2015-2016 APPIC Internship Interview Thread

[Pragma]

How likely is it to match to a generalist VA site or a non-VA Neuropsych site without much research productivity? I should start thinking about ranking sites and it would be helpful to know. I am assuming if I got an interview, I would have an good chance at matching, still the more info the better.

Rank based on your preferences. It makes no difference.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Rank based on your preferences. It makes no difference.

+1

The match works in favor of the applicants, so you should always rank based on your preferences for attending the programs, not the perceived order of likelihood of being accepted.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

So there is a new internship site at Wakeforest Baptist Health I want to apply to, but it is not APA accredited, which is fine, but it is not APPIC approved. Does anyone know how a non-appic site affects post-doc chances and everything else?

Agree with what WisNeuro said--it will be limiting, and for licensure, may result in additional paperwork. Programs must have trainees on site before they're able to become APPIC members, so this makes sense if the site is in its first year. If it's a VA site, that affords you a little flexibility, as (assuming the site is in good standing) you'll still be eligible for VA employment...and some state boards/AMCs may just say, "hey, it's good enough for the VA, so we'll take it."

But it's certainly something to keep in mind.

 

[r16g]

Does it matter if one does not send thank you notes? I had some sites directly say not to send them, and others that didn't say anything about them. My supervisor told me that they have no real bearing on rank decisions but I'm wondering from those who went through this process whether it matters.

 

[Pragma]

I prefer no notes unless there is a legit follow-up question.

 

[WisNeuro]

Thank you notes just tend to clog up my inbox, and they will not change rankings. It won't hurt, necessarily, but it doesn't help either.

 

[r16g]

Thank you notes just tend to clog up my inbox, and they will not change rankings. It won't hurt, necessarily, but it doesn't help either.

Thank you for the clarification! I couldn't keep track since some TDs directly say they prefer not to receive them, whereas others didn't say anything about their preference. I didn't want to be the one who couldn't follow directions and send one by accident to a site who requested not to receive one. thanks again for yours and Pragmas input, its helpful to hear from the recipient's side since most grad students are type A..

 

[psy234]

Did anyone hear from IMCES in LA? Mostly out of curiosity, not super interested in interviewing there anymore. Never heard from them either way and didn't follow up. Thanks!

 

[girlsmart4646]

Sorry for the double post, but I'm wondering if anyone can commiserate.

So far I've interviewed at 3 out of my 6 sites. Previous students that are now interns, cohort mates, etc. keep telling me "you just know" about your #1 site. Or how they just LOVED site x, y, or z.

Frankly, I haven't been really blown away by anything yet. Maybe I'm not very excitable? I don't know. I feel like people in my immediate environment have romanticized this process somewhat to cope with the sheer stress of it.

I agree. I'm done with interviews now and I thought I would have a better idea about where I wanted to go/how I would rank sites. At best I think, sites I didn't think I would like impressed me more than I expected and sites I thought I would love disappointed me in some ways. And nearly all interns say they love the site and want to stay for post doc. It's been somewhat helpful for me to consider what I really want to get experience with on internship, the flexibility to do that at the site, and the interpersonal vibe I get from faculty. This has definitely been the hardest stage for me in the process, so I feel you on not being swayed one way or another!

 

[Maccus]

I would like some help processing this interview experience.

Last week I was being interviewed for a consortium site for two separate tracks. I went to the sites open house and social happy hour.

Interview day involved a 30 minute interview for each track.

For each interview, there were two interviewers. I felt that one person in each separate interview was not the most warmest or like they didn't like me.

Am I totally over analyzing them? Mind reading? Were they burnt out from a day of interviewing people. We're my answers no good?

I wonder how much of this process is "I just like this applicant".

Sounds kind of good-cop-bad-cop-ish . . . Maybe it's calculated?

 

[Maccus]

Y'all need some alcohol.

Not gonna lie, I was a *little* tongue-in-cheek or hyperbolic in my expression, but the sentiment was certainly there! Glass of wine certainly helped.

 

[psy234]

Sorry for the double post, but I'm wondering if anyone can commiserate.

So far I've interviewed at 3 out of my 6 sites. Previous students that are now interns, cohort mates, etc. keep telling me "you just know" about your #1 site. Or how they just LOVED site x, y, or z.

Frankly, I haven't been really blown away by anything yet. Maybe I'm not very excitable? I don't know. I feel like people in my immediate environment have romanticized this process somewhat to cope with the sheer stress of it.

I feel the same. I can't tell if its because I'm too tired from interviewing, or if I really haven't found "the one" or if there will be "the one." I've interviewed at 10+ sites...and so far am not in love. Although a lot of them really do seem great and I'm sure I'd be happy at several, so I wonder if its more about me than the sites at this point!

 

[randomapplicant22]

I would like some help processing this interview experience.

Last week I was being interviewed for a consortium site for two separate tracks. I went to the sites open house and social happy hour.

Interview day involved a 30 minute interview for each track.

For each interview, there were two interviewers. I felt that one person in each separate interview was not the most warmest or like they didn't like me.

Am I totally over analyzing them? Mind reading? Were they burnt out from a day of interviewing people. We're my answers no good?

I wonder how much of this process is "I just like this applicant".

I think "fit" and "likability" have a lot of overlap.

 

[genderpsych]

I feel the same. I can't tell if its because I'm too tired from interviewing, or if I really haven't found "the one" or if there will be "the one." I've interviewed at 10+ sites...and so far am not in love. Although a lot of them really do seem great and I'm sure I'd be happy at several, so I wonder if its more about me than the sites at this point!

Well the reframe then is there are multiple sites you would be happy to receive on your email come Match Day! I'm in the opposite boat as you - I've found "the one" and now feel as if I will be disappointed on Match Day if I am not going there.

I think the moral of this story is that applying to internship is pretty stressful any way you slice it, so thank goodness only ~1 more month 'til Match Day!

 

[psy234]

Well the reframe then is there are multiple sites you would be happy to receive on your email come Match Day! I'm in the opposite boat as you - I've found "the one" and now feel as if I will be disappointed on Match Day if I am not going there.

I think the moral of this story is that applying to internship is pretty stressful any way you slice it, so thank goodness only ~1 more month 'til Match Day!

100% agree

 

[NY-Psych-Dream]

Hi all! Has anyone interviewed already at the Jesse Brown VA? Did the TD send you an additional email giving you specifics of location of the interview? If so, would you please share? I haven't received any specific email regarding the specific location (i.e. room number, building number).

 

[heartdignan]

I just want to make a helpful point that was definitely made several times last year. Figuring out ranking and where you'll fall on that list is nerve-racking, and unfortunately we equate it with our likelihood of future happiness or value. Surely, picking the "right" #1 and matching to that site is the only way you win in this equation, and the only way you'll be happy next year. <- Wrong! (Thinking error, anyone?) First of all, statistically, half the the matched students will get their #1 and at least 80% will get in the top 3. Regardless of where your matched site was located on your ranking list, it is really, really likely that you're going to be super satisfied with your internship. So many examples popped up on this list last year of folks who said, "I matched with my (lowish choice), and I'm actually in love with the site now." For myself, I matched with my #3. Did it irk me a little when other people were like, "OMGZZZ I MATCHED AT MY #1!!!#$#$^%$%!!!!!" ? Yes. Did I briefly think about what precluded me from matching with my top 2? Yes. But that was all very fleeting because I MATCHED to an APA site and how can I not be grateful? Now that I'm in internship, I absolutely adore it and have several times reflected, "Wow, this totally should have been my #1." Because by nature the ranking process uses a system that implies 1 is better than 2, 2 is better than 3, and so on, it's so easy to fall into the trap of comparing yourself to others. If you don't get your #1, feel free to be annoyed at people who did (more specifically, people who are obnoxious about it). But let it go. Where you rank is not a reflection on you, particularly with this imperfect system. When you start internship in the fall, NONE of this will matter and you will have started a new, very exciting phase of your life where all you're focusing on is moving forward because you will not care at all about looking back.

So, in summary: Be considerate in your ranking, but remember that it is not the be all or the end all of your value and the value of your internship year!

 

[Hope4Grad]

+1

The match works in favor of the applicants, so you should always rank based on your preferences for attending the programs, not the perceived order of likelihood of being accepted.

I never understood this. Can someone please tell me how the match "works in favor of the applicants??"

 

[WisNeuro]

I never understood this. Can someone please tell me how the match "works in favor of the applicants??"

The ranking algorithm is built up to prioritize the applicant's top choices, rather than the program's top choices.

 

[Hope4Grad]

The ranking algorithm is built up to prioritize the applicant's top choices, rather than the program's top choices.

Right, I understand the words that were said. What I don't understand is HOW (the statistical process that makes it more weighted towards the applicant and not the program). I understand what a match is, but I don't understand why it would be more weighted towards any side. Why wouldn't it be equally weighted to either the program or the applicant? I am asking details, here.

 

[WisNeuro]

It's pretty simple, really. Here's a very quick example. You rank a site 6th on your list, that site ranks you 1st. The match process will try to match you, in sequential order, to your 1st through 5st ranked sites first. If one of those sites ranked you highly enough to match, you'll go to one of those sites. If you didn't, you are assured a spot at that site you ranked 6th. So, applicants will get their top choices before sites get there top choices. This process is all about maximizing applicant choice.

https://natmatch.com/psychint/aboutalg.html

 

[empathiosis]

Easy to understand with the 3 applicant example, but far more difficult with 4,000 applicants ... no way to understand what the algorithm does when you have ranked a site #1 but that site ranks you lower than applicants who have ranked the site lower ... what happens then? It's not as easy to figure out as the example shows, which is why the process is automated.

To my understanding, even though the process favors applicant rankings, it also takes into account site rankings, obviously. And then tries to come up with the best matches for everyone, given both applicant and site preferences.

 

[WisNeuro]

Easy to understand with the 3 applicant example, but far more difficult with 4,000 applicants ... no way to understand what the algorithm does when you have ranked a site #1 but that site ranks you lower than applicants who have ranked the site lower ... what happens then? It's not as easy to figure out as the example shows, which is why the process is automated.

To my understanding, even though the process favors applicant rankings, it also takes into account site rankings, obviously. And then tries to come up with the best matches for everyone, given both applicant and site preferences.

Of course, it will not force a site to take an applicant they ranked very low, but that applicant ranked them very high. But, it does favor the applicant rank over the site rank. Is it 100% biased towards the applicant? No, that would be ridiculous, and not helpful. But, the weight towards the applicant far outweighs the weight of the site's choice.

 

[empathiosis]

Right, I understand the words that were said. What I don't understand is HOW (the statistical process that makes it more weighted towards the applicant and not the program). I understand what a match is, but I don't understand why it would be more weighted towards any side. Why wouldn't it be equally weighted to either the program or the applicant? I am asking details, here.

Here's a pretty detailed explanation of it, along with references, if you really want to get into it: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_pri...ureates/2012/popular-economicsciences2012.pdf

 

[girlsmart4646]

I just want to make a helpful point that was definitely made several times last year. Figuring out ranking and where you'll fall on that list is nerve-racking, and unfortunately we equate it with our likelihood of future happiness or value. Surely, picking the "right" #1 and matching to that site is the only way you win in this equation, and the only way you'll be happy next year. <- Wrong! (Thinking error, anyone?) First of all, statistically, half the the matched students will get their #1 and at least 80% will get in the top 3. Regardless of where your matched site was located on your ranking list, it is really, really likely that you're going to be super satisfied with your internship. So many examples popped up on this list last year of folks who said, "I matched with my (lowish choice), and I'm actually in love with the site now." For myself, I matched with my #3. Did it irk me a little when other people were like, "OMGZZZ I MATCHED AT MY #1!!!#$#$^%$%!!!!!" ? Yes. Did I briefly think about what precluded me from matching with my top 2? Yes. But that was all very fleeting because I MATCHED to an APA site and how can I not be grateful? Now that I'm in internship, I absolutely adore it and have several times reflected, "Wow, this totally should have been my #1." Because by nature the ranking process uses a system that implies 1 is better than 2, 2 is better than 3, and so on, it's so easy to fall into the trap of comparing yourself to others. If you don't get your #1, feel free to be annoyed at people who did (more specifically, people who are obnoxious about it). But let it go. Where you rank is not a reflection on you, particularly with this imperfect system. When you start internship in the fall, NONE of this will matter and you will have started a new, very exciting phase of your life where all you're focusing on is moving forward because you will not care at all about looking back.

So, in summary: Be considerate in your ranking, but remember that it is not the be all or the end all of your value and the value of your internship year!

Really good to remember and something I know I don't hear as much - that people match to a site they didn't rank as number one and are still happy once they get there. And matching is the important part! It will happen the way it's supposed to. Thanks for the perspective.

 

[Pragma]

Right, I understand the words that were said. What I don't understand is HOW (the statistical process that makes it more weighted towards the applicant and not the program). I understand what a match is, but I don't understand why it would be more weighted towards any side. Why wouldn't it be equally weighted to either the program or the applicant? I am asking details, here.

Yes, to add to what Wis said, put it this way - if you rank 10 sites and your top 9 don't rank you, but the 10th site has you ranked highly (let's say 3rd and they have 3 slots) then you will match at site 10. Doesn't matter if other applicants rated site 10 higher than you.

Basically, if you don't match at your first few sites, it doesn't matter that you ranked other sites lower. If you fall to them and they have you ranked high enough, you'll still match there. Even in my example, let's say they also ranked you 10th. If their top 7 candidates matched elsewhere first higher on their own lists, then you'd still be guaranteed one of the 3 spots at site 10. Basically, when you don't match at a site, it's a clean slate every time they go down your list. In my extreme example, think of it like the system deleting your top 9 sites after you don't match. Then they treat #10 like your #1 as they proceed.

So rank them in the order you like them. It makes no difference if other people rank your lower sites higher so long as the site likes you and ranks you high enough.

 

[GoPokes]

Question for all-

So I have an interview at University X's counseling center. My partner is a professor at university X, so I'd like to ideally match there so we can finally live together.

So my question is, in the interview, do I mention that my partner works at the University? I've already disclosed this in the cover letter, but I'm wondering if when they ask me "why our site?" If I should mention this fact as part of my personal fit to the area and future commitment to working in the area? I don't know. I certainly don't want it to come off like "I only applied here to be close to my partner" as that isn't true. Did it factor in? Definitely.

 

[Pragma]

Here's a pretty detailed explanation of it, along with references, if you really want to get into it: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_pri...ureates/2012/popular-economicsciences2012.pdf

I thought the process looked like this!

 

[Pragma]

I think "fit" and "likability" have a lot of overlap.

I would say that this is partially accurate. Interpersonal red flags definitely will reduce or cause me to not rank a person. Some people really make a strong impression too. I guess I conflate someone "who knows what they are talking about and who has a strong understanding of both their strengths and their training needs" as being "likeable" in some ways. I suppose someone could be likeable and a clueless disaster, but I probably wouldn't like them as much due to the latter.

 

[Hope4Grad]

Here's a pretty detailed explanation of it, along with references, if you really want to get into it: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_pri...ureates/2012/popular-economicsciences2012.pdf

I totally read that. Cool article! Thank you!

 

[JedMosley]

Question. What amount of time is too long to wait between interview and thank you e-mail? Is a week too long?

 

[PSYquailman]

Question. What amount of time is too long to wait between interview and thank you e-mail? Is a week too long?

Unless you have a follow up question then yes it's far too long. And they're unnecessary anyway. Look back at the past few pages and you'll see a number of people at training sites talk about the lack of necessity of these thank you emails.

 

[Hope4Grad]

Apparently, I was right to be confused by claims that the match favors programs. Props still go out to empathiosis for posting that sweet Nobel article/explanation.

Email from Greg Keilin:

QUESTION: Does the Matching Program favor applicants' or programs' rankings?

ANSWER: Neither. Applicants' and programs' rankings are given equal weight in the process. More information on this question may be found here:

http://www.appic.org/Match/FAQs/Applicants/Matching-Process-and-Results#q1

 

[CounselingPsychAU]

Hello! I would appreciate input on a “to rank or not to rank” decision: I know that I should not rank any site to which I would not be comfortable attending (aka it would be better to be unmatched). However, I am not sure if this concern is worth potentially not matching. A site informed me that due to insurance restrictions in their state (Virginia, if anyone is familiar)- I would only see clients with a supervisor present in the room (with exception of a few self-pay or Medicaid clients). Though I am certainly open to supervision, this seems like an odd arrangement since I have been seeing clients without a supervisor in the room for the past 3 years. I appreciate that the site respects the state insurance laws, but am nervous that this experience would not prepare me for independent practice. [For context, I thankfully have other sites to rank- so I know the chance of matching with a site low on my list is statistically unlikely. I just still want to make an informed decision about whether or not to rank. It is always possible!] Thoughts on if this is a “red flag”? Thanks!

 

[RejectClinical]

Apparently, I was right to be confused by claims that the match favors programs. Props still go out to empathiosis for posting that sweet Nobel article/explanation.

Email from Greg Keilin:

QUESTION: Does the Matching Program favor applicants' or programs' rankings?

ANSWER: Neither. Applicants' and programs' rankings are given equal weight in the process. More information on this question may be found here:

http://www.appic.org/Match/FAQs/Applicants/Matching-Process-and-Results#q1

For some reason, I thought it favored applicants. Now I'm confused because:

Let's say:
Applicant A ranks Sleepy University first and All-night University second
Applicant B ranks All-night University first and Sleepy University second

THEN
Sleepy University ranks Applicant B first and Applicant A second
All-night University ranks Applicant A first and Applicant B second

Where do the applicants end up then if the rankings are given equal weight??

 

[tartar]

Have you heard from the TD at Canandaigua regarding whether it's a half day or full day? He isn't responding to my emails and I need to book my return to the west coast. Thanks!

Apparently, I was right to be confused by claims that the match favors programs. Props still go out to empathiosis for posting that sweet Nobel article/explanation.

Email from Greg Keilin:

QUESTION: Does the Matching Program favor applicants' or programs' rankings?

ANSWER: Neither. Applicants' and programs' rankings are given equal weight in the process. More information on this question may be found here:

http://www.appic.org/Match/FAQs/Applicants/Matching-Process-and-Results#q1

 

[RejectClinical]

For some reason, I thought it favored applicants. Now I'm confused because:

Let's say:
Applicant A ranks Sleepy University first and All-night University second
Applicant B ranks All-night University first and Sleepy University second

THEN
Sleepy University ranks Applicant B first and Applicant A second
All-night University ranks Applicant A first and Applicant B second

Where do the applicants end up then if the rankings are given equal weight??

Nvm.....I read the info again and the applicant gets the swing vote (which apparently happens 1 out of 1,000 times). So in the end....the applicant is favored (although this rarely happens).

 

[MetaMuse]

For some reason, I thought it favored applicants. Now I'm confused because:

Let's say:
Applicant A ranks Sleepy University first and All-night University second
Applicant B ranks All-night University first and Sleepy University second

THEN
Sleepy University ranks Applicant B first and Applicant A second
All-night University ranks Applicant A first and Applicant B second

Where do the applicants end up then if the rankings are given equal weight??

According to the link, the algorithm favors the applicant in this situation. "In the matching process, this conflict (which research shows occurs for only 1 in every 1,000 applicants) is resolved by using the applicants' preferences."

 

[heartdignan]

Hello! I would appreciate input on a “to rank or not to rank” decision: I know that I should not rank any site to which I would not be comfortable attending (aka it would be better to be unmatched). However, I am not sure if this concern is worth potentially not matching. A site informed me that due to insurance restrictions in their state (Virginia, if anyone is familiar)- I would only see clients with a supervisor present in the room (with exception of a few self-pay or Medicaid clients). Though I am certainly open to supervision, this seems like an odd arrangement since I have been seeing clients without a supervisor in the room for the past 3 years. I appreciate that the site respects the state insurance laws, but am nervous that this experience would not prepare me for independent practice. [For context, I thankfully have other sites to rank- so I know the chance of matching with a site low on my list is statistically unlikely. I just still want to make an informed decision about whether or not to rank. It is always possible!] Thoughts on if this is a “red flag”? Thanks!

It depends if you're okay with that arrangement. Personally, it would bug me to have to have a supervisor in the room. I can't even imagine what that experience is like for the client, and I would always doubt my ability in doing therapy because it would not be an authentic experience. That arrangement also seems horribly overwhelming for the supervisor, to have to sit in on sessions on top of their regular duties, and I would wonder if that would overextend them to the point the quality or frequency of my supervision would be affected. My level of comfort with the site and my responsibilities there (other than obviously the nervous excitement of learning entirely new things) was a big factor in ranking for me. I can't imagine how doing therapy with extra eyes watching me (and evaluating me) constantly would allow me to feel comfortable. I'm assuming this site did not make that information clear in their brochure, because if they did, I wouldn't even apply there in the first place. It's definitely up to you, but if it were me I would not rank that site.

 

[RejectClinical]

Hello! I would appreciate input on a “to rank or not to rank” decision: I know that I should not rank any site to which I would not be comfortable attending (aka it would be better to be unmatched). However, I am not sure if this concern is worth potentially not matching. A site informed me that due to insurance restrictions in their state (Virginia, if anyone is familiar)- I would only see clients with a supervisor present in the room (with exception of a few self-pay or Medicaid clients). Though I am certainly open to supervision, this seems like an odd arrangement since I have been seeing clients without a supervisor in the room for the past 3 years. I appreciate that the site respects the state insurance laws, but am nervous that this experience would not prepare me for independent practice. [For context, I thankfully have other sites to rank- so I know the chance of matching with a site low on my list is statistically unlikely. I just still want to make an informed decision about whether or not to rank. It is always possible!] Thoughts on if this is a “red flag”? Thanks!

I've had this "rank or not rank" decision come up. I feel it really comes down to.....would you rather be there or would you rather take you chances with Phase II/not match. It doesn't sound ideal (by any means), but I would personally rather match there than nowhere. With that said, you have to do what you're comfortable with. What percentage of your time would be spent doing individual vs group therapy? I could see this being less of an issue if you're going to be doing group therapy a ton of the time. If you're spending the majority (or all) of your time doing individual therapy, then this would definitely be something I wouldn't prefer. I think it really is a personal preference. My guess is that it would be awkward at first, but you would eventually become de-sensitized to it.

 

[Pragma]

Apparently, I was right to be confused by claims that the match favors programs. Props still go out to empathiosis for posting that sweet Nobel article/explanation.

Email from Greg Keilin:

QUESTION: Does the Matching Program favor applicants' or programs' rankings?

ANSWER: Neither. Applicants' and programs' rankings are given equal weight in the process. More information on this question may be found here:

http://www.appic.org/Match/FAQs/Applicants/Matching-Process-and-Results#q1

Here's the other explicit advice from them:
http://www.appic.org/Match/FAQs/Applicants/Rank-Order-Lists#q2

 

[erg923]

Hello! I would appreciate input on a “to rank or not to rank” decision: I know that I should not rank any site to which I would not be comfortable attending (aka it would be better to be unmatched). However, I am not sure if this concern is worth potentially not matching. A site informed me that due to insurance restrictions in their state (Virginia, if anyone is familiar)- I would only see clients with a supervisor present in the room (with exception of a few self-pay or Medicaid clients). Though I am certainly open to supervision, this seems like an odd arrangement since I have been seeing clients without a supervisor in the room for the past 3 years. I appreciate that the site respects the state insurance laws, but am nervous that this experience would not prepare me for independent practice. [For context, I thankfully have other sites to rank- so I know the chance of matching with a site low on my list is statistically unlikely. I just still want to make an informed decision about whether or not to rank. It is always possible!] Thoughts on if this is a “red flag”? Thanks!

I think they are grossly misinterpreting some things here. Further, I dont how this would work in terms of doing full assessments, since third party observers are problematic to test validity.

 

[GoPokes]

Question for all-

So I have an interview at University X's counseling center. My partner is a professor at university X, so I'd like to ideally match there so we can finally live together.

So my question is, in the interview, do I mention that my partner works at the University? I've already disclosed this in the cover letter, but I'm wondering if when they ask me "why our site?" If I should mention this fact as part of my personal fit to the area and future commitment to working in the area? I don't know. I certainly don't want it to come off like "I only applied here to be close to my partner" as that isn't true. Did it factor in? Definitely.

Bump

 

[hdubb]

Hi all! Has anyone interviewed already at the Jesse Brown VA? Did the TD send you an additional email giving you specifics of location of the interview? If so, would you please share? I haven't received any specific email regarding the specific location (i.e. room number, building number).

Did you ever get an answer? I haven't gotten anything additional from them either and I'll be there Wednesday.

 

[NY-Psych-Dream]

Did you ever get an answer? I haven't gotten anything additional from them either and I'll be there Wednesday.

I haven't heard back from the TD. I'll let you know if I hear anything.

 

[hdubb]

I haven't heard back from the TD. I'll let you know if I hear anything.

Thanks!

 

[IntrnshpReady]

Having two questions. First
Soliciting advice from TD in a VA.. currently loving a not accredited VA, but have many other accredited sites that I interviewed at... a few being VA'S as well...
As a training director do you look at a post doc applicant less favorably if they went to a new, not yet accredited VA? Is it better if you want a VA career to go to a no accredited VA or to go to an accredited program that is potentially not a VA.
I know this again, has many personal and unique elements... but I would appreciate feedbac! Thank you

 

[LSM2016]

Having two questions. First
Soliciting advice from TD in a VA.. currently loving a not accredited VA, but have many other accredited sites that I interviewed at... a few being VA'S as well...
As a training director do you look at a post doc applicant less favorably if they went to a new, not yet accredited VA? Is it better if you want a VA career to go to a no accredited VA or to go to an accredited program that is potentially not a VA.
I know this again, has many personal and unique elements... but I would appreciate feedbac! Thank you

I'm not a TD but do supervise a fellow and essentially make the selection decision. I don't think it's a huge deal to go to a not-yet accredited VA internship (in fact one of my fellows was from such a site and was a fantastic postdoc). When I look at applications, I might look a little closer at your grad program...if you went to a solid grad program (i.e., not the FSPS from which I've had terrible prac students), then it's no problem.

 

[MajorPsych82]

OK. I have an outcome. She emailed me that night and apologized. There were back to back emergencies at the site. She rescheduled, and I had a great phone interview yesterday. At the end she apologized again and said she felt really bad.
In the end, it worked out well. I do believe that the site is overtaxed though and could use more on-site psychologists. I am taking that into consideration as I rank.

Really?

That is surprising.

It could be something as minor as a human error in putting the event into Outlook, but if they do not respond (and apologize) this would be a red flag to me.

Perhaps once all of this dust settles, you can share more details.

 

[PBCocce]

OK. I have an outcome. She emailed me that night and apologized. There were back to back emergencies at the site. She rescheduled, and I had a great phone interview yesterday. At the end she apologized again and said she felt really bad.
In the end, it worked out well. I do believe that the site is overtaxed though and could use more on-site psychologists. I am taking that into consideration as I rank.

Very glad to hear it worked out for the best. Their explanation does make sense, though as you say, if they are stretched so thin that there is no backup plan if an emergency arises...