2012 APPIC Internship Application Thread

[AcronymAllergy]

I had a similar experience, I received interviews at some top sites. I matched further down on my list than I expected. I am from a strong program and have lots of research and clinical experience. I have mixed feelings, happy for matching, but also disappointed that I did not do as well as expected. I am also worried that it may be more difficult now to get a good post-doc position.

The best thing you can do for postdoc is (as I'm sure you were planning anyway) to tailor the rotations you complete on internship, as much as possible, to address your areas of relative weakness. And then don't be shy in telling postdoc sites you've done so.

I can't say for certain, but I'd be surprised if the site of one's internship ended up being the sole causal factor in a person's not finding a postdoc. Especially in light of the imbalance situation as it currently stands.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ddsooner]

I was wondering if there is any knowledge out there regarding pulling from the process AFTER matching. I'm not asking for myself (as I will be starting a doctoral program this Fall). I am asking for someone in my program who is struggling with the idea of going off on internship after experiencing unfortunate circumstances following rank day.

Thanks for your input.

 

[burntout]

I agree with what you are saying here and thank you for chiming in (and congrats on matching!!). I was shocked to match to my 6th ranked site. Have been struggling with why I didn't match higher. One of those I ranked higher though was for one spot in a very specialized track. All it took was one person to be ranked higher and want it to knock me out and move me lower on my rank list. I also know that my #1 was an amazing training site which means they likely got their top ranked applicants. The other spots I didn't match too but ranked higher than my 6th choice had 3-4 spots, but still... like you, I also ran into some of the same folks at interviews for these spots and others mentioned interviewing at other times at the same sites as me. I believe one applicant and myself shared an overlap of 5 sites. In the end I matched to a APA accredited site that will prepare me well to work in the setting I want to work in, but I have honestly felt really crappy these last few days. I hate to even say that given the situation with people not matching at all, but I think it's important for folks, especially on here, to be able to be honest about how they are feeling. I also realize I need to move on from this space of feeling upset and try to reframe the great opportunity I have been given. I think it's this conflict between the two feelings that is the hardest right now.

I also matched to a site that was ranked toward the bottom of my list (9 out of 10). I am feeling much more positive about it now than on match day, and ultimately feel lucky to have matched at all. Almost all of the sites I interviewed at were considering student from both PhD and PsyD programs. I am from a PhD program, and wonder if the fact that I have less clinical hours than PsyD students had anything to do with it? I should just stop thinking about it, because I will never know. My heart goes out to those of you who did not match (I feel like I was very close to being in your shoes).

 

[apply4psych]

I was wondering if there is any knowledge out there regarding pulling from the process AFTER matching. I'm not asking for myself (as I will be starting a doctoral program this Fall). I am asking for someone in my program who is struggling with the idea of going off on internship after experiencing unfortunate circumstances following rank day.

Thanks for your input.

That is really too bad, to match and then have something happen.

I don't know for sure but my guess would be to let the program know sooner than later so that they can possibly post the spot for phase II and give someone else a chance.

 

[4410]

I was wondering if there is any knowledge out there regarding pulling from the process AFTER matching. I'm not asking for myself (as I will be starting a doctoral program this Fall). I am asking for someone in my program who is struggling with the idea of going off on internship after experiencing unfortunate circumstances following rank day.

Thanks for your input.

If your friend Matched with a site it is considered a binding contract. However, there are exceptions and some are allowed out of the contract but there must be documented reasons and they have to be reviewed. I believe APPIC has some sort of arbitration process and it is written out when we all agree to participate in the Match. Your friend probably needs to talk to their DCT to figure out their options. If there are medical reason such as pregnancy or having an accident causing physical injury, then your friend probably can get out of the match. However, if they do not like the site they matched with this would not be a reason to get out of the internship.

 

[DrivenDoctoress]

I agree with what you are saying here and thank you for chiming in (and congrats on matching!!). I was shocked to match to my 6th ranked site. Have been struggling with why I didn't match higher. One of those I ranked higher though was for one spot in a very specialized track. All it took was one person to be ranked higher and want it to knock me out and move me lower on my rank list. I also know that my #1 was an amazing training site which means they likely got their top ranked applicants. The other spots I didn't match too but ranked higher than my 6th choice had 3-4 spots, but still... like you, I also ran into some of the same folks at interviews for these spots and others mentioned interviewing at other times at the same sites as me. I believe one applicant and myself shared an overlap of 5 sites. In the end I matched to a APA accredited site that will prepare me well to work in the setting I want to work in, but I have honestly felt really crappy these last few days. I hate to even say that given the situation with people not matching at all, but I think it's important for folks, especially on here, to be able to be honest about how they are feeling. I also realize I need to move on from this space of feeling upset and try to reframe the great opportunity I have been given. I think it's this conflict between the two feelings that is the hardest right now.

*Hugs* I'm also in this position of feeling conflicted... thrilling excitement/thankfulness and confusion/mild irritation. I feel so fortunate that I even did match that I feel like it's not fair for me to complain, but it was also tough for me adjust after feeling like a rockstar of an applicant, having 13 different tracks/sites to rank, and then not getting one of my top choices. I know I have no right to feel anything but overjoyed, but I still feel a little grumpy when it seems most of the people that I know who matched got their number one site. I also had the experience of seeing the exact same 10-30 people at every interview, so it probably is true that there is a lot of very tight competition. But, even though I have some conflicted emotions, I mostly feel really happy and grateful... especially when I see that truly amazing people are dealing with real struggles related to this whole matching ordeal.

 

[RGirl]

Something I've been wondering is... if the problem is too many applicants, especially due to the high number of FSPS students applying, compared to limited slots, which makes sense, shouldn't it not matter because supposedly APA sites don't usually take FSPS students anyway? Why is this affecting funded, university-based PhD/PsyD students with small cohort sizes?

My guess is that it is just related to the numbers game, period. When there's only enough slots for around 50% of the applicants to have an accredited internship, people from good programs are going to slip through the cracks, too.

I know my current internship and several of those of my friends got record numbers of applications this year, by a long shot. From what I've heard (and, again, this is a pretty small sample size), programs simply aren't able to look at individual applications in detail anymore, and had to start making arbitrary rules to disqualify people from the get go-- again, this could easily bias against individuals from a more research heavy program, for instance, as they may have fewer hours than some FSPS programs if someone is just scanning for those numbers.

I also agree with what other people said about safety schools getting filled up by less qualified applicants and not even interviewing the people from these funded university based program.

Also, at least in Canada, we're getting more and more applications from American applicants, and a lot of the staff aren't that knowledgeable about which schools are FSPS, since we have very few of these programs here (and students from Canadian FSPS are not even considered for accredited internships here). I had to let a bunch of our faculty know which programs these were.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Something I've been wondering is... if the problem is too many applicants, especially due to the high number of FSPS students applying, compared to limited slots, which makes sense, shouldn't it not matter because supposedly APA sites don't usually take FSPS students anyway? Why is this affecting funded, university-based PhD/PsyD students with small cohort sizes?

I am sure there are 'formal' terms for what I'm going to try and explain, but my brain is rather mushy at the moment, and the person across from me has an awesome slice of pie. I believe there are many factors that cut into a person's PIE of possible sites, thus lowering their chances of matching. The first cut is APA v. non-APA. Only 53% of slots offered this year are APA-acred. So right off the bat, a person who can *only* apply to APA-acred programs loses HALF of all the available sites. The next cut is geographic restriction. Some people won't have any, but most will have some...mine were Alaska/The Dakotas/a few other states. Once you rule out spots with speciality tracks that aren't in your area of expertise....the PIE is getting mighty small.

So now you have your small piece....then the next numbers involve how many other people have laid claim to that same piece. I know on my interviews I saw a ton of the same people. It was nice to know that my sites "hung together", but I was also faced with some top-notch competition. Some of that competition may be from a FSPS. If you are heavily into research...you may be the exception: e.g. Brown, MUSC, etc...but the rest of us have to account for competition from all sides.

I want a slice of Apple PIE....but I know that Apple is popular. There are other pie seekers who want Cherry, Blueberry, Rhubarb (ugh), etc. I may be competing with people who could take a slice of Cherry PIE if they wanted, but for whatever reason...they want Apple. The competition over Cherry may be far less, so the "average" Cherry pie seeker is not as competitive as the "average" Apple pie seeker, but since they are seeking different slices...the Cherry pie person may be able to enjoy the yummy awesome that is Cherry PIE, and the Apple seeker gets the tin and crumbs....even though head-to-head for a generic slice of PIE would have probably led to a different outcome.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Thanks to people for your kind and positive thoughts. If I write and sell a book one day, please buy it.

Duck, after reading your story, if I were you I'd lawyer up. I cannot imagine how they can justify allowing others to rank APPIC only sites, but not you. I would have been livid when they told me that. You didn't go to school for this long to quit because of this BS.

Duck - did they offer a rationale why? I'm just curious, since that seems very odd. Many programs allow you to request "exemptions" to a policy of APA-only, but I've never heard of a situation like yours where it sounds like the standard is to allow APPIC and you are the exception.

Here's the story: the standard at my program is APA and people can request "exemptions" to rank APPIC internships on a site by site and student by student basis. For the past decade or so (where the data is publicly available), students have been allowed to do APPIC internships every year. Last year, in Phase II, I requested an exemption for a site and the faculty denied my request (this was shocking and unexpected for me). The reasoning was (this is almost a quote) that the faculty felt my training needs and credentials would best be met by an APA accredited internship. [edited to take out some infuriating details] I was absolutely livid. Over the summer, I found out that, not only had the faculty denied my request, they had actually let other students rank APPIC sites, as those students matched to APPIC sites. I was the only student who did not match last year. More recently, I discovered that, not only had the faculty denied my petition, not only had other students been allowed to rank APPIC member sites last year, not only was I the only student who didn't match somewhere eventually, the faculty had actually allowed another student to rank and match to the same site that I had requested an exemption for. That student requested the exemption either at the same time that I did or even after I did. That student's request was granted.




I have had no disciplinary action taken against me, I have no ethics complaints from anyone, I have a >3.9 GPA, and my request to apply for internship had been granted by the faculty once at that point and has now been granted twice. Supervisors' reviews of me were not glowing (I think I'm difficult to supervise) but there were no problems or concerns raised and I got three great letters of recommendation (well, 2 great and one probably great). But the faculty just didn't/don't like me.

I might not have matched to that APPIC internship had I been allowed to rank it but my chances were pretty good. The faculty at my program irrationally took my best chance of finishing my degree (um, and bettering my credentials by doing so).

It doesn't make sense.

I don't think I'll sue because the most I could probably recover would be internship application fees (maybe $1000 for 2 years) and tuition (<$5000) for the past year (or possibly the year that they denied my petition?). I would much prefer to tell my story and dissuade students from attending the program. If I withdraw, I'll share the name of my program here. If I match (still not sure if I want to anymore), I'll probably wait until I get my degree.

One thing that surprised me, though it shouldn't have in hindsight because all of this went on behind closed doors, is that people who hear my story and are from my program don't recognize that it's their program. So I would encourage anyone reading this to think about the possibility that your program could treat its students like I have been treated. Because, for at least some of you, it has certainly done so.

Are there statistics posted re: the number of interviews as compared to match rate for this past phase?

The APPIC survey of applicants, even though the data is being collected now, doesn't come out - or didn't last year - until the end of May, so I don't think this information is available yet.

Sorry, but I don't understand how this relates to Cara's question/comment. I don't think students from FSPS are getting many APA internships and are not competing with students from funded APA programs (I haven't seen the data, this is my assumption). I'm from an APA uni-PsyD and many of our students do not get APA internships.

I think some people don't apply to enough programs for internship and therefore may not match for this reason, despite being a great candidate.

I don't know about funded APA programs but, as I posted earlier today, the number of students from APA programs who didn't match last year is roughly 4 times the number of students from non-APA programs who even participated in the match.

Also, stats showed for a while that 15 was the "magic number" of sites to apply to to have the highest chance of matching. There were two magic numbers, or ranges, last year, I believe:
12. Number of applications submitted:

1 to 5 applications Match rate = 62% n = 143
6 to 10 applications Match rate = 72% n = 258
11 to 15 applications Match rate = 83% n = 946
16 to 20 applications Match rate = 81% n = 912
21 to 25 applications Match rate = 84% n = 321
26 or more applications Match rate = 74% n = 132

My point is that more applications does not ensure you will have a better chance of matching, just as focusing a handful of applications on truly "perfect fit" sites does not ensure you will have a better chance of matching. This numbers game is a crapshoot.

I could easily see this becoming a trickle-down effect, of sorts.

It's more like a shotgun blast or a darts game where some hit and some don't. You aim at the target and only some will hit/stick exactly where you want them to. You get enough darts on the board and no more will stick, even if they're really pointy and well-balanced or whatever makes a good dart.

In the end I matched to a APA accredited site that will prepare me well to work in the setting I want to work in, but I have honestly felt really crappy these last few days.

I also matched to a site that was ranked toward the bottom of my list (9 out of 10). I am feeling much more positive about it now than on match day, and ultimately feel lucky to have matched at all.

So the good thing for people who did match but not to their top site is - even if this isn't how you feel now and that's totally fine - that studies suggest that you'll end up liking the situation/match just as much as you would have liked your top choice anyway. Reasons for this:
1 - you chose to rank it, so you liked it and this was one of many acceptable outcomes for you, just remember/imagine/think/believe that you had power over this outcome.
2 - people return to baseline happiness/satisfaction/whatever surprisingly quickly after both really bad and really good events, so you'll be back to normal soon enough.

There are many more research-based reasons that I'm confident that you'll feel better about matching wherever you did but I learned about them in undergrad psych classes so I can't remember the details.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

My guess is that it is just related to the numbers game, period. When there's only enough slots for around 50% of the applicants to have an accredited internship, people from good programs are going to slip through the cracks, too.

 

[aventurine]

It was my #1 and I didn't match. Beyond devastated.

I was working one year at a site that had an unfilled position, and I do recall the internship director having a preference in the second phase of the match for applicants s/he had chosen to interview in the first phase of the match and liked, but just not as much as some of the other applicants (over those who hadn't applied, initially).

Who knows, but you may not be out of the running for the second round.

So, I would definitely apply again.

 

[niknok]

My guess is that it is just related to the numbers game, period. When there's only enough slots for around 50% of the applicants to have an accredited internship, people from good programs are going to slip through the

I also agree with what other people said about safety schools getting filled up by less qualified applicants and not even interviewing the people from these funded university based program.

I agree that with the limited spots available for internships there will be good people that will not match whether they are from university or FSPS. I come from a professional school and despite people's resentment towards FSPS, we are still at a disadvantage against students from university school because in fact, we come from professional schools. The same way people In this forum have bias that's how it is in the real world as well.

I remember feeling very nervous in one of my interviews because I was competing against students from UCLA, USC etc. and I just come from a lowly professional school. I thought I was a shoo in for that site bec of my experience and background but after meeting people during interviews, everyone is great (well there are some flukes) and I did not feel as confident anymore.

Not all students from FSPS are less qualified. I actually take offense to that because I think I can be as qualified as someone from a university.

Maybe the problem also lies with the university programs who train students heavily in research but not enough clinical experience. Research is great and I do research as well but most APA programs unless specialty programs, likes to know that a student have enough experience in the field. I am not generalizing here. I'm just presenting another issue that is rarely discussed here but I think is salient in this outrage of students from university based programs not matching. Really there just isn't enough programs out there that might cater to students of this caliber. I'm not saying this is only the problem but it sure adds to the whole process.

I'm not trying to blame the students here. I'm actually pointing out a systemic problem. And all our internship woes will not go away without changing the system. Unfortunately that will take time.

 

[4410]

+1

 

[45678]

Are the stas (below) for phase 1 or 2? If not for phase 2, does anyone know what was the average number of applications submitted per person during phase 2 last year?




1 to 5 applications Match rate = 62% n = 143
6 to 10 applications Match rate = 72% n = 258
11 to 15 applications Match rate = 83% n = 946
16 to 20 applications Match rate = 81% n = 912
21 to 25 applications Match rate = 84% n = 321
26 or more applications Match rate = 74% n = 132

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Are the stas (below) for phase 1 or 2? If not for phase 2, does anyone know what was the average number of applications submitted per person during phase 2 last year?

For anyone looking for stats on last year's match (or any available stats on this year's match), go here: http://appic.org/Match/Match-Statistics

You can find all available answers there, including the answer to this question. (Specifically under http://appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/MatchStatistics2011PhaseII.aspx)

I think people should go look at/for the stats themselves so they can better understand the numbers and the real situation the field is in. The numbers aren't good.

 

[4410]

The Match results Statistics are somewhat misleading as it only reflects students who participate in the Match each year. It does not reflect the CAPPIC or the large number of students who set up their own internship and graduate to gain psychology licensure. There are many students and programs boycotting the APPIC Match and setting up their own internships each year and many of these are very high quality internships. Unfortunately, APA accredited programs have somehow required many of their students to complete an APA accredited internship, despite this not being required by APA or many State licensure boards. If somehow this requirement was waived for APA accredited program students, my guess is many of the APA accredited students would find internships in non APA accredited sites. So, in retrospect, APA accredited program students may be unjustly penalized due to the type of program they attended.




MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE II

Applicants Matched​

185
(29%)
Participating Applicants Not Matched
446
(71%)​

MATCH RESULTS BY RANK NUMBER ON APPLICANT'S LIST​

(PERCENTAGES MAY NOT TOTAL TO 100 DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS)

Rank


Number of Applicants

1
104
(56%)
2
36
(19%)
3
13
( 7%)
4
17
( 9%)
5
4
( 2%)
6
2
( 1%)
7
6
( 3%)
8
1
( 1%)
9
0
( 0%)
10 or higher
2
( 1%)
Total
185
(100%)​

 

[psyman]

Are the stas (below) for phase 1 or 2? If not for phase 2, does anyone know what was the average number of applications submitted per person during phase 2 last year?




1 to 5 applications Match rate = 62% n = 143
6 to 10 applications Match rate = 72% n = 258
11 to 15 applications Match rate = 83% n = 946
16 to 20 applications Match rate = 81% n = 912
21 to 25 applications Match rate = 84% n = 321
26 or more applications Match rate = 74% n = 132

15.6 apps per person in phase 2 last year. Standard deviation of 14.5 though, so many applied to way more. I think I recall one site saying they received 500 apps for phase 2. Anyone else remember that?

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

15.6 apps per person in phase 2 last year. Standard deviation of 14.5 though, so many applied to way more. I think I recall one site saying they received 500 apps for phase 2. Anyone else remember that?

Again, these stats can be found here: http://appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/MatchStatistics2011PhaseII.aspx

Looks like the high point was under 400 for applications received by one site.

 

[O Gurl]

Here's the story: the standard at my program is APA and people can request "exemptions" to rank APPIC internships on a site by site and student by student basis. For the past decade or so (where the data is publicly available), students have been allowed to do APPIC internships every year. Last year, in Phase II, I requested an exemption for a site and the faculty denied my request (this was shocking and unexpected for me). The reasoning was (this is almost a quote) that the faculty felt my training needs and credentials would best be met by an APA accredited internship. [edited to take out some infuriating details] I was absolutely livid. Over the summer, I found out that, not only had the faculty denied my request, they had actually let other students rank APPIC sites, as those students matched to APPIC sites. I was the only student who did not match last year. More recently, I discovered that, not only had the faculty denied my petition, not only had other students been allowed to rank APPIC member sites last year, not only was I the only student who didn't match somewhere eventually, the faculty had actually allowed another student to rank and match to the same site that I had requested an exemption for. That student requested the exemption either at the same time that I did or even after I did. That student's request was granted.


I have had no disciplinary action taken against me, I have no ethics complaints from anyone, I have a >3.9 GPA, and my request to apply for internship had been granted by the faculty once at that point and has now been granted twice. Supervisors' reviews of me were not glowing (I think I'm difficult to supervise) but there were no problems or concerns raised and I got three great letters of recommendation (well, 2 great and one probably great). But the faculty just didn't/don't like me.

Hi, there. So sorry to hear that you are having such a tough time with all of this. I guess I am on the same page as many others who are confused by your predicament. I realize I am a complete stranger, so feel free to take my thoughts/questions with a grain of salt.

There are several aspects of your story that cause me to say "hmm". Clearly exceptions have been made before and your program's issue last year was not specific to the site you wanted to rank. Since they claim the program would not fit your career goals, do you see any differences between you and the other student who was allowed to rank and ultimately matched there? For example, if you have an interest in a population or setting that is staunchly against non-APA training (academic med centers; VAs; bureau of prisons, DoD) and the other person is interested in a career in more flexilble settings (private practice; community mental health) then that could be a factor. It certainly does not excuse the double standard but would at least make it more logical.

As for the second portion I quoted, the idea that you are simply disliked is also a bit

Has there been friction before? I only ask because you mention that you are not easy to supervise, which is quite a red flag statement. I have a hard time reconcilling why a program would try to sabotage and hold you back if we are really talking about a personality difference (they'd probably want you out of their hair). However, if it boils down to a question of competence or concern about your professional conduct then their actions appear to be again, not right, but at least logical. Also, it might explain your repeat difficulty with internship search if they are embedding any of their concerns in your letters of rec or DCT approval statement. This year I served for the first time on our internship (and now postdoctoral) selection committee. I have seen just how devastating a cleverly coded or outright red flag statement in a letter can be.

I only raise these issues because it can be difficult to see an issue clearly when you are in the throws of the chaos. Maybe there is something being overlooked that could help you negotiate your next steps.

Either way, I wish you all the best.

 

[erg923]

Hi, there. So sorry to hear that you are having such a tough time with all of this. I guess I am on the same page as many others who are confused by your predicament. I realize I am a complete stranger, so feel free to take my thoughts/questions with a grain of salt.

There are several aspects of your story that cause me to say "hmm". Clearly exceptions have been made before and your program's issue last year was not specific to the site you wanted to rank. Since they claim the program would not fit your career goals, do you see any differences between you and the other student who was allowed to rank and ultimately matched there? For example, if you have an interest in a population or setting that is staunchly against non-APA training (academic med centers; VAs; bureau of prisons, DoD) and the other person is interested in a career in more flexilble settings (private practice; community mental health) then that could be a factor. It certainly does not excuse the double standard but would at least make it more logical.

As for the second portion I quoted, the idea that you are simply disliked is also a bit

Has there been friction before? I only ask because you mention that you are not easy to supervise, which is quite a red flag statement. I have a hard time reconcilling why a program would try to sabotage and hold you back if we are really talking about a personality difference (they'd probably want you out of their hair). However, if it boils down to a question of competence or concern about your professional conduct then their actions appear to be again, not right, but at least logical. Also, it might explain your repeat difficulty with internship search if they are embedding any of their concerns in your letters of rec or DCT approval statement. This year I served for the first time on our internship (and now postdoctoral) selection committee. I have seen just how devastating a cleverly coded or outright red flag statement in a letter can be.

I only raise these issues because it can be difficult to see an issue clearly when you are in the throws of the chaos. Maybe there is something being overlooked that could help you negotiate your next steps.

Either way, I wish you all the best.

I also sat on the other side this year, and I have to agree with the above. If any of your letters even hinted that you were a difficulty practicum student, that probably was your death at alot of places. It would have been at mine for sure.

Committee members read into LORs like crazy in this process, and if there is one thing they def DO NOT want, its someone who shows the potential for, or a history of, being "difficult to supervise." I'm not judging here. Im just saying, I def wouldn't downplay that. It could be huge, especially if it was communicated in any of your letters or materials.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Hi, there. So sorry to hear that you are having such a tough time with all of this. I guess I am on the same page as many others who are confused by your predicament. I realize I am a complete stranger, so feel free to take my thoughts/questions with a grain of salt.

There are several aspects of your story that cause me to say "hmm". Clearly exceptions have been made before and your program's issue last year was not specific to the site you wanted to rank. Since they claim the program would not fit your career goals, do you see any differences between you and the other student who was allowed to rank and ultimately matched there? For example, if you have an interest in a population or setting that is staunchly against non-APA training (academic med centers; VAs; bureau of prisons, DoD) and the other person is interested in a career in more flexilble settings (private practice; community mental health) then that could be a factor. It certainly does not excuse the double standard but would at least make it more logical.

As for the second portion I quoted, the idea that you are simply disliked is also a bit

Has there been friction before? I only ask because you mention that you are not easy to supervise, which is quite a red flag statement. I have a hard time reconcilling why a program would try to sabotage and hold you back if we are really talking about a personality difference (they'd probably want you out of their hair). However, if it boils down to a question of competence or concern about your professional conduct then their actions appear to be again, not right, but at least logical. Also, it might explain your repeat difficulty with internship search if they are embedding any of their concerns in your letters of rec or DCT approval statement. This year I served for the first time on our internship (and now postdoctoral) selection committee. I have seen just how devastating a cleverly coded or outright red flag statement in a letter can be.

I only raise these issues because it can be difficult to see an issue clearly when you are in the throws of the chaos. Maybe there is something being overlooked that could help you negotiate your next steps.

Either way, I wish you all the best.

For the first part, no, at least not that I'm aware of. My practica matched up well with the site. I don't know who the student is who's there.

For the second part, I say I'm difficult to supervise because I've been told that I don't come across as enthusuastic by one supervisor and that led to feelings of anxiety and self-doubt for that (experienced) supervisor. That person still wrote what s/he considered a strong rec. Another supervisor did like me and wrote a fantastic rec and shared it with me. Someone I worked with on research also liked me and wrote a great rec. There have been absolutely no concerns expressed to me by anyone about my competence, ethics, approach, or anything like that at any point in my training. This is why my situation is so surprising to me and people who know me (including my letter of rec writers). There is no logical basis for the faculty's decision, except maybe, "this will teach her not to ask so many questions of her betters and our match rate this year is great anyway." I mean, I wasn't in the room for their discussion and I don't imagine anyone actually said these things. There's just no logical reason for it... And a few faculty members actually don't like me.

Also, they approved me to apply for internship twice with no reservations and I got a few interviews each year (1 this year), so most sites that I am a good match with aren't seeing any red flags in my application. The DCT supported, or at least truly appeared/appears to support, my applications and requests to the faculty... I know I'm not perfect but... There is no apparent logic/reason for the faculty's behavior toward me last year. I'm wondering if they will do it again this year or if they will treat me reasonably/logically.

I moved out of the state where my program is so I was already out of their hair, pretty much, just paying tuition / their salaries.

PS - I'm geographically restricted so many sites that I shot for were just not good matches for me. I'm in a program that isn't research heavy and that made me not a match for sites that had the right population but an emphasis on research. It's really the faculty's decision that doesn't make sense, not the interviews I didn't get or me not matching. I know why that part didn't work out, haha.

 

[psyman]

Thanks to people for your kind and positive thoughts. If I write and sell a book one day, please buy it.





Here's the story: the standard at my program is APA and people can request "exemptions" to rank APPIC internships on a site by site and student by student basis. For the past decade or so (where the data is publicly available), students have been allowed to do APPIC internships every year. Last year, in Phase II, I requested an exemption for a site and the faculty denied my request (this was shocking and unexpected for me). The reasoning was (this is almost a quote) that the faculty felt my training needs and credentials would best be met by an APA accredited internship. [edited to take out some infuriating details] I was absolutely livid. Over the summer, I found out that, not only had the faculty denied my request, they had actually let other students rank APPIC sites, as those students matched to APPIC sites. I was the only student who did not match last year. More recently, I discovered that, not only had the faculty denied my petition, not only had other students been allowed to rank APPIC member sites last year, not only was I the only student who didn't match somewhere eventually, the faculty had actually allowed another student to rank and match to the same site that I had requested an exemption for. That student requested the exemption either at the same time that I did or even after I did. That student's request was granted.




I have had no disciplinary action taken against me, I have no ethics complaints from anyone, I have a >3.9 GPA, and my request to apply for internship had been granted by the faculty once at that point and has now been granted twice. Supervisors' reviews of me were not glowing (I think I'm difficult to supervise) but there were no problems or concerns raised and I got three great letters of recommendation (well, 2 great and one probably great). But the faculty just didn't/don't like me.

I might not have matched to that APPIC internship had I been allowed to rank it but...

1) You said the faculty don't like you. Why do you think they don't like you and on what basis do they not like you?

2) The comment about being difficult to supervise stood out to me also (as it did for other posters). Why are you difficult to supervise?

3) You said supervisors' reviews of you were not glowing, why not? What were there concerns? Were they bad reviews?

Any of these three things being reflected somewhere in your APPI could be a death sentence. I would be curious to see if they impacted your ability to obtain interviews and/or match.

 

[MsBella13]

I remember previously reading that we could claim our internship expenses on our taxes? Has anybody done this and gotten anything back, and if so, how?

I tried listing them under 'job-related expenses' on TurboTax and H&RBlock and it didn't seem to make a difference on my return.

 

[psychgirl1]

Did anyone else match to Baylor College of Medicine - Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences or to Texas Children's Hospital?

 

[Franzean4]

Hi everyone! I could really use some advice. In my haste to get my applications submitted for phase 2 (yes I know the sites can't even look at them until March 1 but I have a crazy week with classes, tests, and clients) as I was just reviewing my cover letter I realized that there is a small typo. Instead of treatment is says treatent. While I know that's stupid, and I did look over the application preview I just missed it. I know it's a small mistake but do people think I should send an email apologize and acknowledging the typo with the corrected cover letter attached or is calling it out worse? Again, I know it seems silly but as competitive as phase 2 is I'd hate if something so stupid got me automatically rejected from a site. Thank you so much for any feedback!!!!

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

1) You said the faculty don't like you. Why do you think they don't like you and on what basis do they not like you?

2) The comment about being difficult to supervise stood out to me also (as it did for other posters). Why are you difficult to supervise?

3) You said supervisors' reviews of you were not glowing, why not? What were there concerns? Were they bad reviews?

Any of these three things being reflected somewhere in your APPI could be a death sentence. I would be curious to see if they impacted your ability to obtain interviews and/or match.

1 - I ask a lot of questions and faculty who taught me were not able to answer all of them and some were uncomfortable saying "I don't know." For academic reasons, I stand out at my program because of my GRE scores and undergrad history... I know this sounds arrogant or narcissistic or petty but my GRE scores were many standard deviations above the averages available publicly for all cohorts at my program and my other undergrad stuff was exceptional, too. I think this set me up to be resented by some students and faculty. It slipped out from some students at a few points. A couple faculty members emphasized how "smart" I was at odd times, in a way that made me feel self-conscious about it. There was also an incident where I believe I was treated very inappropriately and taken advantage of by a particular faculty member at what was a personal low point for me. This faculty member did not succeed with what s/he wanted to accomplish with this move, ultimately, and I am certain that s/he does not like me as a result. That person has an important role in the program.

2 - see above. I don't think I'm rewarding enough for some supervisors, though others do fine with me or seem to like supervising me. None have actually said I'm difficult to supervise, though, that's just my interpretation.

3 - no concerns, see above, just not glowing. Realistic (though one had incorrect info in it about my caseload and I submitted a correction/addendum to that).

I appreciate people's input, I just don't want to hijack the thread with my story (despite typing so much!). There honestly isn't a legit reason that I can imagine for the faculty's decision last year and I'm willing to bet that they reverse it this year (despite no change on my end). That is the unbelieveable part. I'm geographically restricted and have worked with only child clients. You might ask why I didn't diversify and I can say it's because I didn't know this would be an obstacle until it was too late and I didn't match last year. (Are there other fields that typically require a person to move 3 times during their >.5 decade of training and then typically pay less than 75k?) I think at that point, I decided that the field didn't offer enough for me to invest much more in pursuing a career with it. So I gave it another shot to see if I could finish the degree. I'm not sure I want to, at this point. That is why I think I've been pretty collected for the past few days. I've kind of already walked away from it... the system is clearly broken for so many people, why would anyone put themselves through it unless they absolutely love it or they're already too far in debt to walk away? Psychology is not #1 in my life and it never has been.

I may or may not be a top applicant/supervisee but most people who don't match don't match because the system is broken, not because of personal failings. So where's the link to the petition again? Good luck to everyone in Phase II!

 

[fnip]

Hi everyone! I could really use some advice. In my haste to get my applications submitted for phase 2 (yes I know the sites can't even look at them until March 1 but I have a crazy week with classes, tests, and clients) as I was just reviewing my cover letter I realized that there is a small typo. Instead of treatment is says treatent. While I know that's stupid, and I did look over the application preview I just missed it. I know it's a small mistake but do people think I should send an email apologize and acknowledging the typo with the corrected cover letter attached or is calling it out worse? Again, I know it seems silly but as competitive as phase 2 is I'd hate if something so stupid got me automatically rejected from a site. Thank you so much for any feedback!!!!

I would just let it go.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Hi everyone! I could really use some advice. In my haste to get my applications submitted for phase 2 (yes I know the sites can't even look at them until March 1 but I have a crazy week with classes, tests, and clients) as I was just reviewing my cover letter I realized that there is a small typo. Instead of treatment is says treatent. While I know that's stupid, and I did look over the application preview I just missed it. I know it's a small mistake but do people think I should send an email apologize and acknowledging the typo with the corrected cover letter attached or is calling it out worse? Again, I know it seems silly but as competitive as phase 2 is I'd hate if something so stupid got me automatically rejected from a site. Thank you so much for any feedback!!!!

I would call the AAPI people tomorrow for tech support. They may be able to "recall" your applications since sites don't have access to them yet or reassign a corrected cover letter to the submitted apps... if that doesn't work, I would consider sending an email like you said. I wouldn't want sites to think that I had missed it, even if there was a chance that they wouldn't catch it. Just me. Good luck, tech support can be helpful.

 

[psychRA]

I would call the AAPI people tomorrow for tech support. They may be able to "recall" your applications since sites don't have access to them yet or reassign a corrected cover letter to the submitted apps... if that doesn't work, I would consider sending an email like you said. I wouldn't want sites to think that I had missed it, even if there was a chance that they wouldn't catch it. Just me. Good luck, tech support can be helpful.

It can't hurt to check, since sites haven't been able to access the applications yet. I was in a similar situation for Phase I, and the tech people told me that applications cannot be altered once they're submitted, unfortunately.

 

[4410]

For the first part, no, at least not that I'm aware of. My practica matched up well with the site. I don't know who the student is who's there.

For the second part, I say I'm difficult to supervise because I've been told that I don't come across as enthusuastic by one supervisor and that led to feelings of anxiety and self-doubt for that (experienced) supervisor. That person still wrote what s/he considered a strong rec. Another supervisor did like me and wrote a fantastic rec and shared it with me. Someone I worked with on research also liked me and wrote a great rec. There have been absolutely no concerns expressed to me by anyone about my competence, ethics, approach, or anything like that at any point in my training. This is why my situation is so surprising to me and people who know me (including my letter of rec writers). There is no logical basis for the faculty's decision, except maybe, "this will teach her not to ask so many questions of her betters and our match rate this year is great anyway." I mean, I wasn't in the room for their discussion and I don't imagine anyone actually said these things. There's just no logical reason for it... And a few faculty members actually don't like me.

Also, they approved me to apply for internship twice with no reservations and I got a few interviews each year (1 this year), so most sites that I am a good match with aren't seeing any red flags in my application. The DCT supported, or at least truly appeared/appears to support, my applications and requests to the faculty... I know I'm not perfect but... There is no apparent logic/reason for the faculty's behavior toward me last year. I'm wondering if they will do it again this year or if they will treat me reasonably/logically.

I moved out of the state where my program is so I was already out of their hair, pretty much, just paying tuition / their salaries.

PS - I'm geographically restricted so many sites that I shot for were just not good matches for me. I'm in a program that isn't research heavy and that made me not a match for sites that had the right population but an emphasis on research. It's really the faculty's decision that doesn't make sense, not the interviews I didn't get or me not matching. I know why that part didn't work out, haha.

Clinical psychology programs do not like it when students have issues with supervisors, and I am speaking from my own personal experience. They want students to be full-time and if you don't smile and develop a positive relationship with supervisor it can come back to haunt your whole career. For me it was a learning experience as I did very well with my other practicum supervisors but this one problems supervisor added at least suspicion if I was ready for internship by some sites, as I was asked why I did not have a recommendation from this supervisor.

I wonder why so many internship sites have the current class of interns review all of the application and sit in on the interviewing process? From my perspective, it may be difficult for them to be neutral or unbiased in the review and selection process.

 

[O Gurl]

Hi everyone! I could really use some advice. In my haste to get my applications submitted for phase 2 (yes I know the sites can't even look at them until March 1 but I have a crazy week with classes, tests, and clients) as I was just reviewing my cover letter I realized that there is a small typo. Instead of treatment is says treatent. While I know that's stupid, and I did look over the application preview I just missed it. I know it's a small mistake but do people think I should send an email apologize and acknowledging the typo with the corrected cover letter attached or is calling it out worse? Again, I know it seems silly but as competitive as phase 2 is I'd hate if something so stupid got me automatically rejected from a site. Thank you so much for any feedback!!!!

I would not call attention to it. It really is a minor issue and phase II sites will be busy. I wouldn't run the risk of appearing neurotic (even though I actually am).

 

[O Gurl]

I wonder why so many internship sites have the current class of interns review all of the application and sit in on the interviewing process? From my perspective, it may be difficult for them to be neutral or unbiased in the review and selection process.

It is an excellent training and professional development experience. Why do you think it would be difficult for current interns to be unbiased?

For disclosure's sake, at my site interns participate informally (meet interviewees for Q&A and provide general feedback) and postdocs actually serve on the selection committee.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It is an excellent training and professional development experience. Why do you think it would be difficult for current interns to be unbiased?

For disclosure's sake, at my site interns participate informally (meet interviewees for Q&A and provide general feedback) and postdocs actually serve on the selection committee.

This and this. At our site, we met with applicants to answer their questions, but did not have formal input into the admissions/ranking process. We also didn't have access to applications (although it was mentioned at one point that we'd be able to look through a few).

I don't know if interns have full access to the process at many sites, if any. As O Gurl mentioned, that seems to be limited to postdocs, at least at all the places I interviewed.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

At my intern site we were included in the first part of the review process (e.g. reviewing the initial applications, rating the applicants, etc), as well as the interview day (e.g. met with each intern and answered questions). We were not involved in the final review and ranking of the finalists. I would have liked to been there for the ranking discussions, as most of the students were excellent, and it would have been interesting to see what put one person ahead of another.

An interesting aspect of the ranking system is the (possible) inclusion of multiple rank lists for each site. The gist of the process is that a site can submit multiple lists, depending on how applicants are chosen; I believe this was done to address diversity concerns.

I know "diversity" is/was a major point of emphasis for site reviewers, per what I saw and have heard from other sites that have been re-acred. over the past few years. We had one faculty member that made a "Save The Males!" mock whale cartoon because there had been so many women match to the site prior to my year. I think his 1-man diversity campaign worked...3 of the 7 matched interns were male.

The larger diversity issue for many Midwestern sites is the homogeneity of the "typical" applicant....white, christian, and from Midwestern/Southern universities. The challenge is FIT because local graduate students understand some of the not so obvious cultural differences of working in the Midwest/South.

 

[blindchaos]

This and this. At our site, we met with applicants to answer their questions, but did not have formal input into the admissions/ranking process. We also didn't have access to applications (although it was mentioned at one point that we'd be able to look through a few).

I don't know if interns have full access to the process at many sites, if any. As O Gurl mentioned, that seems to be limited to postdocs, at least at all the places I interviewed.

My site is kind of similar to this. I'm a current intern and I did not have any access to any applications nor did I have a say in who receives an interview. I met individually with every person invited for an interview for Q&A, tour, and kind of an informal interview. I had no formal say in the ranking process, but I was encouraged to note and share anything exceptional about any interviewee (ie "X was inappropriate" "Y seemed to be an exceptionally good fit").

I did get to talk with the group that did the rankings after the fact just to see how I generally matched up with them in terms of how we saw each interviewee and our perspectives were pretty close. Our 'bottom of the list' folks were the same as were the 'top of the list' folks. The ones in the middle were in different orders but those applicants were all very close to one another so an argument could be made for just about any arrangement of the middle pack.

 

[LMK]

I remember previously reading that we could claim our internship expenses on our taxes? Has anybody done this and gotten anything back, and if so, how?

I tried listing them under 'job-related expenses' on TurboTax and H&RBlock and it didn't seem to make a difference on my return.

I did claim them under Job-Search or something like that. I believe it comes up as a miscellaneous deduction on the 1040. I don't recall offhand, but I think it might be the sort that decreases your taxable income, therefore, reducing the amount of taxes you pay, not necessarily resulting in a big refund unless you paid a whole bunch in taxes.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I did claim them under Job-Search or something like that. I believe it comes up as a miscellaneous deduction on the 1040. I don't recall offhand, but I think it might be the sort that decreases your taxable income, therefore, reducing the amount of taxes you pay, not necessarily resulting in a big refund unless you paid a whole bunch in taxes.

I claimed them as well, although I don't remember what section they fell under in TurboTax. When you get to the proper place, it should ask you for some travel distances between your old residence and old job, and then your old residence and new job, or something along those lines. You can then take a few deductions for gas/travel, lodging, and storage of items to a certain extent (all explained via TurboTax). I don't remember how much of a difference it made exactly, but it did increase my refund for sure.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I claimed them as well, although I don't remember what section they fell under in TurboTax. When you get to the proper place, it should ask you for some travel distances between your old residence and old job, and then your old residence and new job, or something along those lines. You can then take a few deductions for gas/travel, lodging, and storage of items to a certain extent (all explained via TurboTax). I don't remember how much of a difference it made exactly, but it did increase my refund for sure.

Unless you itemize your tax return (full 1040 form, no standard deduction)....I don't believe it will make a difference. For most single poor students the standard deduction is probably the most beneficial, though obviously there is some variance. However, there is the Lifetime Learning Credit that definitely helped students out. I believe I maxed mine out with this past year. There was also a "Making Work Pay" tax credit for 2009-2010 ($400 for individuals, $800 for couples/family) that gave people/students a boost.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Unless you itemize your tax return (full 1040 form, no standard deduction)....I don't believe it will make a difference. For most single poor students the standard deduction is probably the most beneficial, though obviously there is some variance. However, there is the Lifetime Learning Credit that definitely helped students out. I believe I maxed mine out with this past year. There was also a "Making Work Pay" tax credit for 2009-2010 ($400 for individuals, $800 for couples/family) that gave people/students a boost.

I definitely did take the standard deduction, yes, and can also vouch that the Lifetime Learning Credit helped quite a bit. I still want to say that my relocation expense helped above and beyond this, but I could be confusing myself, as I'm currently woefully-underinformed when it comes to taxes (i.e., I just let TurboTax handle all the dirty work for me).

 

[4410]

My site is kind of similar to this. I'm a current intern and I did not have any access to any applications nor did I have a say in who receives an interview. I met individually with every person invited for an interview for Q&A, tour, and kind of an informal interview. I had no formal say in the ranking process, but I was encouraged to note and share anything exceptional about any interviewee (ie "X was inappropriate" "Y seemed to be an exceptionally good fit").

I did get to talk with the group that did the rankings after the fact just to see how I generally matched up with them in terms of how we saw each interviewee and our perspectives were pretty close. Our 'bottom of the list' folks were the same as were the 'top of the list' folks. The ones in the middle were in different orders but those applicants were all very close to one another so an argument could be made for just about any arrangement of the middle pack.

The two sites that I had physical interviews rather than phone interviews, had current predoctoral interns and postdoctoral fellows as part of the whole process from beginning to end. The site that I was selected or Matched had three interns from other campuses of the professional school that I attend. Although my location of the professional school is not accredited the interns and the postdoctoral fellows were all from APA accredited programs.

The site that I Matched with had three slots and the other two interns who matched were from APA accredited programs and they were females. I am not from an APA accredited program but I am male. I believe that being male may have improved my chances to meet the diversity requirements at this site. One of the female interns is African American and the other female interns is White, non Hispanic. I am White, non Hispanic but I am also over age 50. This site has a emphasis with a pediatric population and all three of the applicants selected were from clinical, counseling, or school psychology programs with pediatric emphasis. Only one of the rotations is with adult population related to forensic assessment but the other two rotations are with a alternative school and a residential program for children and adolescents with severe behavior/emotional disorders. The intern does a fourth rotation in one of the prior three that they have interest in gaining more training.

It seems that the postdoctoral fellows are not selected from the predoctoral interns every year as from reviewing the information they are all not part of the predoctoral intern groups. It would be nice to do a predoctoral internship and a postdoctoral fellowship at the same site, but it seems that this is rarely the case for many sites.

Although the predoctoral interns and the postdoctoral fellow are not part of the decision or ranking, my feeling was that due to me being from the same professional school but a different site that I may have been viewed as a very good candidate. Additionally three of the supervising psychologist are from professional PsyD programs and the director is from a PhD program. I feel very fortunate as all of the supervisors are from APA accredited programs and most or all of the prior predoctoral interns were from APA accredited programs as well as the postdoctoral fellows being from APA accredited programs. Most of the predoctoral interns and postdoctoral fellows were from PsyD programs, some university based and professional schools.

 

[DrivenDoctoress]

The person above mentioned that doing post docs at the same location at the predoc internship may not be the standard, and that has me wondering. From my interview experiences it seemed about 50/50 whether interns frequently stayed on for post docs. Do any of you know if it is a negative thing in any way to do your post doc in the same location as the predoc? Just curious as the site I'm going to has a post doc opportunity.

 

[4410]

I definitely did take the standard deduction, yes, and can also vouch that the Lifetime Learning Credit helped quite a bit. I still want to say that my relocation expense helped above and beyond this, but I could be confusing myself, as I'm currently woefully-underinformed when it comes to taxes (i.e., I just let TurboTax handle all the dirty work for me).

I have used the same CPA for many years as I own property and have many deductions. The tuition for graduate education has really been a good deduction the last five years. Since all of my interviews and expenses for internship took place in 2012, I will be counting these on next years return when my tuition will go significantly down as we are enrolled for only 3 hours each semester for internship, which is close to $3000 per semester but this is much better than the normal $10,000 per semester for nine hours. Although the applications through APPIC stretched out from November of 2011 through March of 2012, I believe you can count the expense of APPIC application for year 2012.

I wish it was so easy as I used to do my own taxes but the Tax laws have become so complicated that I feel some security having a CPA do my taxes.

 

[4410]

The person above mentioned that doing post docs at the same location at the predoc internship may not be the standard, and that has me wondering. From my interview experiences it seemed about 50/50 whether interns frequently stayed on for post docs. Do any of you know if it is a negative thing in any way to do your post doc in the same location as the predoc? Just curious as the site I'm going to has a post doc opportunity.

I asked the current predoctoral interns about doing a postdoctoral at the same site and it seemed that the emphasis or their focus was to go to a different place to get additional specialization that was not offered at the predoctoral site. All three indicated that they have already applied and accepted positions beginning in September 2012 at a significantly higher salary in a major metropolitan area. Therefore, my guess is that the postdoctoral salary at this site is not much higher than the predoctoral salary, and this is why they have fellows from different predoctoral internship sites.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I asked the current predoctoral interns about doing a postdoctoral at the same site and it seemed that the emphasis or their focus was to go to a different place to get additional specialization that was not offered at the predoctoral site. All three indicated that they have already applied and accepted positions beginning in September 2012 at a significantly higher salary in a major metropolitan area. Therefore, my guess is that the postdoctoral salary at this site is not much higher than the predoctoral salary, and this is why they have fellows from different predoctoral internship sites.

My view on the latter part of this post/issue is this: the closer one gets to "real world" professional practice, the more important things like salary and benefits become. Thus, I could totally see foregoing a postdoc opportunity at your internship site in favor of one somewhere else owing to nothing more than a pay raise.

Overall, though, I don't believe there's any negative stigma attached to completing your postdoc at the same site as your internship. HOWEVER, this assumes that (as 4410 alludes) the postdoc at your internship site actually offers adequate training in your area of chosen specialty.

Thus, for example, if you planned on obtaining boarding in neuropsych, and completed your internship somewhere like the Baltimore VA, Houston VA, Brown, or UAB (i.e., a place that offers a neuro postdoc), then sticking around for your postdoc would be fine. However, if your internship didn't have a neuro postdoc, then you'd potentially be hurting yourself professionally if you stayed on.

As for how common the whole "captive" intern/postdoc situation is, I think it really differs from site to site. Some (e.g., Brown, from what I've heard) prefer to keep you around if possible, or would at least "nudge up" your application quite a bit. Others do/would not.

 

[O Gurl]

My view on the latter part of this post/issue is this: the closer one gets to "real world" professional practice, the more important things like salary and benefits become. Thus, I could totally see foregoing a postdoc opportunity at your internship site in favor of one somewhere else owing to nothing more than a pay raise.

Overall, though, I don't believe there's any negative stigma attached to completing your postdoc at the same site as your internship. HOWEVER, this assumes that (as 4410 alludes) the postdoc at your internship site actually offers adequate training in your area of chosen specialty.

Thus, for example, if you planned on obtaining boarding in neuropsych, and completed your internship somewhere like the Baltimore VA, Houston VA, Brown, or UAB (i.e., a place that offers a neuro postdoc), then sticking around for your postdoc would be fine. However, if your internship didn't have a neuro postdoc, then you'd potentially be hurting yourself professionally if you stayed on.

As for how common the whole "captive" intern/postdoc situation is, I think it really differs from site to site. Some (e.g., Brown, from what I've heard) prefer to keep you around if possible, or would at least "nudge up" your application quite a bit. Others do/would not.

+1

If your internship site offers training for the specialty you want and the pay is right, then it is perfectly fine to stay. In some ways it is preferable to moving after just 1 year. It allows for you to build upon existing relationships and to branch out into new horizons. For example, the fact that I was an intern at my current site and now a postdoc has allowed me to add on to my intern research project and get a lot of products out. I also have strong enough relationships established for staff to support me in changing up a few services within our care line. It has helped me carve out a postdoc experience that is truly unique and fits my career goals. I am not sure I would have had nearly as productive of an experience if I had started over at a brand new place.

 

[lookin4psydinfo]

An interesting aspect of the ranking system is the (possible) inclusion of multiple rank lists for each site. The gist of the process is that a site can submit multiple lists, depending on how applicants are chosen; I believe this was done to address diversity concerns.

Im confused about this multiple lists thing... I matched to my top site so it doesn't really matter, but I'm curious. Can you explain how this works?

 

[4410]

Im confused about this multiple lists thing... I matched to my top site so it doesn't really matter, but I'm curious. Can you explain how this works?

Depending on who I talk with it seems that I get different information. Our DCT indicated that once the ranking list are completed by the internship site and the student, that there are no different processes, but it seems that I read somewhere that APPIC calls the internship sites in a double check type of method to clarify their selections as being accurate selections.

I guess there may be some factoring in diversity as I have known individuals who did not believe they had a chance of matching with a particular site, to later discover that they are the only African American, Hispanic, or male selected.

APA seems to value diversity and if you check most graduate school admissions there will be some diversity in the class that is admitted to the program.

 

[moneyphd]

I guess there may be some factoring in diversity as I have known individuals who did not believe they had a chance of matching with a particular site, to later discover that they are the only African American, Hispanic, or male selected.

.

It's a BIG mistake to say that if you're the only underrepresented demographic in your cohort, you got in because of diversity. More logically, if you are underrepresented, you are likely to remain less represented in your cohort.

 

[psychRA]

Im confused about this multiple lists thing... I matched to my top site so it doesn't really matter, but I'm curious. Can you explain how this works?

I read somewhere (APAGS guide, maybe?) that sites can include "conditions" on their rank order lists. So for example, they can specify that, on top of their rankings, they would like the final internship class to include a certain percentage of underrepresented minorities, or that they do not want it to include more than X number of people from the same doctoral program, etc.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I read somewhere (APAGS guide, maybe?) that sites can include "conditions" on their rank order lists. So for example, they can specify that, on top of their rankings, they would like the final internship class to include a certain percentage of underrepresented minorities, or that they do not want it to include more than X number of people from the same doctoral program, etc.

I'm not sure if the above is the case (it very well could be), but I do know that APPIC's site states they allows programs, under special circumstances, to submit more than one rank order list for the same track. I think the example APPIC used is if the site wanted two interns with different types of skill sets, but I would imagine a diversity component could be a viable reason to request such an allowance as well.

When it comes to different tracks, I believe each track (assuming it has its own rank order number) requires its own list.