2012 APPIC Internship Application Thread

[StillMotivated]

I only applied to internship programs that did not require undergraduate transcripts. I ended up not submitting them to the APPI as a result. But there are some sites in Phase II that required them during Phase I. Does anyone know what the requirements are for transcripts during Phase II? Will you not be considered if you do not have them or will you be allowed to post them later? Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dream Chaser]

I only applied to internship programs that did not require undergraduate transcripts. I ended up not submitting them to the APPI as a result. But there are some sites in Phase II that required them during Phase I. Does anyone know what the requirements are for transcripts during Phase II? Will you not be considered if you do not have them or will you be allowed to post them later? Thanks.

According to the Phase II guidelines we should not be including any supplemental materials. If the site wants them they should contact you directly to request them so you may want to have a copy of your transcripts avaliable. Good luck with Phase II

"You should NOT submit any supplemental materials (e.g., testing reports, special application forms) to sites during the initial application phase, even if requested to do so by the site's application instructions for Phase I. Sites have been told that applications from students in Phase II will not include supplemental materials, even if requested by the site. Sites may choose to ask selected applicants to provide additional information (e.g., testing reports) at a later time; students who receive such requests should provide the information outside of the AAPI Online service (e.g., via e-mail attachment). http://appic.org/Match/APPICMatchPhaseII/PhaseIIGettingStarted.aspx

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

According to the Phase II guidelines we should not be including any supplemental materials. If the site wants them they should contact you directly to request them so you may want to have a copy of your transcripts avaliable. Good luck with Phase II

I agree and cute profile picture.

 

[19844]

Originally Posted by 4410:
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.

wow....really? When you see an AA, Latino, or male student in a cohort you think they only got in because of diversity? Aren't we Phd/Psy.d level psychologists on this forum? Aren't we treating individuals who struggle with racism, stereotype threat, micro-aggressions, etc. Don't we know how difficult it can be for the sole minority in a majority group? I know it's difficult when one doesn't match, but do we really need to see this ugly underbelly? Clearly if one has gotten to this level and matches....isn't he or she qualified? You're suggesting they're tokens only selected for their minority status. Isn't it much more complex than that? Common lets do better. We are supposed to be psychologists!!

 

[eudaimonPsyD]

I forewarn that I am going to complain right about now.

Perhaps I have a lower tolerance for this whole process than others on this site do. Or perhaps I am going to voice the sentiment of the masses.

Going through this Phase II stuff feels like ****.

My apologies for the language. But don't we all encourage honest expression of our emotions without judgment?

That is all.

 

[eudaimonPsyD]

Oh how thoughtful, the forum edited my foul language for me...

 

[4410]

Oh how thoughtful, the forum edited my foul language for me...

Makes you feel like S*it?

 

[eudaimonPsyD]

Makes you feel like S*it?

That's what I was going for.

 

[4410]

Originally Posted by 4410:
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.

wow....really? When you see an AA, Latino, or male student in a cohort you think they only got in because of diversity? Aren't we Phd/Psy.d level psychologists on this forum? Aren't we treating individuals who struggle with racism, stereotype threat, micro-aggressions, etc. Don't we know how difficult it can be for the sole minority in a majority group? I know it's difficult when one doesn't match, but do we really need to see this ugly underbelly? Clearly if one has gotten to this level and matches....isn't he or she qualified? You're suggesting they're tokens only selected for their minority status. Isn't it much more complex than that? Common lets do better. We are supposed to be psychologists!!

I believe we are all qualified once we get to this point in our training, regardless of individual variables. Everyone who has gone through this process in clinical psychology training seems to talk about their experiences. One of the faculty members in our program indicated that she was one of eight clinical psychology interns selected at a site in New York City and she did not rank them high on her list as she felt that she would not have much of a chance to be selected. She Matched and was selected to this prestigious site and she was the only minority in the group. I did not say this was why she was selected but she indicated that she thought there was indication that she was selected due to diversity requirements. It did not affect how she was treated in the internship and she had a great experience and now is licensed and in independent practice.

A different faculty member Matched up at a site where he had a very strict micro managing supervisor with very poor interpersonal skills. It was such a nightmare of an experience that he almost quit midway and said the heck with being a clinical psychologist. He says he still cringes ten years later whenever he thinks about his internship experience. In retrospect he uses his story or example of how this experience helped him develop and adapt his interpersonal skills and increased his ability of being assertive in his current role as a mentor of faculty instructor in a doctoral level clinical psychology program.

A different faculty member who is active in the GLBT community reported a very positive experience at his internship site with a mentor/supervisor who was also in the GLBT community and the internship had a large number of patients/clients from the GLBT community, so this was a very good Match for him.

I hate to say it but in the grand scheme of things, most of us Match up with compatible sites based on many individual characteristics that further promotes our development as psychologists.

 

[jolio]

Just curious, but what do you make of this? Do you think your enthusiasm towards your top choice was apparent to the interviewers and lead to your acceptance? Or is it just an indication that the internship match is a crapshoot? A lot of people have said that they were rejected by their "safety" internship sites and accepted by the more competitive ones.

if you're asking whether i think the reason i didn't match at the less fancy places was that they sensed that i wasn't extremely enthusiastic about their sites, my answer is an unequivocal no. i was extremely enthusiastic on all of my interviews and in all of my cover letters in both years. i made a strong case for myself as a good fit for each site, and i got very positive feedback from many of my interviewers. again, i think it's natural to try to single out what may have gone wrong in each case or what's lacking in any particular applicant's cache of skills. i believe it is more of a crapshoot than any of us would like to accept.

 

[APPICSucks]

Greetings colleagues!

Just wanted to post here about the new site I created (moderator edit: link removed) for us applicants to voice our frustration about the internship process in a single place for all those working to fix this system can look to for the REALITY of how they are negatively affecting students.

I look forward to hearing from you!

 

[MCParent]

Greetings colleagues!

Just wanted to post here about the new site I created (moderator edit: link removed) for us applicants to voice our frustration about the internship process in a single place for all those working to fix this system can look to for the REALITY of how they are negatively affecting students.

I look forward to hearing from you!

APPIC doesn't suck. APPIC has probably been the most important ally of graduate students, and have done the most to help us out of any organization or group in APA (I'd say, even more than APAGS, just because APPIC has a but more stuff to have influence over).

APPIC has developed resources to help internship sites become accredited. They openly see APPIC membership as a step toward accreditation. They publish the data that we used to do the unequal contributors study. The same data is the most useful resource to applicants to evaluate program outcomes. They published the qual data that made me angry enough to start Occupy. They created the rule that requires APPIC member sites to pay interns a respectful salary. They made the application process easier and cheaper by putting it online, and then instituting phase 2 to replace clearinghouse.

APPIC did not create the imbalance. They do not accredit doctoral programs. They just facilitate the match.

On the blog, you indicate that you didn't match. That sucks. Neither did I last year. But direct your anger toward the institutions that are actually responsible, not the best ally students have in APA.

Edit: Oh, they also do the internship seminar at APA every year. And they run TEPP, I think.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

Greetings colleagues!

Just wanted to post here about the new site I created (moderator edit: link removed) for us applicants to voice our frustration about the internship process in a single place for all those working to fix this system can look to for the REALITY of how they are negatively affecting students.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
Confucius

 

[erg923]

I agree. You should take down your site. It does nothing to help us SOLVE THE PROBLEM! Dont fragment the movement that is already spear heading this issue. We can can solve the problem. We can try to solve the problem and whine and vent about the process while doing it. But we cant just whine. That's just selfish.

I also agree that APPIC does not suck, and that they are indeed responsible for pretty much ALL of the small gains that have been made in this terrible process.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

APPIC doesn't suck. APPIC has probably been the most important ally of graduate students, and have done the most to help us out of any organization or group in APA (I'd say, even more than APAGS, just because APPIC has a but more stuff to have influence over).

APPIC has developed resources to help internship sites become accredited. They openly see APPIC membership as a step toward accreditation. They publish the data that we used to do the unequal contributors study. The same data is the most useful resource to applicants to evaluate program outcomes. They published the qual data that made me angry enough to start Occupy. They created the rule that requires APPIC member sites to pay interns a respectful salary. They made the application process easier and cheaper by putting it online, and then instituting phase 2 to replace clearinghouse.

APPIC did not create the imbalance. They do not accredit doctoral programs. They just facilitate the match.

On the blog, you indicate that you didn't match. That sucks. Neither did I last year. But direct your anger toward the institutions that are actually responsible, not the best ally students have in APA.

I'm going to agree. It's easy to "shoot the messenger," so to speak, but APPIC really does seem to be on the side of graduate students in doing all they can to facilitate the match process, maintain transparency, and assist trainees.

The problem is a mix of a variety of factors, but ultimately, much of the responsibility must rest with APA and multiple components of the accreditation process (at both the doctoral and internship levels).

 

[cara susanna]

Although I think that people should be allowed to whine (it hasn't even been a week yet), I don't think creating an external website with such an inflammatory name is a good idea.

 

[NotTheHoff]

Although I think that people should be allowed to whine (it hasn't even been a week yet), I don't think creating an external website with such an inflammatory name is a good idea.

Indeed. Although it could happen, it's hard to envision people seeking a fair insight into the internship crisis (and progress toward addressing it) from a site that from the get-go states "APPIC sucks."

 

[Quynh2007]

Greetings colleagues!

Just wanted to post here about the new site I created (http://appicsucks.tumblr.com/) for us applicants to voice our frustration about the internship process in a single place for all those working to fix this system can look to for the REALITY of how they are negatively affecting students.

I look forward to hearing from you!

I also did not match despite interviews at some top places. It hurts a lot to know I was passed up for other candidates. But, as clinical psychology students, even understanding the magnitude of the imbalance, can still be rational in how we frame our disappointment. I have been very proactive in eliciting comments, suggestions, support, and help for improvements in Phase 2. I know even if I don't match, I will be having a very productive year next year and be a much better candidate having already experienced the process for myself once, I think it will give a huge advantage next year (if I don't match in Phase 2). Employ those coping skills you have been teaching your clients. Just remember, it isn't as bad as you think. I watched Act of Valor this weekend. I hate the hollywood-backed money-making heads associated with it, but the message is the same. Life is more important, and I am very fortunate to be where I am right now, even if it is not ideal.

Also, thankful Phase 2 is only a few weeks long

 

[erg923]

I also did not match despite interviews at some top places. It hurts a lot to know I was passed up for other candidates. But, as clinical psychology students, even understanding the magnitude of the imbalance, can still be rational in how we frame our disappointment. I have been very proactive in eliciting comments, suggestions, support, and help for improvements in Phase 2. I know even if I don't match, I will be having a very productive year next year and be a much better candidate having already experienced the process for myself once, I think it will give a huge advantage next year (if I don't match in Phase 2). Employ those coping skills you have been teaching your clients. Just remember, it isn't as bad as you think. I watched Act of Valor this weekend. I hate the hollywood-backed money-making heads associated with it, but the message is the same. Life is more important, and I am very fortunate to be where I am right now, even if it is not ideal.

Also, thankful Phase 2 is only a few weeks long

Careful not to swing the pendulum too far the other way though. There is no reason why students would need to wait another year to make themselves "more competitive" for SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF THE GRAD SCHOOL CURRICULUM (internship). Unacceptable! Another year of delayed earning potential. Perpetual infantalizing of adult professionals, in my mind. You went to grad school, you did your practicums, your proposed your diss, you gained the skills (if you didnt, your program has something wrong with their curriculum). Thus, you go on internship. Thinking that is "ok" for it to be any other way is silly.

 

[Quynh2007]

Careful not to swing the pendulum too far the other way though. There is no reason why students would need to wait another year to make themselves more competitive for internship. Unacceptable. Another year of delayed earning potential. Perpetual infantalizing of adult professionals, in my mind. You went to grad school, you did your practicums, your proposed your diss, you gained the skills (if you didnt, your program has something wrong with their curriculum). Thus, you go on internship. Thinking that is "ok" for to be any other way is silly.

I suppose my post can come off that way, but I meant, given the situation we are now currently sitting in (having not matched), we can 1) throw a tantrum or 2)make the best of it. I'm choosing to make the best of it given the futility of #1. I also think if you don't go into Phase 2 with a positive attitude, it will likely seep through in your application and interview.

 

[APPICSucks]

Thanks for all the feedback on my idea, especially you E. This is helping to clarify the separate issues that I see as problematic with the process. One of my points, which I think is important and I see not being discussed as much, is flaws in the intern selection process, which IS facilitated by APPIC. Even if there was an equal balance of internship positions to applicants, the issue would still exist that the selection process does not reflect an accurate evaluation of applicants. This is one of the things that I would like to raise more attention to.

 

[MCParent]

... One of my points, which I think is important and I see not being discussed as much, is flaws in the intern selection process, which IS facilitated by APPIC...

How so? All APPIC does in terms of selection is run a standardized application form (to me, seems MUCH better than entering the same information in a different format on different forms for 15 sites...) and then coordinate the ranking match process. Sites select their interns.

 

[Dream Chaser]

I suppose my post can come off that way, but I meant, given the situation we are now currently sitting in (having not matched), we can 1) throw a tantrum or 2)make the best of it. I'm choosing to make the best of it given the futility of #1. I also think if you don't go into Phase 2 with a positive attitude, it will likely seep through in your application and interview.

I also didn't match in Phase I and am working diligently to complete and send out my Phase II APPIs. Yes, the predicament is lame; however, I also think it is important to not focus on the negativity and waste important time and energy on the blame game or over analyzing what could have gone wrong. (Yes, there is an imbalance between overall number of positions (especially APA accredited positions) and the number of students seeking them - and this NEEDS to be addressed).

After I got over the initial shock on match day, I madethe decision not to isolate myself and sulk. At that point, sulking would notget anything done. I agree with Quynh2007 in trying to remain positive and itis also beneficial to be realistic about looking at other options. There are somany of us this year in Phase II that the sheer numbers of applicants topositions available can seem defeating. I too have a backup plan (take Spanishclasses, obtain LCPC and CADC, TRAVEL) if I don't happen to match this year - but am very hopeful that I won't have to have to use the backup plan.I wish everyone going through this process the best of luck.

Here's a monkey for good measure.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

I suppose my post can come off that way, but I meant, given the situation we are now currently sitting in (having not matched), we can 1) throw a tantrum or 2)make the best of it. I'm choosing to make the best of it given the futility of #1. I also think if you don't go into Phase 2 with a positive attitude, it will likely seep through in your application and interview.

A positive attitude will only help you and I think it's great you can take that perspective to shift the negative the other way.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thanks for all the feedback on my idea, especially you E. This is helping to clarify the separate issues that I see as problematic with the process. One of my points, which I think is important and I see not being discussed as much, is flaws in the intern selection process, which IS facilitated by APPIC. Even if there was an equal balance of internship positions to applicants, the issue would still exist that the selection process does not reflect an accurate evaluation of applicants. This is one of the things that I would like to raise more attention to.

Like MCParent, I'm curious as to what about the flaws in the intern selection process are?

If it's regarding selection criteria, I generally don't see a problem with the items that are currently considered (e.g., breadth and quantity of clinical and research experiences, fit with the internship training site, personal statements, rec letters). If it's regarding the match process itself, again, I don't see a huge problem with the current system, although I know there are those who don't like the control being taken out of their hands to such a degree.

 

[APPICSucks]

One of the problems is that sites interview far too many applicants for the number of spots they are attempting to fill.
Another problem is that internship match does not reflect well applicants aptitude.
Still another significant problem is the interviewing process favors the sites by placing the financial burden of interviewing on applicants.

 

[APPICSucks]

How so? All APPIC does in terms of selection is run a standardized application form (to me, seems MUCH better than entering the same information in a different format on different forms for 15 sites...) and then coordinate the ranking match process. Sites select their interns.

APPIC's standardization of the application has merely introduced greater reliability into the application process. What I am arguing is that a more valid evaluation of applicants is needed.

 

[MCParent]

One of the problems is that sites interview far too many applicants for the number of spots they are attempting to fill.

That's a problem with site selection committee selectivity and the size of the applicant pool, not APPIC.

Another problem is that internship match does not reflect well applicants aptitude.

This is an interesting question. There's research on it:

An examination of inclusion and exclusion criteria in the predoctoral internship selection process.
By Ginkel, Ross W.; Davis, Shawn E.; Michael, Paul G.
Training and Education in Professional Psychology, Vol 4(4), Nov 2010, 213-218.
doi: 10.1037/a0019453

Looks like sites use fit (cover letter), interview, personality, prior clinical experience, and completion of doc training as main criteria. What aspects of that does APPIC control?

Still another significant problem is the interviewing process favors the sites by placing the financial burden of interviewing on applicants.

APPIC can't mandate a site's policies on interviewing. How could they? Require all phone interviews? Sites don't even comply with APPIC's recommendation to limit supplemental materials and make sure they're nonredundant with the AAPI.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

One of the problems is that sites interview far too many applicants for the number of spots they are attempting to fill.
Another problem is that internship match does not reflect well applicants aptitude.
Still another significant problem is the interviewing process favors the sites by placing the financial burden of interviewing on applicants.

One of the reasons that I think sites interview many applicants is that, especially in the past few years, they'll rank a large number of people, and will often go surprisingly far down their lists.

As for the internship match not reflecting applicants' aptitude--I'll agree to a certain extent, insofar as competent applicants going unmatched. But again, in my opinion (and based on the the data), this is due to there being too few spots moreso than to the unfairness or inaccuracy of criteria being used by sites.

I completely agree that phone interviews should be made more common, or that interviews should be encouraged to take place in common locations (e.g., at conferences) to reduce the financial burden on interviewees.

 

[MCParent]

One of the reasons that I think sites interview many applicants is that, especially in the past few years, they'll rank a large number of people, and will often go surprisingly far down their lists.

As for the internship match not reflecting applicants' aptitude--I'll agree to a certain extent, insofar as competent applicants going unmatched. But again, in my opinion (and based on the the data), this is due to there being too few spots moreso than to the unfairness or inaccuracy of criteria being used by sites.

I completely agree that phone interviews should be made more common, or that interviews should be encouraged to take place in common locations (e.g., at conferences) to reduce the financial burden on interviewees.

Agreed. This blaming of APPIC is focusing on symptoms of the imbalance, not the cause.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I hate to say it but in the grand scheme of things, most of us Match up with compatible sites based on many individual characteristics that further promotes our development as psychologists.

I can't really comment on the past couple of years, but I know when I went through the process the vast majority of people I knew who matched landed at sites that were a good to excellent fit. I haven't looked at the data from the last handful of years about where students match on their Rank List, but anectdotally, that part of the process is working well.

APPIC doesn't suck. APPIC has probably been the most important ally of graduate students, and have done the most to help us out of any organization or group in APA (I'd say, even more than APAGS, just because APPIC has a but more stuff to have influence over).

APPIC has done the best with a less than ideal situation. The leadership positions are on a volunteer basis, and the people who do it really do seem to care about the field and the students in it. There is no fame or glory in the positions, but it is a way for professionals to give back to the field. Dr. Keilin et al. have spent A TON of time trying to make the process as smooth as possible. They ask and use feedback from students, which is something that I wish more psych-related associations did on a regular basis. They spend countless hours trying to get information out as quickly as possible, and they rarely get the thanks they probably deserve.

 

[APPICSucks]

That's a problem with site selection committee selectivity and the size of the applicant pool, not APPIC.

That may be true, but this is an area where research could be done. At what point does the number of applicants interviewed does the probability of a site filling it's positions begin to decrease? Both more and less competitive sites should need to interview more applicants to fill their spots, while "average" sites should seek to find the minimum number of interviews needed to fill its spots. This is related to my comments about the burden of interviews being placed on applicants - perhaps ultimately this is more of an ethical issue? Also, I think that if the applications were a better reflection of student's then sites would need to interview less people.

Looks like sites use fit (cover letter), interview, personality, prior clinical experience, and completion of doc training as main criteria. What aspects of that does APPIC control?

This supports my views, at least somewhat. The standardized APPI is only minimally increasing site's abilities to identify the best fitting candidates to fill their positions. This could be changed by APPIC by revamping either the APPI or the process itself (I could envision a more iterative process where smaller pools of applicants are interviewed and matched in succession steps).

APPIC can't mandate a site's policies on interviewing. How could they? Require all phone interviews? Sites don't even comply with APPIC's recommendation to limit supplemental materials and make sure they're nonredundant with the AAPI.

I realize that APPIC cannot mandate the interview process. But as you point out, many sites still do not follow APPIC's recommendations re: supplementals. The larger issue is the fact that poor graduate students are expected to fly all over creation and still not match. Apparently this okay with most sites and APPIC.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

That may be true, but this is an area where research could be done. At what point does the number of applicants interviewed does the probability of a site filling it's positions begin to decrease? Both more and less competitive sites should need to interview more applicants to fill their spots, while "average" sites should seek to find the minimum number of interviews needed to fill its spots. This is related to my comments about the burden of interviews being placed on applicants - perhaps ultimately this is more of an ethical issue? Also, I think that if the applications were a better reflection of student's then sites would need to interview less people.



This supports my views, at least somewhat. The standardized APPI is only minimally increasing site's abilities to identify the best fitting candidates to fill their positions. This could be changed by APPIC by revamping either the APPI or the process itself (I could envision a more iterative process where smaller pools of applicants are interviewed and matched in succession steps).


I realize that APPIC cannot mandate the interview process. But as you point out, many sites still do not follow APPIC's recommendations re: supplementals. The larger issue is the fact that poor graduate students are expected to fly all over creation and still not match. Apparently this okay with most sites and APPIC.

Many of these are interesting points, particularly with respect to revamping the application into a more iterative process. Definitely something research could inform (in addition to the number of interview invites, as mentioned). However, given the current situation, I don't know that this is even feasible.

Thus, I think that currently, the biggest problem is simply the imbalance itself. I truly feel that our (and APPIC's) energies would first be best spent bringing the number of applicants and number of sites into better alignment. Once this is accomplished, more time and resources would then be freed and available to focus on increasing how effective (and humane) the application and match processes are.

 

[APPICSucks]

Many of these are interesting points, particularly with respect to revamping the application into a more iterative process. Definitely something research could inform (in addition to the number of interview invites, as mentioned). However, given the current situation, I don't know that this is even feasible.

Thus, I think that currently, the biggest problem is simply the imbalance itself. I truly feel that our (and APPIC's) energies would first be best spent bringing the number of applicants and number of sites into better alignment. Once this is accomplished, more time and resources would then be freed and available to focus on increasing how effective (and humane) the application and match processes are.

Good point. I agree that addressing the imbalance is the biggest issue. But there are many issues in addition to the imbalance, and I feel like more awareness of these issues will help bring about swifter change. The petition was good but I felt like it did not go far enough in demanding the change that our field deserves (not just applicants).

 

[alienarms]

I suppose my post can come off that way, but I meant, given the situation we are now currently sitting in (having not matched), we can 1) throw a tantrum or 2)make the best of it. I'm choosing to make the best of it given the futility of #1. I also think if you don't go into Phase 2 with a positive attitude, it will likely seep through in your application and interview.

I agree, Quynh. I also decided to "make the best of it". This weekend was rough, though. I'm 99% sure I won't be doing Phase 2, because there's only one position available that I would even consider (a spot on a track I interviewed for that has a different focus). Most likely, I will wait it out, finish my dissertation, teach, and apply again next year in the hopes I will match to my top choice. The fact is that I KNOW I only missed matching by a hair-possibly only by one ranking position.

Per some of the ongoing debates: Look, we all know that the system is broken. I have plenty of support (including ALL our faculty who are outraged that I didn't match), and good options for next year. I also have strong opinions about the imbalance, but none of that is going to change the Phase I match results for me this year.

I contributed to my own result. I take responsibility for being 1) geographically restricted, and 2) unwilling to apply to certain sites because they don't fit my training needs. Not that it doesn't frustrate me that my excellent (by ALL accounts) qualifications were not enough within this system. I also don't think it's fair that not wanting to uproot my life in order to complete my Ph.D. worked against me. I suppose I'm just taking a radical acceptance stance. Sitting around complaining about how unfair it all is is not proactive. We're training to be clinical psychologists. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[DrivenDoctoress]

Also, I think that if the applications were a better reflection of student's then sites would need to interview less people.

This is one point I would really like clarification on. What is it that you feel is lacking in the information gleaned from the application? I can understand people arguing that any single measure may be a poor indicator of a person's skill set, but the appi is not a SINGLE indicator... it includes clinical hours, experiences, research, recommendation letters, desired populations, etc. What are the areas you feel should also be added to the application in order to better reflect who students truly are? In my opinion, the appi seems to have pretty darn good face validity as the things included in it are directly related to the functions of an intern and the likelihood of success as an intern.

 

[4410]

Greetings colleagues!

Just wanted to post here about the new site I created (http://appicsucks.tumblr.com/) for us applicants to voice our frustration about the internship process in a single place for all those working to fix this system can look to for the REALITY of how they are negatively affecting students.

I look forward to hearing from you!

:troll:

Please....Such a website add even more negative publicity towards psychology. Take it down, NOW!!!

I can only see the psychologist at the sites who rejected you, sighing.....Thank You Lord for allowing us the commonsense to say "NO" we don't want a psychologist intern who protests against APPIC.

Take it DOWN and get back to work to become a psychologists! Just one more point...do not put this on your CV!

 

[erg923]

:troll:

Please....Such a website add even more negative publicity towards psychology. Take it down, NOW!!!

I can only see the psychologist at the sites who rejected you, sighing.....Thank You Lord for allowing us the commonsense to say "NO" we don't want a psychologist intern who protests against APPIC.

Take it DOWN and get back to work to become a psychologists! Just one more point...do not put this on your CV!

Most of us dont agree that "APPIC sucks" but I know everyone is pretty awe struck by your seeming lack of assertiveness and aversion to challenging the status quo here. I mean, whats that about? In another thread you made some off the wall statement about a how student protests violate ALL the (unforceable) principles of the APA ethics code. For real? lol. Hate to break it to ya, but this is how society changes for the better (e.g., civil right marches, vietnam war protests, gay marriage protests). And your old, so I thought you would recognize this! I mean, good lord, what are the faculty like in YOUR program? You talk like you come from an program that is run by authortarian dictators that care nothing about the right (yes rights) and outcomes of its students. Again, I dont know what kind of god awful school you attend, but it's NOT refective of most of our programs...the normal university program that is very much invested in its student's sucess and outcomes. They have a stake in my sucess too, obviously.

Stop projecting your programs weird mind-set into everyone else head! Most people's programs are not like yours is (apparently). And almost all of us feel that our school, our DCTs, and our advisors/mentors are open to, and value, student feedback.

 

[APPICSucks]

I don't think there should be a single indicator (not unless you could make a composite measure of multiple items in the APPI). According to the citation Mr. Parent posted above, the authors state, "Inclusion criteria that could be categorized generally as personal characteristics of the applicant, as opposed to achievements or abilities of the applicant, have shown a noticeable increase in importance" and "Candidates can better position themselves for increasingly competitive and limited internship placements by focusing on personality characteristics and presentation considerations"
I have no problem with personality characteristics being deciding factors in intern selection, but I hardly feel that the APPI measures well these important characteristics. There is a well established finding that actuarial decision making exceeds human judgement (see Dawes, Faust & Meehl, 1989). Why don't we use our psychological knowledge in pursuit of improving the selection of interns?

 

[erg923]

II There is a well established finding that actuarial decision making exceeds human judgement (see Dawes, Faust & Meehl, 1989).

If Paul Meehl were with us today, he would write a humorous paper about the internship match imbalance that would subtlly insult everyone involved and be so above our heads, we would just stare at him in awe...

 

[APPICSucks]

woops, repost

 

[PsychMode]

Question for those of you who got interviews at Brown and UCSF (phase 1 this year, or either phases last year), will they still look at you if you have no zero pubs? I've got a few in the pipelines (3 first authors), and close to 10 presentations/symposium, but due to the nature of the research projects, we haven't been able to work on the manuscript until the last year (too busy creating training protocols, treatment manuals, etc). Just curious if I should invest any time in writing cover letters for these places (which I will explain the 0 pubs, and so will my advisor in his LOR) or just forget it?

Basically, has anyone gotten an interview at either places with 0 pubs? Thanks in Advance.

I am a bit late, but here goes. Although I have a relatively high number of publications, I would still recommend applying in your situation. If you have three, first-author publications (and possibly other pubs) down the pipeline that are close to submission or in the review process, perhaps you could emphasize that in your cover letter. You can also emphasize good, non-publication research experiences that illustrate your qualifications for "research-heavy" or "research-friendly" sites. Additionally, it is really helpful to have your recommenders speak to your capacity and your potential as a researcher. I know the latter is true at both UCSF and Brown. (I do not know if letters of recommendation are used in Phase II, though.) Don't shoot yourself in the foot by not trying.

 

[DrivenDoctoress]

I would argue first that the appi IS a composite measure, and also that personality characteristics can shine through in the essays, if the student deems fit. I'm not opposed to considering that other personality factors be considered, but how do you propose appic display these personality characteristics of ours? Insist that we all post our Myers Briggs types or MMPI results? Haha! I'm not trying to be difficult, I just can't see what the ACTUAL recommendation is for APPIC to better display student personalities/characteristics... what SPECIFIC measure would you like APPIC to include that you feel would give sites a better idea of who you are as a person/professional?

Edited to add: If I understand you correctly, you believe that sites are interviewing too many people, and you would prefer that they interview a smaller, select group of applicants that they feel strong about? Most sites (caution, anecdotal evidence ensues) interview around 15-30 people per position in each track (or so it seemed, in my experience), what would you suggest is a good number to interview?

Also, do you think that putting a cap on the number of applications that applicants can submit would help with the flooding of interview applicants?

Again, this is all in the nature of dialogue, I'm not trying to be contentious!

 

[4410]

Most of us dont agree that "APPIC sucks" but I know everyone is pretty awe struck by your seeming lack of assertiveness and aversion to challenging the status quo here. I mean, whats that about? In another thread you made some off the wall statement about a how student protests violate ALL the (unforceable) principles of the APA ethics code. For real? lol. Hate to break it to ya, but this is how society changes for the better (e.g., civil right marches, vietnam war protests, gay marragie protests). And your old, so I thought you would recognize this! I mean, good lord, what are the faculty like in YOUR program? You talk like you come from an program that is run by authortarian dictators that care nothing about the right (yes rights) and outcomes of its students. Again, I dont know what kind of god awful school you attend, but it's NOT refective of most of our programs...the normal university program that is very much invested in its student's sucess and outcomes. They have a stake in my sucess too, obviously.

Stop projecting your programs weird mind-set into everyone else head! Most people's programs are not like yours is (apparently). And almost all of us feel that our school, our DCTs, and our advisors/mentors are open to, and value, student feedback.

Well, aren't you into "free Speech!" Nothing better than a heated discussion about selection, training, internships and competence to practice psychology. There are multiple sides to the equation with no real simplified answers. Looking at the "Big Picture" count yourself as fortunate to be in a World were Self-Determination is allowed. How narrow minded can one be.....We are all extremely fortunate to have reached this point in our training, much less to have gone to undergraduate, graduate, and now predoctoral and postdoctoral training.

No wonder many of the individuals seeking out mental health treatment have sought out help from other providers besides psychologists. Certainly, everyone of us knew that an internship was necessary as part of our training. From my knowledge everyone I know in the field of psychology has completed an internship and graduated with the doctoral degree once they reach this point.

I just do not see it as a crisis but I see it as a point of information and learning. Psychiatrist, Social Workers, LPC's, and others are laughing their head off watching psychologists flounder about and putting their foot in their mouths. Most LPC have to pay for their own internship and supervision and this could be in the range of $150 per hours for weekly supervision. Maybe there would be a surplus of internship sites for psychologist if we had to pay out of pocket for our internship and training. I would favor such a system similar to LPC as many of them are completing their degree and now having a successful practice.

Many psychologist are so narrow minded and believe that the problem is due to having to many training programs. Do you understand that many of the predoctoral internship sites have folded as psychologist say there are too many psychologist and this reflects income and resources. Social Workers and LPC are now working in most of the positions previously held by psychologist at close to the same salary.

Psychologist need to get a grip and support the field of psychology rather than limit the amount of psychologist coming into the profession. Protesting will only cause more harm than good...it is not a solution as there is really not a problem or crisis. Everyone will find an internship and graduate and you can only give yourself credit for this accomplishment rather than place the burden of blame on APA or some other source. Actually, if you must blame someone, then look in the mirror. Psychologists are the problems due to self-greed and wanting to limit who enters the profession and reduce competition. Competition is good in my perspective and allows for steady ongoing improvement in the profession making us all stronger and more competent.

 

[psyunknown]

I just do not see it as a crisis but I see it as a point of information and learning. Psychiatrist, Social Workers, LPC's, and others are laughing their head off watching psychologists flounder about and putting their foot in their mouths. Most LPC have to pay for their own internship and supervision and this could be in the range of $150 per hours for weekly supervision. Maybe there would be a surplus of internship sites for psychologist if we had to pay out of pocket for our internship and training. I would favor such a system similar to LPC as many of them are completing their degree and now having a successful practice.

Many psychologist are so narrow minded and believe that the problem is due to having to many training programs. Do you understand that many of the predoctoral internship sites have folded as psychologist say there are too many psychologist and this reflects income and resources. Social Workers and LPC are now working in most of the positions previously held by psychologist at close to the same salary.

Psychologist need to get a grip and support the field of psychology rather than limit the amount of psychologist coming into the profession. Protesting will only cause more harm than good...it is not a solution as there is really not a problem or crisis. Everyone will find an internship and graduate and you can only give yourself credit for this accomplishment rather than place the burden of blame on APA or some other source.

OMG!! No no no no. Are you kidding me that you are proposing that doctoral level students should PAY for an internship! That is Not the direction I want the field to go in. I do not know what else to say. This smiley will have to speak for me

 

[APPICSucks]

I would argue first that the appi IS a composite measure, and also that personality characteristics can shine through in the essays, if the student deems fit. I'm not opposed to considering that other personality factors be considered, but how do you propose appic display these personality characteristics of ours? Insist that we all post our Myers Briggs types or MMPI results? Haha! I'm not trying to be difficult, I just can't see what the ACTUAL recommendation is for APPIC to better display student personalities/characteristics... what SPECIFIC measure would you like APPIC to include that you feel would give sites a better idea of who you are as a person/professional?

I suppose in a way that APPI is a composite measure that is practically undecipherable. Sure you can get "flavors" of personality from essays, but it comes down to a subjective readers judgment of that. It would be nearly impossible to place any personality measure that students learn about as a piece of the APPI as it would be too easy to malinger. It would probably need to be a completely novel measure, and I would personally think that since the APPI is online, a computer adaptive measure would be ideal. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure I can really offer any solutions.

It is a problem though that the important decision making criteria are judged in a subjective manner and evaluated by interviews, where any number of factors could negatively impact the raters' judgement (maybe you had six hours of flying across the country the night before, became ill, and then had to interview- faculty at internship site rated your interview poorly because they thought you were not eager about the placement or unqualified, when in reality that might have been mostly due to illness)

 

[ClinicalABA]

If Paul Meehl were with us today, he would write a humorous paper about the internship match imbalance that would subtly insult everyone involved and be so above our heads, we would just stare at him in awe...

He'd probably write another piece titled "Why I don't go to Internet Forums". Meehl, Dawes, and their ilk should be required reading for all psych grad students. Humbling, yet educational, stuff.

 

[erg923]

Lets not let 4410 derail us. I'm not really convinced this person is even a psychology graduate student anyway.

The posts speak for themsleves in that regard. Poor understanding of basic stats and probabilities ("everyone will get an internship"), training issues, admision statndards, supply/demand economics in the profession, poor writing skills, poor ability to counter rationale arguments and evidence, etc.

 

[APPICSucks]

Well, aren't you into "free Speech!" Nothing better than a heated discussion about selection, training, internships and competence to practice psychology. There are multiple sides to the equation with no real simplified answers. Looking at the "Big Picture" count yourself as fortunate to be in a World were Self-Determination is allowed. How narrow minded can one be.....We are all extremely fortunate to have reached this point in our training, much less to have gone to undergraduate, graduate, and now predoctoral and postdoctoral training.

No wonder many of the individuals seeking out mental health treatment have sought out help from other providers besides psychologists. Certainly, everyone of us knew that an internship was necessary as part of our training. From my knowledge everyone I know in the field of psychology has completed an internship and graduated with the doctoral degree once they reach this point.

I just do not see it as a crisis but I see it as a point of information and learning. Psychiatrist, Social Workers, LPC's, and others are laughing their head off watching psychologists flounder about and putting their foot in their mouths. Most LPC have to pay for their own internship and supervision and this could be in the range of $150 per hours for weekly supervision. Maybe there would be a surplus of internship sites for psychologist if we had to pay out of pocket for our internship and training. I would favor such a system similar to LPC as many of them are completing their degree and now having a successful practice.

Many psychologist are so narrow minded and believe that the problem is due to having to many training programs. Do you understand that many of the predoctoral internship sites have folded as psychologist say there are too many psychologist and this reflects income and resources. Social Workers and LPC are now working in most of the positions previously held by psychologist at close to the same salary.

Psychologist need to get a grip and support the field of psychology rather than limit the amount of psychologist coming into the profession. Protesting will only cause more harm than good...it is not a solution as there is really not a problem or crisis. Everyone will find an internship and graduate and you can only give yourself credit for this accomplishment rather than place the burden of blame on APA or some other source. Actually, if you must blame someone, then look in the mirror. Psychologists are the problems due to self-greed and wanting to limit who enters the profession and reduce competition. Competition is good in my perspective and allows for steady ongoing improvement in the profession making us all stronger and more competent.

See what we're facing here? 4410 is voicing the opinions that I'm sure at least some of those in Internship Training Committees, APPIC, and the APA hold. This is what needs to change. The answer is not look in the mirror and pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

 

[Kappadocia]

I just do not see it as a crisis but I see it as a point of information and learning. Psychiatrist, Social Workers, LPC's, and others are laughing their head off watching psychologists flounder about and putting their foot in their mouths. Most LPC have to pay for their own internship and supervision and this could be in the range of $150 per hours for weekly supervision. Maybe there would be a surplus of internship sites for psychologist if we had to pay out of pocket for our internship and training. I would favor such a system similar to LPC as many of them are completing their degree and now having a successful practice.

Many psychologist are so narrow minded and believe that the problem is due to having to many training programs. Do you understand that many of the predoctoral internship sites have folded as psychologist say there are too many psychologist and this reflects income and resources. Social Workers and LPC are now working in most of the positions previously held by psychologist at close to the same salary.

Psychologist need to get a grip and support the field of psychology rather than limit the amount of psychologist coming into the profession. Protesting will only cause more harm than good...it is not a solution as there is really not a problem or crisis. Everyone will find an internship and graduate and you can only give yourself credit for this accomplishment rather than place the burden of blame on APA or some other source. Actually, if you must blame someone, then look in the mirror. Psychologists are the problems due to self-greed and wanting to limit who enters the profession and reduce competition. Competition is good in my perspective and allows for steady ongoing improvement in the profession making us all stronger and more competent.

Really? Thousands of people disagree with you, including training directors, seasoned psychologists, and yes, even the APA agrees it is a problem. Are we looking at the same issue here?

Also, if doctoral students wanted to make money and were indeed "greedy", I'm sure many of them would go into medicine or other lucrative careers. Many psychologists do NOT want to limit people who enter the profession; that is evident here by people actually encouraging others who want to do therapy to pursue a master's degree. What many people are against are subpar training practices and the proliferation of degree mills that DECREASE the perceived value of the doctoral degree. Private insurance companies in pretty much every state are cutting reimbursement rates due to the lack of definition between different mental health fields - that is the problem here.

The idea of having to SPENDING money on top of PROVIDING a service (after spending 5 - 6 years of training) sounds absolutely backward in my opinion and does nothing to address the crisis - yes, crisis - at hand.