UC Davis vs UCLA-semel

[3lefts]

Is anyone familiar with both of these programs? Does the quality difference in clinical training justify living in LA when I’d somewhat rather live in Sacramento? I couldn’t elicit any meaningful criticism of either program from their respective residents... not sure if everyone at both programs is just that happy or if maybe there’s some sugar-coating going on?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[notdeadyet]

This question is almost impossible to answer without knowing what you're looking for in a psychiatry residency. NPI > UCD for some careers and UCD > NPI for other careers.

What are you looking to get out of residency training?

 

[3lefts]

At this point, I am thinking peds C-L or peds palliative (CHLA has a fellowship, but I am unaware of any peds palliative or peds-track palliative fellowships in Sacramento). However, this could change, and I'm quite open to it changing, as I've enjoyed enjoyed working with a number of different populations, and have yet to explore the whole world that is outpatient psych. My priority is to become a top notch clinician, and so I am seeking well-thought-out didactics and strong therapy supervision. I am not in particular seeking a career in academics, except that I find it energizing to be around bright, driven, intellectually curious, people. I have no aversion to working hard when there is a decent education:service ratio, though I do acknowledge the contribution of regular sleep hours to my general sense of wellbeing. I would like to start a family at some point in residency. My own family is in the SF Bay area.

 

[christmasindr]

Both UC Davis and UCLA are great training programs. If you are very interested in academia and a lot of research, then UCLA makes more sense. If you care more about general well-being and living in a place you like better, then UC Davis might be a better fit for you. In my interview experience, UCLA has a lot more calls and longer work hours, so prepare to work really hard for your PGY1-2.

 

[3lefts]

Both UC Davis and UCLA are great training programs. If you are very interested in academia and a lot of research, then UCLA makes more sense. If you care more about general well-being and living in a place you like better, then UC Davis might be a better fit for you. In my interview experience, UCLA has a lot more calls and longer work hours, so prepare to work really hard for your PGY1-2.

So, you think they both provide equally great general clinical psychiatry training? Maybe my confusion is a function of some programs being better at advertising themselves than others. After some interviews, I walked away super impressed by the thoughtfulness of the curriculum (Yale, Columbia) or the breadth of expertise available to inform one's development as a psychiatrist (WPIC, UCLA). At my UC Davis interview, I could tell that they valued education and resident well-being, I thought the effort to put cultural psychiatry into all four years of the didactics was cool, and I repeatedly thought "I could be happy here" (I have felt this way at the majority of my interviews), but I couldn't necessarily tell it was a GREAT program (though I didn't pick up on any flagrant weaknesses, either).

 

[notdeadyet]

Davis is an under appreciated program.

In choosing NPI vs. Davis from a practical standpoint, the biggest differences will be lifestyle and research. Davis has a MUCH better work-life balance (shorter hours and less call) compared to NPI. NPI has a MUCH better research portfolio than Davis.

If you have interested in underserved populations, it is more integrated into the Davis program (particularly working with people of color). UCLA does not have a county-focus, except for emergency psych training in intern year. Yes, you can elect to do electives later in your training, but it does not have a county experience embedded as a big part of the training. If you are interested in psychotherapy, Davis also has very strong ties to this, and is quite strong with psychodynamic training.

If you are interested in getting grants for clinical research, UCLA hands down. Also, if you are interested in developing large scale clinical or educational programs, UCLA wins this one, as it is a psych residency with good ties to the wide resources (educational and otherwise) of being nicely integrated with a world class undergraduate institution (Davis is affiliated with UC Davis in name only really, ask the program is in a different city than the undergrad school).

You'll get great training at both programs. If I were me, I'd opt for UCLA if I was hellbent on academic career or loved the idea of living in LA. I'd opt for UC Davis if I was interested in more community-focused training, therapy-bent, or interested in having a healthy non-work lifestyle.

 

[christmasindr]

Davis is an under appreciated program.

In choosing NPI vs. Davis from a practical standpoint, the biggest differences will be lifestyle and research. Davis has a MUCH better work-life balance (shorter hours and less call) compared to NPI. NPI has a MUCH better research portfolio than Davis.

If you have interested in underserved populations, it is more integrated into the Davis program (particularly working with people of color). UCLA does not have a county-focus, except for emergency psych training in intern year. Yes, you can elect to do electives later in your training, but it does not have a county experience embedded as a big part of the training. If you are interested in psychotherapy, Davis also has very strong ties to this, and is quite strong with psychodynamic training.

If you are interested in getting grants for clinical research, UCLA hands down. Also, if you are interested in developing large scale clinical or educational programs, UCLA wins this one, as it is a psych residency with good ties to the wide resources (educational and otherwise) of being nicely integrated with a world class undergraduate institution (Davis is affiliated with UC Davis in name only really, ask the program is in a different city than the undergrad school).

You'll get great training at both programs. If I were me, I'd opt for UCLA if I was hellbent on academic career or loved the idea of living in LA. I'd opt for UC Davis if I was interested in more community-focused training, therapy-bent, or interested in having a healthy non-work lifestyle.

That's a really nice summary. Although I would add that UCD is really good with medical education if that's something you are interested in. UC Davis has some decent research opportunities through the MIND institute, but it is not as powerhouse as UCLA. UCLA, on other hand, while have a lot of electives and fun stuff to choose from, work their residents much harder.

 

[christmasindr]

So, you think they both provide equally great general clinical psychiatry training? Maybe my confusion is a function of some programs being better at advertising themselves than others. After some interviews, I walked away super impressed by the thoughtfulness of the curriculum (Yale, Columbia) or the breadth of expertise available to inform one's development as a psychiatrist (WPIC, UCLA). At my UC Davis interview, I could tell that they valued education and resident well-being, I thought the effort to put cultural psychiatry into all four years of the didactics was cool, and I repeatedly thought "I could be happy here" (I have felt this way at the majority of my interviews), but I couldn't necessarily tell it was a GREAT program (though I didn't pick up on any flagrant weaknesses, either).

I don't know what you mean by "GREAT program." UC Davis is very strong with their clinical training, so you will have no problem with that.

 

[3lefts]

Thank you two for taking the time to thoroughly weigh in on my question. Sounds like I need to do some more thinking about my priorities and work on the decision process from there.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[3lefts]

If anyone has anything to add, I’m all ears!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[notdeadyet]

That's a really nice summary. Although I would add that UCD is really good with medical education if that's something you are interested in. UC Davis has some decent research opportunities through the MIND institute, but it is not as powerhouse as UCLA. UCLA, on other hand, while have a lot of electives and fun stuff to choose from, work their residents much harder.

Good points. And that's true that Davis has lots of med ed opportunities. The Psychiatry department is very well represented (and respected) in the medical school leadership, as well, so there is ample opportunity to teach medical students as well as higher level programming. Can't comment on UCLA about that score.

 

[notdeadyet]

Thank you two for taking the time to thoroughly weigh in on my question. Sounds like I need to do some more thinking about my priorities and work on the decision process from there.

The nice thing, 3lefts, is that they're both great programs.

I'll make another pitch for not underestimating the importance of deciding where you'd like to live. There is an old nugget that something like 80% of psychiatrists end up practicing n miles (70 or some such) from where they trained. With great training like these two programs, you're certainly not tied down, but life often intervenes and the path of least resistance starts feeling awfully nice.

 

[3lefts]

Thank you, I’m really excited about Davis now! I know they have a lot of great options also, so I hope it’s mutual.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[3lefts]

If one day I decide to go into private practice, would it be better to have gone to UCLA vs UCD? I would probably be in California or the pacific north west, but not necessarily in the LA area.

 

[splik]

If one day I decide to go into private practice, would it be better to have gone to UCLA vs UCD? I would probably be in California or the pacific north west, but not necessarily in the LA area.

UCLA hands down. this is not so much because it is a top tier program (which the general public is not going to know and rarely plays into getting private patients even though you can bet people market this kind of thing) but because they have a large volunteer clinical faculty in private practice who can serve as mentors for those wishing to develop a psychotherapy based private practice, the department panders to cash patients (they even have a concierge psychiatry service), and some residents do private practice from as early as PGY-3.

 

[notdeadyet]

If one day I decide to go into private practice, would it be better to have gone to UCLA vs UCD? I would probably be in California or the pacific north west, but not necessarily in the LA area.

Solely for the sake of private practice in a geographically neutral place, UCLA would be a better choice. If you go the cash-only route and actually have to work to fill a practice, more people have heard of UCLA.

This is not any reflection of the training. It has more to do with sports. No joke.

 

[nitemagi]

I'm a member of the PCFA at UCLA and I agree -- it's a good institution of private practice psychiatrists, though largely ones who practice some kind of therapy.

Having a successful PP, like any small business, is really a matter of a customer base and a viable product. Offer good treatment above the low bar that exists, potentially for niches that are otherwise unfilled, and get referrals from others in the community. Training in a different location than where you set up a PP means it takes longer to get to know other providers and thus develop a referral base.

 

[3lefts]

Thank you everyone! A lot to think about. Never expected making a rank list would be this hard!

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Thank you everyone! A lot to think about. Never expected making a rank list would be this hard!

No picnic on our end, either...
Glad that ultimately we don't have that much control.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

No picnic on our end, either...
Glad that ultimately we don't have that much control.

Yep, Take the top half of your list and turn it upside down and the outcome stays the same.