-clinical opportunities to learn: more = better. You'll want an involuntary and involuntary unit, a (P)ACT team, outpatient, day programs, emergency crisis center, case managers. The better places will also have a forensic facility, access to the court room for involuntary cases. For child psychiatry, an inpatient child facility, day program etc. Does the place have ECT? The best places may have an eating disorder clinic (those are rare).
-quality of the teaching: The best are top people in the field who actually love to teach. Though you could go to a place where the people aren't at the top, but still do great teaching. You want to avoid places with attendings who see residents as fodder to do their work and don't teach.
-atmosphere of the program: avoid malignant programs where abuse of residents occurs. This occurs less in university programs due to a bigger and better GME office. There are several programs that I know of that are malignant. E.g. one program I knew of made residents work about 100 hrs a week in clear violation of ACGME guidelines. The program instilled a sense of fear in residents. It has gone there for years, and will likely continue for more.
So I looked, and "Harvard programs" does equal "MGH", as the posters above were thinking. Also, the numbers listed above are a little outdated. Among CURRENT residents (those who matched from 2006-2009), here are the number of MD/PhDs:
MGH (10)
Cornell and UCSF (9 each)
Columbia (7)
Yale (5)
UCLA (4)
Yes, this is an excellent measure of one-up-manship. We all know that those who have PhD's all have them in pertinent fields to their speciality and will ultimately complement their future academic career. I mean, no one ever gets a PhD in Biochemistry and becomes a community psychiatrist post residency, right?
I2-your interviews seemed like interrogations. I do think several good programs will give some interviewees some tough questions. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an attending literally doing some very questionable things during the interview like raise his voice in an angry and condescending manner.
Which residencies are considered the "Top 5" for Psychiatry, and what are the average stats for such residencies?
(Consult-Liason is consdiered a fellowship, correct?)
I don't know about "top 5", but I'd be willing to guess that the following 4 programs are amongst the most competitive to match into:
ucsd
ucsf
columbia
ucla
I don't know about "top 5", but I'd be willing to guess that the following 4 programs are amongst the most competitive to match into:
ucsd
ucsf
columbia
ucla
MGH/McLean is a pretty glaring omission on that list.
If applicants think of LA as "intellectual," boy are they in for a rude awakening...Psychiatrists like intellectual cities, so tend to go to places like New York, Boston, and San Francisco. The same is true of psychiatry residents.
The most competitive programs are MGH/McLean, Columbia, Cornell, UCSF, and (maybe) UCLA.
You wouldn't happen to be from California would you?![]()
No offense Whopper. How unprofessional can one be?
Possibly. Several highly competitive institutions can fit into the bad stereotype. However several truly have better learning opportunities and are great institutions. If you have a top person in the field, and that person just happens to be a great teacher--that's the opportunity of a lifetime. Of course yes, there are some who are top people who don't teach well, or do not want to teach, and yes, some places with a name.Yes, this is an excellent measure of one-up-manship.
If applicants think of LA as "intellectual," boy are they in for a rude awakening...
If applicants think of LA as "intellectual," boy are they in for a rude awakening...
Oh, I've got no illusions that the sun rises and sets on Northern California (though I know the type you mean). It's definitely not everyone's cup of tea. I just never found LA to be all that intellectually stimulating.Ah, the NorCal snobbery..... almost as good as the East Coast variety!![]()
Really? I've found that Californians can sometimes be a pretty obnoxious bunch regaling stories of the golden state to anyone within earshot in their new home (especially grating during that first winter). And you'll find plenty of SoCal folks up in NorCal (especially during the tech boom) in which "In L.A...." was the preface of every description of a better club/beach/restaurant/etc. (albeit rarely bookstore/coffeeshop/etc).As a CA native (central CA, nobody's favorite place) and a 7 year resident of Los Angeles, I've always found these perspectives puzzling and frustrating, particularly since I cannot recall ever experiencing the reverse (e.g. SoCal people talking trash about NorCal, or West Coast people shooting down the East Coast).
Being born and raised in SoCal, I personally couldn't wait to get out.
Really? I've found that Californians can sometimes be a pretty obnoxious bunch regaling stories of the golden state to anyone within earshot in their new home (especially grating during that first winter).
SF, LA, Boston, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, etc. are all acquired tastes. Any place that can inspire passionate loyalty will also inspire distaste among those that don't get it. Some don't get San Francisco. I don't get LA. Viva la difference.
Bump for this question
The most competitive programs are MGH/McLean, Columbia, Cornell, UCSF, and (maybe) UCLA. ...
NYU, Stanford, and Longwood are not that far behind.
Where do people learn this stuff?
Cornell is competitive, but very much self-selecting. They want people who are focused on psychoanalysis/dynamics. But it's not even close to Columbia/MGH/UCSF/UCLA in terms of competition to match there.
Similarly, NYU is not that competitive. The class is huge and they want people who want to work very hard and don't mind being in a little bit of a run-down atmosphere at times (no knock on Bellevue, it's an amazing place, but it's nothing fancy). However, given that it's one of the good programs in NYC, there is a certain degree of competition of someone who'd rather by in New York than even the best program in another city.
Standford is extremely competitive. Maybe it's not as good as Columbia/MGH, but it's extremely hard to match there, partly because they have the added "California factor" that raises a barrier for non-West coasters. Recall multiple people last year got the "we're not inviting you for an interview because we have such limited interview spots and don't know if you'd come out here, but if you are serious about coming to California [lists criteria by which "serious" is defined], then let us know" e-mail from Stanford.
Longwood is not as competitive. It's a great program, don't get me wrong. But if you are a good applicant with a good interview, you can match there. You don't have to be from a top undergrad, a top med school, or have research. Excellent facilities, large faculty, especially for consult-liason. But the Harvard name elevates it more than the actual substance of the program.
And, UCLA - it's highly competitive. It's the best program in SoCal, "the best in the west," whatever you think. That's why the residents there work very hard -- they can afford to recruit 15 or whatever number of people who will smile and work very, very hard (for the first two years - years 3-4 are a cakewalk). Compared to NYU, Cornell, Longwood... UCLA has their pick of applicants.
Think about why not a single Cornell med student matched at Cornell psych last year -- because none of them ranked it first.
Consider that Longwood didn't fill their class two years ago.
Those are things that don't happen to the top top programs.
A lot of comments on these message boards, over the years, seem to simply repeating other people's views about different programs, rather than using real evidence, an insider's view, or from actually knowing the program.
So, for all you applicants, learn about the programs yourself and don't pay too much attention to what you're reading here, especially when you don't know the person writing! Trust yourself!!
Good luck![]()
I intentially didn't apply to any of these programs talked about here. I couldn't imagine living in any of these places.
I also have a hard time agreeing that they are superior to other programs like Iowa, Wash U, Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, Case Western, Vanderbilt, U washington, U Cincinatti, and some of the programs in Texas or further in the SE that all have sizeable research programs.
There is more than the wretchedness of the NE and California...
I intentially didn't apply to any of these programs talked about here. I couldn't imagine living in any of these places.
I also have a hard time agreeing that they are superior to other programs like Iowa, Wash U, Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, Case Western, Vanderbilt, U washington, U Cincinatti, and some of the programs in Texas or further in the SE that all have sizeable research programs.
There is more than the wretchedness of the NE and California...
From what I've seen, the SDN psych board has a very decidedly NE bias. This Caly thing is new but actually promising because a year or two ago, no program east of Pennsylvania was mentioned as being worth looking at.Maybe we'll make it to Nebraska this year.
Where do people learn this stuff?
Cornell is competitive, but very much self-selecting. They want people who are focused on psychoanalysis/dynamics. But it's not even close to Columbia/MGH/UCSF/UCLA in terms of competition to match there.
Similarly, NYU is not that competitive. The class is huge and they want people who want to work very hard and don't mind being in a little bit of a run-down atmosphere at times (no knock on Bellevue, it's an amazing place, but it's nothing fancy). However, given that it's one of the good programs in NYC, there is a certain degree of competition of someone who'd rather by in New York than even the best program in another city.
Standford is extremely competitive. Maybe it's not as good as Columbia/MGH, but it's extremely hard to match there, partly because they have the added "California factor" that raises a barrier for non-West coasters. Recall multiple people last year got the "we're not inviting you for an interview because we have such limited interview spots and don't know if you'd come out here, but if you are serious about coming to California [lists criteria by which "serious" is defined], then let us know" e-mail from Stanford.
Longwood is not as competitive. It's a great program, don't get me wrong. But if you are a good applicant with a good interview, you can match there. You don't have to be from a top undergrad, a top med school, or have research. Excellent facilities, large faculty, especially for consult-liason. But the Harvard name elevates it more than the actual substance of the program.
And, UCLA - it's highly competitive. It's the best program in SoCal, "the best in the west," whatever you think. That's why the residents there work very hard -- they can afford to recruit 15 or whatever number of people who will smile and work very, very hard (for the first two years - years 3-4 are a cakewalk). Compared to NYU, Cornell, Longwood... UCLA has their pick of applicants.
Think about why not a single Cornell med student matched at Cornell psych last year -- because none of them ranked it first.
Consider that Longwood didn't fill their class two years ago.
Those are things that don't happen to the top top programs.
A lot of comments on these message boards, over the years, seem to simply repeating other people's views about different programs, rather than using real evidence, an insider's view, or from actually knowing the program.
So, for all you applicants, learn about the programs yourself and don't pay too much attention to what you're reading here, especially when you don't know the person writing! Trust yourself!!
Good luck![]()
I love this post just because it shows that no one can state with any certainty what is and what isn't the most competitive/prestigious/"top" whatever residency. People on SDN seem to state these things like they're facts with no supporting evidence. And they state all sorts of other "facts" with an n of 1 about all sorts of aspects of the application process. We all see things in the application process that coincide with our view of how the world should be, not how it necessarily is.
So anyway, big note, if you're worrying because the sdn people don't give nods to your place or imply that you're screwed because you didn't go to a top 25 program (which apparently everyone at sdn went to based on the posts here), don't. No one poster here has any collective view of how the whole psychiatry world goes.
...You're good enough, and gosh darn it, people like you. And you don't have to hate on Cornell (or the people who care about being at a place like Cornell) for those things to be true!
A lot of people want to be in New York, Boston, and San Francisco. The slots there are inherently valuable because of that, and it's pretty unlikely that having all of these people who value being better than other people results in a lot of mediocrity.
We all went to medical school. We're already selected to be a bunch of narcissists who have variously learned to thrive with and suppress our inflated opinions of ourselves.
You don't think that specifically selecting for narcissism can result in a certain TYPE of mediocrity?