UCLA vs. UCSD

[bahaleh]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I was wondering if anyone has ideas or comments about UCSD vs. UCLA psychiatry residency program. Which one is better in terms of work hours? Patient diversity? and reputation?

Thanks

 

[nkp46]

Anyone have any comments on these two and considerations I might be missing? I'm kind of torn between them. I also didn't go on that many interviews so I didn't get into a good rhythm for comparing programs. I prefer the city of San Diego over Los Angeles (though I don't have family in either area) but it seems like UCLA has a far more flexible schedule in the 3rd and 4th years. The other big difference seems to be UCSD's bent on psychopharm, but I actually prefer that. However, I am still unsure of my future career (not set on academics/research vs private practice) and would like to leave as many options open as possible. Thanks!

 

[HarryMTieboutMD]

You get props for resurrecting an almost 14 year old post! To which UCLA program are you referring?

 

[nkp46]

I know, right? 🙂 The deadline has me in anxiety mode and I've been going through all the old threads.

I'm referring to NPI.

 

[splik]

go where you want to live. ucla is ostensibly a much better progran and is one of the top 3 psychiatry departments in the world research wise. the psychotherapy training is better. there are more jerks there and they treat their junior faculty poorly however. because of how good they think they are,they think they can get away with it (and apparently they can).

i think you will get decent training at either. ucsd is a VA heavy program particularly as a junior resident so make of that what you will.

 

[nkp46]

go where you want to live. ucla is ostensibly a much better progran and is one of the top 3 psychiatry departments in the world research wise. the psychotherapy training is better. there are more jerks there and they treat their junior faculty poorly however. because of how good they think they are,they think they can get away with it (and apparently they can).

i think you will get decent training at either. ucsd is a VA heavy program particularly as a junior resident so make of that what you will.

Thanks! Appreciate the honest input, which I felt was hard to elicit from the interviewers and residents. Reputation of the program is not important to me, but location and a humane work-life balance certainly is.

 

[quiet pines]

It sounds like you like UCSD more than ULCA. Go with your true feelings. In no way will you be closing any doors or hurting yourself by graduating from an academic powerhouse of UCSD. It has lots of name recognition too. Your post-residency success will have much more to do with your track record rather than that of the program's. (And I think it's more humane at UCSD too.)

 

[nkp46]

It sounds like you like UCSD more than ULCA. Go with your true feelings. In no way will you be closing any doors or hurting yourself by graduating from an academic powerhouse of UCSD. It has lots of name recognition too. Your post-residency success will have much more to do with your track record rather than that of the program's. (And I think it's more humane at UCSD too.)

Thanks. I think I'm being falsely led to believe UCLA has a relaxed atmosphere (from the interview), whereas UCSD didn't seem to sugarcoat it. From everything I'm reading on SDN, they are both pretty heavy programs and will work you.

 

[nitemagi]

I trained at UCSD and teach at UCLA. The comments here are fairly accurate. I'd say UCSD values work/life balance a bit more, but not substantively. They will definitely both work you hard.

I got fantastic therapy training at UCSD, but mostly because I actively sought it out (it's not spoon fed to you). You'll be with more MD/PhD's at UCLA, but both emphasize research. UCSD has much more community training/patient diversity. However, the lack of real electives in 4th year has been a consistent criticism of UCSD. UCSD's new PD I know well and will be a warmer presence than UCLA's PD (who has a reputation for not holding hands of residents, if you get me). Overall you'll be fine at either for getting jobs, fellowship, research opportunities, or therapy training.

 

[nkp46]

I trained at UCSD and teach at UCLA. The comments here are fairly accurate. I'd say UCSD values work/life balance a bit more, but not substantively. They will definitely both work you hard.

I got fantastic therapy training at UCSD, but mostly because I actively sought it out (it's not spoon fed to you). You'll be with more MD/PhD's at UCLA, but both emphasize research. UCSD has much more community training. The lack of real electives in 4th year has been a consistent criticism of UCSD. UCSD's new PD I know well and will be a warmer presence than UCLA's PD (who has a reputation for not holding hands of residents, if you get me). Overall you'll be fine at either for getting jobs, fellowship, research opportunities, or therapy training.

Glad to get a perspective from someone who's worked at both places. I didn't get a great vibe from UCLA's PD or aPD. On the other hand, had a terribly disorganized interview day at UCSD and saw very tired residents, so maybe that fed into my distorted view of the program. Other than that, really liked the residents, PD, and location.

Thanks all, sounds like UCSD is probably the way to go.

 

[slappy]

I trained at UCSD and teach at UCLA. The comments here are fairly accurate. I'd say UCSD values work/life balance a bit more, but not substantively. They will definitely both work you hard.

I got fantastic therapy training at UCSD, but mostly because I actively sought it out (it's not spoon fed to you). You'll be with more MD/PhD's at UCLA, but both emphasize research. UCSD has much more community training/patient diversity. However, the lack of real electives in 4th year has been a consistent criticism of UCSD. UCSD's new PD I know well and will be a warmer presence than UCLA's PD (who has a reputation for not holding hands of residents, if you get me). Overall you'll be fine at either for getting jobs, fellowship, research opportunities, or therapy training.

Fantastic input. You've got to love this forum.

 

[clozareal]

I interviewed at both. I liked UCLA a bit better. UCLA seemed to have less work hours (cross-coverage provides the ability to get out at 1pm on some weekdays for example, as well as having 1 day off 3rd year and then 1.5 days off 4th year), and UCSD seemed to have a bit more call. I think UCSD is a bit more rigid in their schedule structure and offers a smaller catalog of electives than UCLA, but Dr. Cadenhead is planning on changing the schedule structure to offer that.

In terms of patient diversity, UCSD has more exposure to underserved populations with Hillcrest. They seem to have heavy VA, but not as heavy as UCLA. Residents seem to get higher functioning patients at UCLA along with lower-functioning veterans at WLAVA. You'll have to actively seek out psychotherapy at UCSD since I don't think they have as strong of a tradition of psychotherapy training as UCLA does. That doesn't mean you won't be able to find it.

UCLA has a stronger academic reputation than UCSD. Both will offer you great training though, so I agree with splik in going where you want to live.

 

[On Walden Pond]

And, the delicate decision will probably not really be up to you... whom you chose for #1 and #2 won't make much of a difference because, unless both programs rank you similarly on their lists, one probably has you at least several slots higher than the other.

 

[prok]

And, the delicate decision will probably not really be up to you... whom you chose for #1 and #2 won't make much of a difference because, unless both programs rank you similarly on their lists, one probably has you at least several slots higher than the other.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the match algorithm doesn't work that way. It's designed to favor the applicant. If both programs would potentially want OP (after exhausting other candidates that they would want more), then OP would end up at their #1. One program wanting OP more than the other won't matter unless it's a case where one of them already fills with other applicants. About 50% of all US applicants (all specialities) end up at their top rank, so this is an important decision.

 

[On Walden Pond]

That's a very good point. I wish what you say held true for a place like UCLA though. But because over 90% of those interviewed there ranks it #1 or #2, it really comes down to how UCLA ranks you. That's why only 50% across the nation get their top spot. The super competitive places really call the shots. (They even brag about how far down the list they didn't have to go from year to year.)

 

[Bartelby]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the match algorithm doesn't work that way. It's designed to favor the applicant. If both programs would potentially want OP (after exhausting other candidates that they would want more), then OP would end up at their #1. One program wanting OP more than the other won't matter unless it's a case where one of them already fills with other applicants. About 50% of all US applicants (all specialities) end up at their top rank, so this is an important decision.

That is how I have been told the match works. So if you rank:

1. UCSD
2. UCLA

Then the algorithm tries to match you to UCSD. If UCSD has already filled with people ranked ahead of you (meaning no matter how you ranked it you could not match), then the algorithm tries to match you at UCLA.

So in short, always rank exactly in the order you want the programs. You could never increase your odds with a program by, for instance, ranking it lower on your list.

 

[nkp46]

That's a very good point. I wish what you say held true for a place like UCLA though. But because over 90% of those interviewed there ranks it #1 or #2, it really comes down to how UCLA ranks you. That's why only 50% across the nation get their top spot. The super competitive places really call the shots. (They even brag about how far down the list they didn't have to go from year to year.)

Any idea how far UCLA and UCSD go down their rank list? Just out of my own curiosity, not that it will change my rank list. My advisor was saying even the top programs will have to rank at least 5 applicants per spot.

 

[splik]

this is going to vary year on year of course. somewhere like UCLA can afford to rank only 5 applicants for spot but UCSD would probably need to rank 10 or more per spot. remember all the top programs are vying for the same applicants which is one of the reasons that a given program has to rank at least 5 applicants per place (and for all but the most competitive, it is closer to 10 or more)

 

[nkp46]

this is going to vary year on year of course. somewhere like UCLA can afford to rank only 5 applicants for spot but UCSD would probably need to rank 10 or more per spot. remember all the top programs are vying for the same applicants which is one of the reasons that a given program has to rank at least 5 applicants per place (and for all but the most competitive, it is closer to 10 or more)

Gotcha. The whole bragging about not going far down the rank list is so foreign to me. Is there any benefit to the residency program besides ego?

 

[splik]

tbh ive never heard of any decent program brag about this? it sounds like its only the crappy ones that do. it's possible that there might be some sort of financial incentive or something, but any reasonable program will make sure to interview and rank to ensure they don't go unfilled; which is a possibility for almost any program. OTOH I have heard of good programs complaining (in private of course) going too far down their list. this is because once you go down too far you are getting people who are better than nothing, but may be questionable. No one wants people of questionable quality.