number of IMG/FMG/DO applicants trying for psychiatry residency.

So, we can agree that psychiatry is not more competitive than in the past for US MD applicants, but it is demonstrably more competitive for all other applicants.

does 2 + 2 = 5 in your world?

The only thing that really matters here is the # of imgs who match into psych each year and the # of amgs who match into psych each year...

you attempting to use # of overall imgs APPLYING is ridiculous and irrelevant. The only thing that matters is # of spots available for imgs, which will roughly equal the total number of slots - number of amgs who want to do psych

If 10,000 imgs apply for psych next year, you're still going to have the same # of open slots for them. And you're still going to have the same number of imgs in programs that amgs are working around. Whether 400 got left in india or 4000 got left back in india isn't really relevant.

Here are the only data that matter from the 3 meaningful years you cite:

626-643-630

this is the number of amgs matching in psych.....as you can see, no trend. A slight bump followed by a slight decrease.

326-371-402

this, otoh, is actually a *small* trend going in the oopposite direction of what you are arguing. MORE imgs entering psych.

Sheeesh, you arent very good at this numbers thing.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[xlithiumx]

does 2 + 2 = 5 in your world?

The only thing that really matters here is the # of imgs who match into psych each year and the # of amgs who match into psych each year...

you attempting to use # of overall imgs APPLYING is ridiculous and irrelevant. The only thing that matters is # of spots available for imgs, which will roughly equal the total number of slots - number of amgs who want to do psych

If 10,000 imgs apply for psych next year, you're still going to have the same # of open slots for them. And you're still going to have the same number of imgs in programs that amgs are working around. Whether 400 got left in india or 4000 got left back in india isn't really relevant.

Here are the only data that matter from the 3 meaningful years you cite:

626-643-630

this is the number of amgs matching in psych.....as you can see, no trend. A slight bump followed by a slight decrease.

326-371-402

this, otoh, is actually a *small* trend going in the oopposite direction of what you are arguing. MORE imgs entering psych.

Sheeesh, you arent very good at this numbers thing.

You don't get it. There are more IMGs trying to get into psychiatry, so any given IMG is going to have a harder time getting in. We agree that the absolute number matriculating is the same. However, the rate of IMG applicants who successfully matriculate is declining in a meaningful way.

So, if a person decides to go to Ross or AUC or St. George's, they are going to have stiffer competition among their IMG cohort for the number of available IMG residency slots that has remained relatively static.

Yes, there are the same number of IMG slots available. There are more people trying to get them, so they will be harder to get.

Please understand. The relevant statistic is match RATE. The match rate for USMDs has remained static. The match RATE for IMGs has declined in a meaningful way.

This discussion is about an IMG's chances to match into psychiatry. The chance to match is absolutely dependent on the number of applicants and the number of spots available to them. Certainly, if there were 500 spots available for IMGs and only 300 applicants, they would have a better shot than if there are 400 spots and 900 applicants. Competition raises the bar. It's why it's hard to get into Harvard for undergrad. Lots and lots of people want to go. Seriously, I can't believe I need to spell this out.

 

[vistaril]

You don't get it. There are more IMGs trying to get into psychiatry, so any given IMG is going to have a harder time getting in. We agree that the absolute number matriculating is the same. However, the rate of IMG applicants who successfully matriculate is declining in a meaningful way.

So, if a person decides to go to Ross or AUC or St. George's, they are going to have stiffer competition among their IMG cohort for the number of available IMG residency slots that has remained relatively static.

Yes, there are the same number of IMG slots available. There are more people trying to get them, so they will be harder to get.

Please understand. The relevant statistic is match RATE. The match rate for USMDs has remained static. The match RATE for IMGs has declined in a meaningful way.

This discussion is about an IMG's chances to match into psychiatry. The chance to match is absolutely dependent on the number of applicants and the number of spots available to them. Certainly, if there were 500 spots available for IMGs and only 300 applicants, they would have a better shot than if there are 400 spots and 900 applicants. Competition raises the bar. It's why it's hard to get into Harvard for undergrad. Lots and lots of people want to go. Seriously, I can't believe I need to spell this out.

but your disconnect is that if the # of americans going into psych stays low as a percentage of total spots in the match(which it is), the pecking order for imgs is the same......the american imgs from ross, stgeorges, etc are still going to get 'first dibs' and be in good shape. the number of img applicants can increase to 10,000 and as long as there are 400 spots for imgs those spots are going to be first snapped up by the safer img applicants(which are american residents who go to Ross, sgu, auc)

That's why an increase in # of img applicants of a couple hundred over years isnt that huge a deal for a ross, sgu, auc students.....unless all that increase is coming from those schools expanding their classes(then they would be competing against each other), which i suspect it is mostly not.

And it directly goes against your(or whoever it was) point about programs becoming less likely to need to consider imgs. As long as the total number of amgs remains low and the same, programs still have to consider the same number of imgs.

 

[xlithiumx]

but your disconnect is that if the # of americans going into psych stays low as a percentage of total spots in the match(which it is), the pecking order for imgs is the same......the american imgs from ross, stgeorges, etc are still going to get 'first dibs' and be in good shape. the number of img applicants can increase to 10,000 and as long as there are 400 spots for imgs those spots are going to be first snapped up by the safer img applicants(which are american residents who go to Ross, sgu, auc)

That's why an increase in # of img applicants of a couple hundred over years isnt that huge a deal for a ross, sgu, auc students.....unless all that increase is coming from those schools expanding their classes(then they would be competing against each other), which i suspect it is mostly not.

And it directly goes against your(or whoever it was) point about programs becoming less likely to need to consider imgs. As long as the total number of amgs remains low and the same, programs still have to consider the same number of imgs.

The critical variable, then, is the source of the non-US MD applicants. If psychiatry is becoming more popular among the big 3-4 Carribean schools + DO schools, then it's going to be harder to get in for those non-US MD applicants.

If, all of a sudden, there's an increase in Indian/Pakistani FMGs applying for psych, then that probably won't affect the Carribean applicants so much.

My conjecture is that the source of the increase in non-US MD applicants is the Carribean and DO schools. My reason for believing this is that the Carribean and DO schools have been and are continually increasing enrollment. Many of them are for-profit and only provide pre-clinical education, so the demand on resources is relatively static, even with an increase in enrollment. In addition, numerous DO schools have opened in recent years.

So, I stand by my point that it will be harder for a Ross, St. George's, AUC grad in the coming years because there will be more competition among their cohort group and an increase in the number of osteopathic applicants who do rank ahead of them in the pecking order.

I agree with you, however, that the statistics don't imply that programs will be able to stop looking at osteopaths or Carribean grads.

 

[Superpsych]

Look Im not trying to start a fight here, just looking to see what your thoughts are. I figure just because there is an increase in med school slots doesnt mean theres automatically an exponential increase in people entering primary care type specialties. And if psych is that heavy with foreign med grads, wouldn't residencies always want a us citizen who has done clinicals in US hospitals over them?

All I can tell you is what I know and have experienced myself. If I could go back I would try harder to get into a USMD school and then I would have went DO if that failed. The USIMG process has been a huge pain in the butt! You are at such a disadvantage if you go that route....

Here is a list: possible to not have loans, the school will not fight for you as the US students get, you may not have clinicals in a row leading to school taking an extra year, yes US clinicals are great but do you want to rotate with a doc that has little experinece in teaching?, you will be looked down on as inferrior to all others, may have to find your own 4th year electives leading to finding out many programs will not allow external rotators, you will spend thousands just applying to programs and only a small fraction will interview you, etc.

 

[shan564]

The critical variable, then, is the source of the non-US MD applicants. If psychiatry is becoming more popular among the big 3-4 Carribean schools + DO schools, then it's going to be harder to get in for those non-US MD applicants.

If, all of a sudden, there's an increase in Indian/Pakistani FMGs applying for psych, then that probably won't affect the Carribean applicants so much.

My conjecture is that the source of the increase in non-US MD applicants is the Carribean and DO schools. My reason for believing this is that the Carribean and DO schools have been and are continually increasing enrollment. Many of them are for-profit and only provide pre-clinical education, so the demand on resources is relatively static, even with an increase in enrollment. In addition, numerous DO schools have opened in recent years.

So, I stand by my point that it will be harder for a Ross, St. George's, AUC grad in the coming years because there will be more competition among their cohort group and an increase in the number of osteopathic applicants who do rank ahead of them in the pecking order.

I agree with you, however, that the statistics don't imply that programs will be able to stop looking at osteopaths or Carribean grads.

Don't bother arguing with vistaril. It's like arguing with a patient who is in acute mania or delirium... It's pointless.

 

[xlithiumx]

Don't bother arguing with vistaril. It's like arguing with a patient who is in acute mania or delirium... It's pointless.

I hear you. Although it is kind of an interesting intellectual exercise. I find that when he really digs his heels in, then one must develop a more nuanced argument and spell out directly all of what should be understood through common sense.

The net effect, however, is that I've wasted time, so I agree it's pretty pointless. It's just hard to see his positions accepted as most of them are so patently absurd and represent our profession so poorly.

 

[shan564]

I hear you. Although it is kind of an interesting intellectual exercise. I find that when he really digs his heels in, then one must develop a more nuanced argument and spell out directly all of what should be understood through common sense.

The net effect, however, is that I've wasted time, so I agree it's pretty pointless. It's just hard to see his positions accepted as most of them are so patently absurd and represent our profession so poorly.

Yeah, I had plenty of arguments with him before I finally realized that I'm just wasting time.

But I get what you mean. All of the regular posters on this forum know who he is, but there are a lot of occasional lurkers or people who just come across a thread from a google search. Some of those people might actually take his advice. I wonder how many people he hurts in that way. And what does somebody have to do to get banned around here? Is it not enough to suggest that you should go to a strip club after a pre-interview dinner?

 

[vistaril]

I hear you. Although it is kind of an interesting intellectual exercise. I find that when he really digs his heels in, then one must develop a more nuanced argument and spell out directly all of what should be understood through common sense.
.

lol....in this case it was you whose argument was absurd from the start. It was clear very early on that I was using(as anyone rational person would) 'competitiveness' and 'competitive' to mean # of amgs going into a certain field. When looking at overall competitiveness, I don't see the need to tease out the different groups amongst the race to the bottom(the decent imgs from the crappier imgs).....

 

[vistaril]

Yeah, I had plenty of arguments with him before I finally realized that I'm just wasting time.

But I get what you mean. All of the regular posters on this forum know who he is, but there are a lot of occasional lurkers or people who just come across a thread from a google search. Some of those people might actually take his advice. I wonder how many people he hurts in that way. And what does somebody have to do to get banned around here? Is it not enough to suggest that you should go to a strip club after a pre-interview dinner?

Look, you're still a student so your perspective on these things isn't very good, but I wouldn't say what we had would qualify as 'arguments'.....more like me laughing hysterically at some of your posts, including all the nonsensical stuff where you attempt to rank(using made up and twisted logic) many of the programs you are apparently applying to.

 

[xlithiumx]

lol....in this case it was you whose argument was absurd from the start. It was clear very early on that I was using(as anyone rational person would) 'competitiveness' and 'competitive' to mean # of amgs going into a certain field. When looking at overall competitiveness, I don't see the need to tease out the different groups amongst the race to the bottom(the decent imgs from the crappier imgs).....

It's entirely relevant if the person who is asking is a member of one of those groups toward the bottom. The person who asked the question was a "decent" img. Totally relevant to consider the number of osteopathic grads and "decent" img's applying and match rate among that group.

The very problem is that you don't see the need.

You might consider asking yourself which of the statements is more likely:

Everyone disagrees with Vistaril because he's the one who is right.
vs.
Everyone disagrees with Vistaril because he's the one who is wrong.

At least from a statistical perspective, the latter is more likely than the former. Are you the exception or the rule? I bet you're confident enough to believe the first statement, but you'd be wrong.

 

[vistaril]

It's entirely relevant if the person who is asking is a member of one of those groups toward the bottom. The person who asked the question was a "decent" img. Totally relevant to consider the number of osteopathic grads and "decent" img's applying and match rate among that group.
.

Sorry, but I don't consider imgs on the radar when looking at the 'competitiveness' of a field. As long as >15% of the people matching are not amgs(and in psych it is waaay above that and shows no signs of going down), it's not competitive at all. The only way 'competitiveness' thus can even begin to change in any real way is to first come close to filling with all americans, and only then can competitiveness begin to move(by the quality of the amgs going into the field)......

 

[Leo Aquarius]

It depends whom you're asking. Ask an IMG and it's competitive to get into a residency spot in the US period. Ask an AMG and about half the specialties are not competitive. We all know this.

The better question is by program. In every specialty you have programs that are very difficult to match into as an AMG, and these same programs never take IMGs and rarely DOs. We probably all know this too.

What point are you guys trying to make I'm unclear?

By the way, I found it very entertaining to read vistaril's posts in the pathology forum. I mean c'mon, you walk into their bar and act like you know better than the pathologists. It's quite funny actually.

 

[vistaril]

It depends whom you're asking. Ask an IMG and it's competitive to get into a residency spot in the US period. Ask an AMG and about half the specialties are not competitive. We all know this.

The better question is by program. In every specialty you have programs that are very difficult to match into as an AMG, and these same programs never take IMGs and rarely DOs. We probably all know this too.

What point are you guys trying to make I'm unclear?

By the way, I found it very entertaining to read vistaril's posts in the pathology forum. I mean c'mon, you walk into their bar and act like you know better than the pathologists. It's quite funny actually.

on the contrary, I made it a big point to emphasize I *didnt know* their field....but I did agree with the basic concept of what my fiance's new group is doing.

 

[xlithiumx]

It depends whom you're asking. Ask an IMG and it's competitive to get into a residency spot in the US period. Ask an AMG and about half the specialties are not competitive. We all know this.

The better question is by program. In every specialty you have programs that are very difficult to match into as an AMG, and these same programs never take IMGs and rarely DOs. We probably all know this too.

What point are you guys trying to make I'm unclear?

By the way, I found it very entertaining to read vistaril's posts in the pathology forum. I mean c'mon, you walk into their bar and act like you know better than the pathologists. It's quite funny actually.

Here's my reconstruction.

A prospective top-4 Caribbean IMG matriculant asked whether he would have a very good shot at ranking in psychiatry in 4-5 years when he graduated. Several people commented that psychiatry is getting more competitive and that IMG's will have less of a shot. A current top-4 Caribbean IMG echoed that sentiment. OPD (who knows something about ranking) expressed a similar idea.

Vistaril asserted that this person had nothing to worry about with respect to matching into psychiatry from a top-4 Caribbean school.

I noted that there are more DOs and IMGs applying to psychiatry with a static number of spots available to them, thereby making it more competitive to IMGs than it might have been in the past. I supported this assertion with data from NRMP.

Vistaril asserted that competitiveness for IMGs has nothing to do with the number of IMGs applying for that static number of spots and is best captured by competitiveness for AMGs, which has remained fairly static.

I disagree with him and believe that it, by definition, matters to an IMG if more IMGs and DOs are competing for that relatively static pool of spots not taken by AMGs.

Stupid argument, I know. But here's a kid thinking about going to the Caribbean, which is a really bad idea, especially with the increasing number of osteopathic grads, and I believe he should be dissuaded, not encouraged.

Now, none of this is relevant to my personal experience. FWIW, I'm a US grad from a top 15 med school at a relatively middle of the road midwest residency in my home state. He just makes us look bad, and I want to counteract that as much as possible.

 

[xlithiumx]

Sorry, but I don't consider imgs on the radar when looking at the 'competitiveness' of a field. As long as >15% of the people matching are not amgs(and in psych it is waaay above that and shows no signs of going down), it's not competitive at all. The only way 'competitiveness' thus can even begin to change in any real way is to first come close to filling with all americans, and only then can competitiveness begin to move(by the quality of the amgs going into the field)......

Kid asked about competitiveness for an IMG, not general competitiveness. Please try to understand the shades of gray here.

 

[vistaril]

Here's my reconstruction.

A prospective top-4 Caribbean IMG matriculant asked whether he would have a very good shot at ranking in psychiatry in 4-5 years when he graduated. Several people commented that psychiatry is getting more competitive and that IMG's will have less of a shot. A current top-4 Caribbean IMG echoed that sentiment. OPD (who knows something about ranking) expressed a similar idea.

Vistaril asserted that this person had nothing to worry about with respect to matching into psychiatry from a top-4 Caribbean school.

I noted that there are more DOs and IMGs applying to psychiatry with a static number of spots available to them, thereby making it more competitive to IMGs than it might have been in the past. I supported this assertion with data from NRMP.

Vistaril asserted that competitiveness for IMGs has nothing to do with the number of IMGs applying for that static number of spots and is best captured by competitiveness for AMGs, which has remained fairly static.

I disagree with him and believe that it, by definition, matters to an IMG if more IMGs and DOs are competing for that relatively static pool of spots not taken by AMGs.

Stupid argument, I know. But here's a kid thinking about going to the Caribbean, which is a really bad idea, especially with the increasing number of osteopathic grads, and I believe he should be dissuaded, not encouraged.

Now, none of this is relevant to my personal experience. FWIW, I'm a US grad from a top 15 med school at a relatively middle of the road midwest residency in my home state. He just makes us look bad, and I want to counteract that as much as possible.

your argument is still very poor, no matter how you try to reconstruct it.....

for example, the ross and sgu match lists are available I think. They aren't top secret. I dont have the info handy, but how many people from sgu matched into psych last year? Maybe 10-15? 20-25 at the absolute most Im guessing.

I bet between ross, sgu, and AUC combined you didn't have 50 spots taken last year(wouldnt be surprised if it were much less)....and those are the 3 carrib schools that americans would go to.

So in looking at the argument again from the perspective of the OP's question, you still don't have more than 15% or so of all those non-amg slots being taken by the USIMGS in carrib schools......still PLENTY of psych slots for the typical ross or sgu grad to nab one at lower(or even midtier as many do) programs.....

 

[xlithiumx]

It would take a better person than me to continue this argument with out resorting to ad hominems. Good luck. I worry for you.

 

[Hockeyfan23]

Seems like the premed caused a bit of a ruckus...my apologies

 

[kindasorta]

Seems like the premed caused a bit of a ruckus...my apologies

Listen pre-med, why don't you go and play with your blocks. Mommy and daddy are fighting.

 

[shan564]

Seems like the premed caused a bit of a ruckus...my apologies

Ha, don't worry about it... it happens all the time (usually an argument between vistaril and somebody else about something totally random).

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Seems like the premed caused a bit of a ruckus...my apologies

Just allowed folks to blow off some pre-Match tension.

 

[member2721]

Pretty good job. Here's my take:

1. MGH
2. Columbia
3. Cornell
4. UCLA
5. Stanford
6. Yale
7. UCSF
8. Penn
9. NYU
10. Hopkins
11. Duke
12. UMich
13. Pitt
14. Mayo
15. Harvard Longwood
16. UCSD
17. Harvard Cambridge
18. Brown
19. Mt. Sinai
20. U. Washington
21. Emory
22. UNC
23. MUSC
24 Illinois
25. UC Davis

Here is my take based on my interview trail and discussing with faculty. This is from an academic and clinical leadership perspective. Ie, where will the future leaders of psychiatry be trained in residency. Disclaimer: just an approximation, and I only interviewed at 15 programs with bias towards the NE and west coast.

Mgh
Columbia
Yale
Stanford
Sinai
UCLA
UPitt
UW Seattle
NYU
UPenn
Longwood
UCSF
UCSD
Cornell
MUSC
Hopkins
Emory
Cambridge
UMiami
UMass
AECOM

 

[shan564]

Here is my take based on my interview trail and discussing with faculty. This is from an academic and clinical leadership perspective. Ie, where will the future leaders of psychiatry be trained in residency. Disclaimer: just an approximation, and I only interviewed at 15 programs with bias towards the NE and west coast.

Mgh
Columbia
Yale
Stanford
Sinai
UCLA
UPitt
UW Seattle
NYU
UPenn
Longwood
UCSF
UCSD
Cornell
MUSC
Hopkins
Emory
Cambridge
UMiami
UMass
AECOM

You know, there's a lot of stuff between Pennsylvania and California... Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, WashU, Baylor, UTSW, Mayo, Colorado, Cincy, and Vanderbilt probably have at least as strong of research/clinical reputations as UMass or AECOM, and probably Miami (although Nemeroff might change that for Miami).

 

[member2721]

You know, there's a lot of stuff between Pennsylvania and California... Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, WashU, Baylor, UTSW, Mayo, Colorado, Cincy, and Vanderbilt probably have at least as strong of research/clinical reputations as UMass or AECOM, and probably Miami (although Nemeroff might change that for Miami).

Yup absolutely agree. I didn't visit to those programs but Mayo is defn up there with their genomics and individualized medicine. I met a child fellow who did her adult at mayo, as an IMG, and she had over a dozen legit pubs from just 4 years. (Unfortunately she is on a J1 so academics is not going to be easy. )

WUST and Mich also does some cool stuff, but honesty I jut don't know enough. Perhaps you can do a Midwest top 10 to enlighten us coasties.

 

[shan564]

WUST and Mich also does some cool stuff, but honesty I jut don't know enough. Perhaps you can do a Midwest top 10 to enlighten us coasties.

Well, I'd probably cite those 10 that I just mentioned. WashU has a lot of NIH funding for psychiatry, and that's not including the $30 million Human Connectome grant... and they essentially invented modern biological psychiatry. Michigan also has a lot of research money and do a lot of cool neuroscience stuff, but I don't know the details. Indiana has a huge new neuroscience institute with all sorts of awesome research in neuroimaging of mental illness and interventional psychiatry techniques. Iowa has long been a big player in the research world, but they're currently doing a lot with genomics and neuroimaging. Baylor just got a big $25 million grant for neuropsych, which they used to poach a big neuropsych researcher from Colorado, which is also doing a lot of cool neuropsych stuff. UTSW is a big research name throughout medicine, and psych is no exception. Vanderbilt is supposedly as strong as Mayo for genomics, but I don't know much more than that. Cincy is also a big name in psych research, but I don't know much about them either. I might also add Cleveland Clinic to the list... they're rapidly developing a respectable neuroscience research program, but they're more focused on the more "medical things," like pain and sleep.

Of course, as we all know, it's silly to make a top 10 list unless we say "top 10 by Standard X." That's why when I posted a "ranking" spreadsheet a couple of weeks ago, I specifically said that this ranking is based mostly on how past SDNers ranked a particular program on their respective ROLs. A list of "research prowess" would be entirely different. And a list of "clinical training" or "psychotherapy training" would probably be impossible to make, unless you're splik.

 

[splik]

despite my ridiculous lists i've always refused to play ball with this top 25 thing, not least because there aren't 25 programs i'd apply to rather than go unmatched in the country.

however i can do a "what's hot", "what's not" cos that will piss some people off!

 

[shan564]

despite my ridiculous lists i've always refused to play ball with this top 25 thing, not least because there aren't 25 programs i'd apply to rather than go unmatched in the country.

however i can do a "what's hot", "what's not" cos that will piss some people off!

I always enjoy some controversy...

 

[Leo Aquarius]

I shouldn't feed this ranking mentality, but I will indulge. If I had to make my list as a resident who knows a little more about programs than your average med student, my personal Top 25 would be:

*Top 25*

MGH
Columbia
Cornell
UCLA
UCLA-Harbor
Johns Hopkins
Northwestern
UCSF
UPenn
UPitt
Yale
Longwood
UCSD
UC Davis
Duke
Sheppard Pratt
U Wash
Wash-St Louis
UNC
UTSW
NYU
U Wisc
Emory
Cleveland Clinic
U Mich

Some are very strong in research, while others are top notch for public psychiatry, forensics, or therapy training. Many on here are strong in more than one area, and anyone matching to the above named should feel lucky. California programs tend to be the most competitive. Of course there are many other fantastic programs! Notice I kept Baylor, Mt Sinai, and Stanford off the list.

Good luck med students!

 

[shan564]

I shouldn't feed this ranking mentality, but I will indulge. If I had to make my list as a resident who knows a little more about programs than your average med student, my personal Top 25 would be:

*Top 25*

MGH
Columbia
Cornell
UCLA
UCLA-Harbor
Johns Hopkins
Northwestern
UCSF
UPenn
UPitt
Yale
Longwood
UCSD
UC Davis
Duke
Sheppard Pratt
U Wash
Wash-St Louis
UNC
UTSW
NYU
U Wisc
Emory
Cleveland Clinic
U Mich

Some are very strong in research, while others are top notch for public psychiatry, forensics, or therapy training. Many on here are strong in more than one area, and anyone matching to the above named should feel lucky. California programs tend to be the most competitive. Of course there are many other fantastic programs! Notice I kept Baylor, Mt Sinai, and Stanford off the list.

Good luck med students!

Any reasons why you choose Northwestern over UIC? And choose Cleveland Clinic over Mayo?

I can understand the rationale of saying that Cleveland wins out over Mayo because of patient diversity, but by that rationale, UIC should beat Northwestern.

Aside from that, I think everything is about right. I think that Baylor/MSSM/Stanford can be anywhere from #10 to #100, depending on your interests/criteria.

 

[MiddleRoad]

I shouldn't feed this ranking mentality, but I will indulge. If I had to make my list as a resident who knows a little more about programs than your average med student, my personal Top 25 would be:

*Top 25*

MGH
Columbia
Cornell
UCLA
UCLA-Harbor
Johns Hopkins
Northwestern
UCSF
UPenn
UPitt
Yale
Longwood
UCSD
UC Davis
Duke
Sheppard Pratt
U Wash
Wash-St Louis
UNC
UTSW
NYU
U Wisc
Emory
Cleveland Clinic
U Mich

Based purely on prestige/reputation/snob appeal, I think it's hard to argue with your top 4. After that, I think it's pretty much anyone's guess. That's why this criterion is useless, if not fun to argue about.

 

[shan564]

\ fun to argue about.

Yeah, I think that's the only purpose of these discussions... there should be a disclaimer somewhere that says "don't use this information in your ROL!"

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I shouldn't feed this ranking mentality, but I will indulge. If I had to make my list as a resident who knows a little more about programs than your average med student, my personal Top 25 would be:

*Top 25*

MGH
Columbia
Cornell
UCLA
UCLA-Harbor
Johns Hopkins
Northwestern
UCSF
UPenn
UPitt
Yale
Longwood
UCSD
UC Davis
Duke
Sheppard Pratt
U Wash
Wash-St Louis
UNC
UTSW
NYU
U Wisc
Emory
Cleveland Clinic
U Mich

Some are very strong in research, while others are top notch for public psychiatry, forensics, or therapy training. Many on here are strong in more than one area, and anyone matching to the above named should feel lucky. California programs tend to be the most competitive. Of course there are many other fantastic programs! Notice I kept Baylor, Mt Sinai, and Stanford off the list.

Good luck med students!

I've got to say this list just seems plain odd to me. UCLA-Harbor as #5? Northwestern, Johns Hopkins and UCLA-Harbor all over UCSF? Bizarro. Of course my program is omitted, so I've got to disagree with it on principle anyway.

 

[vistaril]

I shouldn't feed this ranking mentality, but I will indulge. If I had to make my list as a resident who knows a little more about programs than your average med student, my personal Top 25 would be:

*Top 25*

MGH
Columbia
Cornell
UCLA
UCLA-Harbor
Johns Hopkins
Northwestern
UCSF
UPenn
UPitt
Yale
Longwood
UCSD
UC Davis
Duke
Sheppard Pratt
U Wash
Wash-St Louis
UNC
UTSW
NYU
U Wisc
Emory
Cleveland Clinic
U Mich

Some are very strong in research, while others are top notch for public psychiatry, forensics, or therapy training. Many on here are strong in more than one area, and anyone matching to the above named should feel lucky. California programs tend to be the most competitive. Of course there are many other fantastic programs! Notice I kept Baylor, Mt Sinai, and Stanford off the list.

Good luck med students!

I'd throw Northwestern, cleveland clinic, maybe emory, wisconsin out.

 

[member2721]

Here is my take based on my interview trail and discussing with faculty. This is from an academic and clinical leadership perspective. i.e., where will the leadership for the future of american and global psychiatry be born out of.

I'd like to justify my choices. And stir up some controversy.=)

Mgh- academic powerhouse, global reputation, rigorous clinical training
Columbia- innovative neuroscience and basic science psychiatry research
Yale- global psychiatry. Take a look at the trainees from China who are publishing prolifically in Molecular psychiatry.
Stanford- optogenetics, ethics, neuroimaging, child research
Sinai- 3rd in NIH funding per faculty
UCLA- academic powerhouse, clinically rigorous
UPitt- DSM 5
UW Seattle- primary care collaboration, public psychiatry, DBT
NYU- Bellevue, psychosis, trauma research powerhouse
UPenn- neuroimaging longitudinal study, psychotherapy research
Longwood- Bahston
UCSF- community
Cornell- psychoanalysis, BJ Casey et al
MUSC- ECT, interventional psychiatry
Hopkins- East Coast, global reputation
UCSD- well-rounded Cali program
Emory- CDC
Cambridge- psychotherapy ninja, minority mental health, HIV psychiatry, education-oriented program
UMass- state psychiatry
AECOM- psychotherapy gem

 

[cleareyedguy]

I'd like to justify my choices. And stir up some controversy.=)

Mgh- academic powerhouse, global reputation, rigorous clinical training
Columbia- innovative neuroscience and basic science psychiatry research
Yale- global psychiatry. Take a look at the trainees from China who are publishing prolifically in Molecular psychiatry.
Stanford- optogenetics, ethics, neuroimaging, child research
Sinai- 3rd in NIH funding per faculty
UCLA- academic powerhouse, clinically rigorous
UPitt- DSM 5
UW Seattle- primary care collaboration, public psychiatry, DBT
NYU- Bellevue, psychosis, trauma research powerhouse
UPenn- neuroimaging longitudinal study, psychotherapy research
Longwood- Bahston
UCSF- community
Cornell- psychoanalysis, BJ Casey et al
MUSC- ECT, interventional psychiatry
Hopkins- East Coast, global reputation
UCSD- well-rounded Cali program
Emory- CDC
Cambridge- psychotherapy ninja, minority mental health, HIV psychiatry, education-oriented program
UMass- state psychiatry
AECOM- psychotherapy gem

I like this list because it reflects how much well-informed people know about any particular department (ie, a couple of generalizations) and how much any particular strength will affect any particular resident (ie, not much). For example, optogenetics is big at Stanford, which is especially useful for the once-in-a-decade MD/PhD who gets a spot in Deisseroth's lab. for most solid applicants, the similarities among these top places >> the differences...

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I like this list because it reflects how much well-informed people know about any particular department (ie, a couple of generalizations) and how much any particular strength will affect any particular resident (ie, not much). For example, optogenetics is big at Stanford, which is especially useful for the once-in-a-decade MD/PhD who gets a spot in Deisseroth's lab. for most solid applicants, the similarities among these top places >> the differences...

 

[shan564]

I like this list because it reflects how much well-informed people know about any particular department (ie, a couple of generalizations) and how much any particular strength will affect any particular resident (ie, not much). For example, optogenetics is big at Stanford, which is especially useful for the once-in-a-decade MD/PhD who gets a spot in Deisseroth's lab. for most solid applicants, the similarities among these top places >> the differences...

And also the extreme coastal bias. I don't think that most people in the flyover states would consider AECOM or UMass to be a stronger program than Michigan, WashU, Iowa, Indiana, Vanderbilt, Mayo, Baylor, UTSW, Colorado, Cincy, or many others that I'm probably failing to consider.

I can't count the number of times I've said "hey, don't forget this list of top-class Midwestern programs!" on SDN.

Of course, for most people, these distinctions won't matter. Training at WashU probably doesn't make you a better clinician than training down the street at Saint Louis University. It only really matters for those of us who are masochistic enough to go into academia.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

And also the extreme coastal bias. I don't think that most people in the flyover states would consider AECOM or UMass to be a stronger program than Michigan, WashU, Iowa, Indiana, Vanderbilt, Mayo, Baylor, UTSW, Colorado, Cincy, or many others that I'm probably failing to consider.

I can't count the number of times I've said "hey, don't forget this list of top-class Midwestern programs!" on SDN.

Of course, for most people, these distinctions won't matter. Training at WashU probably doesn't make you a better clinician than training down the street at Saint Louis University. It only really matters for those of us who are masochistic enough to go into academia.