Previous internship applicants: Number of interviews and match outcomes

[futureapppsy2]

Hi all,

We've had previous threads on the "numbers" for SDN grad school applicants, and they've been super helpful, so why not have one for SDN internship applicants? I know APPIC has some official data on this, but because SDNers tend to be somewhat different from the general applicant pool, it would be interesting to have some socially comparative data on our particularly awesome pool of applicants.

In particular, it'd be good to know:
-How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
-How many interviews you received
-If you matched or not and to what type of site
-What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
-Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)

If you don't feel comfortable posting publicly, you can be PM me and I'll post it anonymously for you.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[grenas]

This is great! And maybe some Phase I and Phase II info? For example, given their stats did they match during phase I and if not, did they match in phase II? Thanks for starting this!

 

[Rivi]

Great idea!

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
I applied to 19 sites, all APA-accredited

How many interviews you received
6 interviews received

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched in Phase I to a psychiatric hospital site; it was my #1 choice

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
A whole variety really. VA's, psychiatric hospitals, a few neuro sites and one counseling center

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
I did all interviews in person. It ended up costing me about 3400$ overall I think, but I am glad I got to see so many cool sites and new places.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

26 (all APA-accredited)
6 sites (7 ranked tracks)
Matched (Phase 1) - AMC
Applied to a range, mostly researchy AMC and VA. But I even had a UCC.
I think applying to a range of places is very important. The process is wayyyyy too stressful.

 

[erg923]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
I applied to 18 sites, all but one was APA-accredited. One was a new VA internship site that was taking its first class.

How many interviews you received
5 interviews received, although I only went on 4.

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched in Phase I to a VA Medical Center

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
VA's, psychiatric hospitals, and BOP med centers (for bmed purposes, no interest in forensics really). The site I matched to was a academically-affiliated VA with a required research component.

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
The place I matched was 3rd choice. I had a complete 1 on 1 interview there because I was the only person who made it that day due to an ice storm that had enveloped the entire mid-south and eastern seaboard. The interview consisted more of BSing with the service chief about college basketball and structural equation modeling than anything else.

Stats
Ph.D. 900 hours of face-to-face contact (outpatient psychology clinic, AMC-psychiatry department and surgery department, VA med center, county urban county hospital). 8 posters presentations. 5 papers presentations. 2 publications (1 first author).
I am now 2 year post-internship. Did one year as "Visiting Assistant Professor" at a small college and about 6 months in an ICF/MR facility. I am now psychologist and facility EBT coordinator at my local (hometown) VA. Work from a CBOC.

 

[PhDMiss2014]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
I applied to 15 sites...all APA accredited.

How many interviews you received
2 interviews received (my 1st choice and my 15th choice). A third site told me to rank them even though they couldn't extend an interview.

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched in Phase I to a consortium -- my first choice.

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
I applied to mostly peds sites, plus 2 consortiums and one community mental health.

The whole process was incredibly stressful, but more so with only receiving a few interviews. I was constantly reminded that it only takes one good interview, but that was always small comfort when I kept hearing about all the interviews my cohort received.

 

[G Costanza]

I'm surprised with low number of interviews. Kind of nerve racking.

 

[researchgirl]

if y'all are willing, it would also be helpful to know what year you applied, especially if keep this going for a while?

 

[erg923]

I forgot to add:
I found the process to suck, of course. I also found that it does NOT mirror the way the real life job market functions. In the real world (unless you are gunning for TT academic jobs), no one cares about half the junk you do/did in grad school. Sorry folks, but its true. And they certainly don't waste time having you write pointless "essays" so that they can try get some kind of "window" into who you are as a person (what a joke). Competition can be keen of course, but generally, interviews are friendly and MUCH more laid back. Even my very standardized VA interview last month was a breeze (comparatively), and ended with lots of (sincere) laughing and cutting up with the panel at the end.

 

[MCParent]

I forgot to add:
I found the process to suck, of course. I also found that it does NOT mirror the way the real life job market functions. In the real world (unless you are gunning for TT academic jobs), no one cares about half the junk you do/did in grad school. Sorry folks, but its true. And they certainly don't waste time having you write pointless "essays" so that they can try get some kind of "window" into who you are as a person (what a joke). Competition can be keen of course, but generally, interviews are friendly and MUCH more laid back. Even my very standardized VA interview last month was a breeze (comparatively), and ended with lots of (sincere) laughing and cutting up with the panel at the end.

What?? You mean jobs outside of psychology DON'T ask you "if you were an object, what object would you be?"

 

[EmotRegulation]

In particular, it'd be good to know:
-Applied to 15 sites (all APA-accredited)
-8 interviews
-Matched in Phase 1 to my third-choice site
-Applied to a mix of research focused sites and VAs
-Matched based on a phone interview....which was a surprise!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

-Applied to 16 sites a few years ago (all APA-accredited)
-7 interviews
-Matched in Phase I to my second choice, an AMC/VA consortium
-Applied to predominantly neuro-track AMCs and VAs, two or three of which were known to be fairly research-oriented

A few extra things:
-I attended all of my interviews, and actually enjoyed each one; if I'd had many more, though, it would've been very, very tiring
-That being said, I enjoyed the postdoc application process even more, as the focus of the interviews really was on what each site could offer me and how it might align with my goals
-Do as much on your dissertation prior to leaving for internship as possible. Pulling all-nighters to run analyses after a full day while having to work the next morning sucks.

I may add a bit more as I think of them.

 

[futureapppsy2]

What?? You mean jobs outside of psychology DON'T ask you "if you were an object, what object would you be?"

To be fair, my dad--an engineer--did once have an interview where they asked him what animal he would be.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
17 sites, all APA-accredited

How many interviews you received
13 interviews received (at 12 sites)

If you matched or not and to what type of site
Matched. VA Med Center.

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
70% Academic Med / 30% VA. All of the sites had neuro training options, but not necessarily neuro tracks. I had a mix of very competitive sites (e.g. Boston Consortium, Vanderbilt, Brown, etc) and more moderately competitive sites throughout the Midwest & South.

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
I originally applied during the 2008 cycle, but I failed to match with 6-7 interviews out of 10-12 sites (all Academic Med sites, APA-acred, etc). I aimed high and missed; lesson learned. Back then we had the Clearing House, which I wouldn't wish on anyone. I applied to a handful of sites, but I really didn't like the fit of most of them, so I withdrew and re-applied the next year.

I took my gap year to do more research (as I had already defended), teach, take a couple of classes, do two more poster presentations, and actually take some time off to golf and recoup from everything. For the 2009 cycle I re-applied to 4-5 of the same sites that offered me interviews in '08 and I got interviews at 3 of them. I added a 8 VAs to my '09 list and got interviews at all but two (I'm looking at you VA Connecticut & VA Gulf Coast/Biloxi!). Interviews were not nearly as stressful, though the travel was still a grind. Interviews for post-docs and then jobs were mostly enjoyable.

 

[WisNeuro]

I applied to 14 sites. Got 8 interviews. applied to AMC's and VA's that either had a Neuropsych track or had a heavy npsych component that I could do. Matched to a VAMC, my #2 choice. This would have been for the 20011-2012 intern year.

 

[KillerDiller]

I applied for the 2012-2013 intern year.

applied to 14 sites, all APA accredited
6.5 interviews (I say .5 because I made the first round of interviews for one site, but didn't get to the second round)
Matched in Phase I
All were university counseling centers

 

[NeuroTrope]

I applied in 2011-2012 to 15 neuropsychology tracks.
I received 7 interviews.
Matched in Phase I at my 5th choice, an AMC.
All places only had 1-2 available spots given the neuro emphasis which in part may explain why I matched low on my list - or I just wasn't as competitive as others!
I primarily applied to clinical science/research sites. I had 13 publications (7 first author) and 20+ abstracts when I applied. With a couple exceptions, most places weren't TOO interested in or impressed by my productivity. That may have factored into my lower ranking as well.
I had 1100 face to face hours - about 800 were neuropsychology.
Foolishly, I applied to 3 child neuropsych tracks. I say foolishly because although I had several child assessment hours, I had no child therapy hours and never promoted myself as a peds person. I learned later that child tracks/sites really want people who live and breathe peds and generally do not consider dabblers like me. Needless to say I received no interviews from them.
I did limit myself geographically - generally an ill-advised strategy. I wouldn't recommend anyone do it.
The interviews themselves were pretty pleasant.
I was surprised how many sites (mostly the VAs) permitted non-neuro interns the option to "backdoor" into the Houston guidelines. It irked me a bit because the non-neuro tracks had 4-8 spots in contrast to the 1-2 neuro spots. Granted, they do interview a greater proportion of candidates but it nonetheless made the neuro tracks seem redundant. Not every site was like this and you really only figure it out once you interview. Also, I don't recommend trying to jump onto the non-neuro track after you learn this, even if they allow you to rank multiple tracks. I'm almost certain this cost me at one interview.
It's amazing how many people pop up again in your life after. At least for neuropsych (and probably other specialties) the world is smaller than you think and you'll be meeting potential collaborators and colleagues during your interviews. Be nice to everyone.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I primarily applied to clinical science/research sites. I had 13 publications (7 first author) and 20+ abstracts when I applied. With a couple exceptions, most places weren't TOO interested in or impressed by my productivity. That may have factored into my lower ranking as well.

Just wait until fellowship time…programs will be very interested in your application. Neuro fellowships are still supposed to be clinically focused (at least 50% per Houston Guidelines), but the typical R1 institutions will expect some level of productivity.

I learned later that child tracks/sites really want people who live and breathe peds and generally do not consider dabblers like me. Needless to say I received no interviews from them.

Very true. I was 50/50 w. my experience with kids v. adults, but it was clear that I had moved away from kids to adults. I wanted to get more peds training on fellowship, but there was just no time. Sites that offer both are few and far between.

I was surprised how many sites (mostly the VAs) permitted non-neuro interns the option to "backdoor" into the Houston guidelines.

This is tough because most places can't support a full-time neuro track, so offering some training is better than none. Should this time 'count' towards the training time…yes, though I'd argue it shouldn't count for a full year.

 

[serotonin]

-How many sites you applied to: 11, all APA accredited. Academic medical centers and VAs only.

-How many interviews you received: 5 (at all the AMCs, none of the VAs!)

-If you matched or not and to what type of site: matched at an AMC.

-What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc): adult / developmental neuropsych

-Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s): ~1100 assessment hours, 200 therapy hours. This weird distrubution may have been what affected my lack of invites to VAs? I come from a top-tier research university but am not super productive research-wise.

Also, I completely limited myself geograpically- applied to only spots in the Northeast and Chicago. Plus one other east-coast spot. Everyone told me not to do this, but I did anyway because I didn't want to drag my husband to a place he wouldn't like.

The interviews themselves were fun. It was fun meeting the same bunch of neuro people over and over again (they were all seemingly so well-adjusted!) at all the spots.

eta: post doc was a very different experience- 13 neuro spots, got interviews at all of them, including a bunch of VAs.

 

[NeuroTrope]

Just wait until fellowship time…programs will be very interested in your application. Neuro fellowships are still supposed to be clinically focused (at least 50% per Houston Guidelines), but the typical R1 institutions will expect some level of productivity.

Oh yes, fellowship was quite different. Applied to 12 sites - received an interview mid November and an offer right after the new year to my top choice (and started receiving additional interview invites in December). Felt very validating.

 

[katiecl]

I went through the application cycle last year:

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited):
Thirteen sites, all APA-accredited

How many interviews you received:
Nine interviews received

If you matched or not and to what type of site:
I matched in Phase I to a consortium in my home town; it was my second ranked choice, though I agonized over how to rank the site I matched to and the site I ended up ranking #1 (I literally was adjusting my rankings right up to the last minute), so I think it worked out for the best... if I had matched to my first choice, it would have meant a year away from the hubby.

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc):
I was somewhat restricted geographically (wanted to at least be close enough to home for easy weekend visits), so I applied to a range of sites around the northeast - mostly academic medical centers, one VA, a few psychiatric hospitals. Some were very research-focused, others were entirely clinical, all focused on adults; the site I matched to is a nice mix of both research and clinical work and offers some teaching opportunities as well, which is great.

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s):
Without necessarily planning on it, through my prior research experience and networking over the past few years I wound up having connections to many of the faculty at the places I applied to (either through actually meeting them, or from my letter writers knowing them well from prior collaborations). I didn't take anything for granted because of this, and I can't say that networking helped me in every case, but I do think it helped overall with the number of interview invites I was fortunate enough to receive. I do think if you're limited geographically like I was, then the networking idea is potentially very important, though with this process being so competitive it won't take you the whole way - once you're across from the interviewer it's all on you to make the right impression. I found the beginning part of the application process to be awful - the cover letters and essays were agonizing, even though I didn't apply to that many sites - but I actually found the interviews to be really fun. I got some weird questions here and there, but no stress interviews - for the most part, I think that interviewers get as tired out as we do, so being friendly, organized, honest, and showing that you are able to laugh at yourself can go a long way.

Best of luck to everyone applying this year!

 

[ClinPsychEnthus]

Phase I:
I applied to 18 sites, all APA accredited, almost all VA's (except 4 sites, one heavily research-focused site and 3 IP hospitals). Also of note: I only applied to competitive sites in the Northeast.
I got 3 interviews, all at VA's.
I did not match in Phase I

Phase II:
I applied to (I think? I don't fully remember, it was a whirlwind.) 6 VA's (2 of which are in the APA-accreditation process now)
I got 4 interviews, again, all VA's
I matched to my second choice (a site in the APA process), which has been really super awesome. They weren't my #1 bc I wasn't sure they'd get their accreditation, but now it looks like they will! Score!

 

[futureapppsy2]

Posting anonymously for a user:

"I went through the match last year.

I applied to 13 sites, all APA accred. Got two interviews. Didn't match phase I.

Phase two, I applied to four sites, all APA. Got three interviews, matched.

All my sites were AMCs, either with a peds neuro track or heavy emphasis. "

 

[HomeworkHelper]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
I applied to 16 sites, all APA-accredited.

How many interviews you received
5 interviews received

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched in Phase I to a VA site. It was my third choice. However, I was EXTREMELY happy with my experience, and later recommended the site to a number of my younger colleagues.

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
A number of VAs, academic medical centers, and consortiums. All had some research component, whether required or optional. A number were competitive research-heavy sites (you know the ones, I'm sure), and I matched at a moderately competitive site that was clinically focused but had an option for research that I absolutely took advantage of and turned out well.

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
I applied to a number of really competitive sites with a good number of face-to-face hours (~850) but with a lower number of publications than they probably were looking for ultimately. In retrospect it probably would have been helpful to add in a couple more sites. It's also possible I didn't emphasize the research I was actively involved in enough. All I did differently for postdoc applications was highlight the research I had done in a more clearly defined fashion by outlining my roles in the primary research projects I had been involved in...and that was much more successful.

***One thing I want to mention to folks is that how well you feel like you do during the internship match process doesn't necessarily relate to how well you will do later on. For instance, I was quite nervous about applying to research-heavy postdocs based on how disappointed I felt during the internship interview and match process. However, I ended up being really surprised by how well I ended up doing during the postdoc process (even without additional pubs), possibly because postdocs are less crazy competitive in general. I applied to 12 research-heavy postdoc positions, got interviews for 7 of them, and received 4 offers while having to turn down 2 of the interviews because I accepted a great offer. In a related case, a colleague of mine who didn't match in Phase I but matched in Phase II got a really desirable postdoc as well. So, just in case you feel like you don't necessarily do well with the internship interview/match process, don't despair! For one, you might really like the internship site you're matched with, and two, you can still do well later on.

 

[Sendtrees]

I applied about 4 years ago, to 16 (I think!) sites, all APA-accredited. I applied all over the country and was willing to go anywhere for an interview.
Got 6 interviews--made all but one of them in person, and did a phone interview with the last. I don't recommend phone interviews, if you can possibly help it. I had to prioritize a more desirable site whose interview days were fixed, so it was the best decision I could make in that circumstance.
Ranked in phase 1 (though this was in the clearinghouse days) to my 1st choice site, an AMC.
I applied to a variety of settings but only those in which I already had some experience.

Interview tip--Southwest Airlines. Ideal for this process because interviews overlap with horrible weather. Being able to cancel and move around travel plans last minute, without financial penalty, helped me feel a little more in control (and solvent!) during this process.

 

[IT514]

-How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
18 APA, 2 first-year VA sites not yet APA accredited.
-How many interviews you received
7
-If you matched or not and to what type of site
Matched, #1 rank at a solid VA in the northeast
-What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
Haha. All neuro, half peds and half adult VA/AMC mix. Got zero peds interviews. My dissertation was with a gero population, so I'm not sure what I was thinking applying to peds sites. I'll agree with an above post that peds folks dont look kindly on those who are not all peds all the time. I can see why, and looking back I'm glad it worked out the way it did.
-Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
One pub, 3 posters. Not much but first author and good quality. 1000 hours, 500 assessment and 500 therapy/cog rehab. I tend to interview very well, really knew my neuro stuff. I found the fact-finding type of interview questions to be enjoyable. I wrote a good personal essay. I applied to midwest, southeast, and northeast sites. All that aside, the process really sucks and calling it a cluster f is putting it nicely.

 

[counpsycphd2014]

I applied last year.

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
20 sites, all APA-accredited

How many interviews you received
13 interviews received

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched in Phase I to a consortium; it was my #1 choice

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
Mostly counseling centers and consortiums with placements in counseling centers

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
I wasn't geographically restricted, which allowed me to really apply to a good number of sites that had what I was looking for. As stressful as the season was, I tried to spread out the interviews as much as I could and enjoyed seeing the various cities (work/life balance!). I'd suggest accepting December dates if they are offered -- helped to contend with burnout by the end of Jan if you get several interviews. I accepted all interviews that were offered in person, which I also suggest if it is financially/emotionally/logistically feasible. Some of the sites were quite different than what I pictured and you can definitely get a better feel for the differences in staff, supervisors, and "vibes" of the center (I don't know a better way to put that haha).

Another tip: Download the OnTheFly app by Google -- awesome way to compare flights on diff dates/with different airlines in one click (except Southwest)

 

[SAP76]

.

 

[cara susanna]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
21 sites, all APA accredited

How many interviews you received
7 - about half VAs, half academic medical centers

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched to an APA-accredited VA medical center (Phase I)

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
I applied to academic medical centers and VA medical centers that were research-focused or research-friendly, as well as had training in two specific areas that I'm interested in.

-Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
I had 5 publications

 

[futureapppsy2]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
21 sites, all APA accredited

How many interviews you received
7 - about half VAs, half academic medical centers

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched to an APA-accredited VA medical center

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
I applied to academic medical centers and VA medical centers that were research-focused or research-friendly, as well as had training in two specific areas that I'm interested in.

-Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
I had 5 publications

Nice publication record! : D

 

[LightBulb]

My info...
-How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
I applied to 31 sites. About 10 of them were not APA accredited

-How many interviews you received
I attended 11 interviews

-If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched to an APA accredited site

-What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
Shotgun approach. I did not look at the type of site so much as I was looking for training directors whose backgrounds were similar to mine.

-Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
I am not physically attractive, I have no connections in this field, the school I attend is not top tier, I have no strong cohort, I did not have enough hours to apply to the top sites, and I have absolutely no publications/posters, etc.

What I did have is the absolute belief that I would work as hard as necessary and do whatever it took to nail down the site of my choice and it worked. I researched before writing every cover letter and studied before attending every interview. I considered the perspective of the site and the TD and I tried to address every question that they might have about me and my fit to their site.

It has been a really long few months. I do not recommend that anyone follow this strategy. It is risky at best.

 

[erg923]

Lightbulb, would you be willing to speak about how the weaknesses may or may not have 1.) effected what types of sites interviewed you 2.) kif these where ever brought up for you to defend or spin in interviews?

For example, and with all due respect, although I am not on an internship comittee, if I saw an appplicant with absolutley no schloarly activity/productivity (especially combined with relatively low clinical hours) my question for you would be "What exacly did you DO for the past 4 or 5 years." A program that allows the aforementioned to happen is irresponsbile, in my opnion, and I dont know how they coud say that they are training scientifically competent practitioners.

I am sorry to hear that you were not connected, at least professionally with your cohort. That makes a big difference during this time.

 

[pavlove]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
I applied to 19 sites, 16 were VAMCs, 1 consortium, and 2 were AMCs. All were APA accredited except for one VA that was an amazing fit and was on the cusp of becoming accredited... unfortunately this didn't go through this cycle and I had to leave them off my ranking list.

How many interviews you received
15 interview invites; 12 VAs, 2 AMCs, and the 1 consortium spot

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched in Phase I to my top site (an APA-accredited AMC in southern CA)

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
I have an SMI focus and come from a clinical science program, so research opportunities were a plus

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
In my opinion (and now, my experience!), it's not a single piece of your application that makes you successful. Some applicants I know were solely focused on having X numbers of pubs or X number of clinical hours. While I think these aspects are definitely important, I think that I was successful in this process because I created a coherent professional narrative about my background and how I saw this carrying into my future career goals. I don't have a super impressive # of pubs (just 2 right now, though one of these is a first-author in the "big deal" journal for my area) and I managed to interview with several and ultimately match to one competitive research-y sites. The other, less controllable aspect that I encountered was that your program reputation/the site's previous experience with interns from your program matters. Talk to other students and faculty from your program to find out about where students tend to apply, interview, and match.

And finally, while I am happy with my match outcome, I have come away with this process with a bitter taste in my mouth. Though all students in my program matched, I have friends in others that did not. I also find the cost associated with this process to be borderline obscene, especially coupled with the fact that the fear of not matching creates extra pressure to attend each interview you're invited to. I am glad that the match statistics from this cycle indicate movement in the right direction, but it seems we have a long way to go as a field.

 

[psyd102]

-How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited): 19 (12 APA accredited)

-How many interviews you received: 11

-If you matched or not and to what type of site: Matched Phase 1 (yesterday woohoo) to my #2, an APA accredited child and family community-based site

-What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc): mostly practitioner-scholar/local clinical scientist model, community mental health, mostly child and family focus (2 outliers that were just general CMH), some autism specific sites (hospitals, university medical centers, community agencies)

-Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
No publications, 1,000+intervention hours (can't remember the exact number), 150 assessment hours, all child, adolescent, young adult and family experience. I spent A LOT of time studying sites, applying to places I knew I was definitely a great fit regardless of geographic location (so I wouldn't be wasting money or time), writing specific detailed cover letters for each site, and I had two separate sets of essays depending on the type of site (I had a split between general and autism sites).

 

[LightBulb]

Ah Dear Erg,

I am sorry to have caused such cognitive dissonance in a person that I so admire.

I know that this may come as a shock, however publishing is not everything. I am a practitioner. That is what I do. Not publishing does not mean that I was not productive, the two are not mutually exclusive.

I completed all of the coursework and all requirements of the school with the exception of my dissertation which is in the final rewrite. I also was able to meet the other demands that society placed upon me as well as the demands that I placed upon myself.

I was not connected to my cohort because I had family responsibilities. This means that while I did have support, that support could not help me gain entry to some sites.

If I gave many more details about my strengths it would disclose my identity and I do not care to do that.

Life is (after all) what happens while you are making plans and I am satisfied with how I have lived my life these past few years. It seems that at least 11 sites were also okay with it or I would not have received those interviews.

I was able to spend more time with my Dad over the past few years because I did not fast track myself and I will never be sorry for having made that decision.

 

[MWUstudent]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
I applied to 19 sites, 15 of which were APA-accredited.

How many interviews you received
I received 9 interviews-- although, due to interviewing at different tracks within each site, I was able to rank 15.

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched in Phase I to my first choice of site-- an APA-accredited medical school with a DD emphasis track.

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
I applied to mainly autism/DD-specific sites (children only) as well as a handful of pediatric neuropsych sites.

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
No publications, but I had 750 face-to-face intervention hours and 250 face-to-face assessment hours (family therapy, ABA work, etc.). Also, I work as a behavioral therapist at a hospital and so this I believe helped me. Also, I'm a decent interviewee, mainly due to the fact that I had to do a mini-version of this process every year before for practicum placement. I go to a non-competitive school (Psy.D.) that was just recently APA-accredited. However, I think what helped me the most was the fact that I am passionate about what I do and it shows. Never underestimate the power of a good fit!

 

[erg923]

Lightbulb, I am a practitioner too. Most all of us are.

And frankly, one of the reasons I brought it up was because you stated that you do not have any "connections" in the field. Connections are made by being involved in your field outside the minimum confines of your graduate school curriculum/requirements, such as presenting research at conferences, collaborating with fellow students or faculty inside or outside the department, etc. Research isnt just peer reviewed publications. Most folks certainly believe that it's the immersion in the science (along with concurrent clinical application of that knowledge) that makes the doctorate the doctorate , so this isnt a training model discrepancey (PhD. vs. Psy,D) we are talking about here. When a program fails to basically require this of their students, at least to some degree, then I really start to have doubts about the integrity of the program. And by proxy, it's students outcomes.

None of this is personal, its expressing concerning about programs that let this happen. It puts their students at a disadvantage for internship, and ultimately, jobs. Or least jobs that cant also be filled by LCSWs.

 

[Graftonn]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited):
15, APA accredited

How many interviews you received:
9 (attended 8, turned down 1 because of scheduling)

If you matched or not and to what type of site:
VA Medical Center in Phase I

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
VAs and AMCs, Behavioral medicine and neuropsychology focused rotations/tracks

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
Had diverse training rotations and externships in medical settings (C/L, inpatient/outpatient peds, physical rehab, VA neuropsych, etc.); Relatively high assessment contact hours to total hours.

 

[FionaGoode]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited):
17, all APA accredited

How many interviews you received:
9.5 (Ranked 10 sites, invited to 1 program with 2 tracks)

If you matched or not and to what type of site:
VA Medical Center in Phase I (#1 of my rank order list)

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
All VA with emphasis in health psychology (more clinically focused primary care, health promotion disease prevention, palliative care), geriatric health

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
6 (non-first author) publications, over 20 symposia/posters at ABCT, strong match between my research/clinical interest, well-articulated internship goals, graduate program's strong emphasis on EBP/EST, and the understanding/ability to articulate the theoretical underpinnings/conceptualization of my clinical experiences (came from a small scientist-practitioner PhD program with excellent EPPP pass rates and match rates).

 

[notfullyfathomd]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited):
16, APA accredited

How many interviews you received:
8

If you matched or not and to what type of site:
AMC in Phase I, my #2 rank

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
about 50% VAs and 50% AMCs with neuropsych tracks (14 sites) or strong neuropsych training (2 sites)

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
I tried to be smart about applying to sites that had taken neuro students from my lab or program previously, and I received comments about both the strength of my program's training and how much sites had enjoyed working with other students from my program.
I got interviews at several very competitive sites, but I think I was hindered by having a relatively limited publication record despite doing a lot of research in grad school (all of which is now being written up). I do think in the top sites (Boston Consortium, Brown) they're looking for post-docs and so pubs matter more in their final rankings than more clinically-focused sites. I also had a strange combo of mostly adult neuro assessment experience but peds bmed intervention experience, which a few sites that interviewed me commented on. This almost certainly worked against me at the VAs I applied to. I matched to a site that was a great fit for this set of experiences as well as for my research interests, so it all worked out!

 

[Ollie123]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited):
16 - all APA accredited

How many interviews you received:
12

If you matched or not and to what type of site:
Matched in Phase 1 - one of my top choice AMCs

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
All research-focused places with either addictions or bmed emphases. Mostly AMCs, handful of VAs.

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
For me, I think it was clearly the CV and networking. Have 10 pubs, including several in top-notch journals, a decent amount of grant funding and a truckload of smaller research awards. I have a clear research line and ability to function independently. I also had ~900 clinical hours with a clear "story" there as well - rather than a scattering of seemingly random practicums mine told a clear "story" leading up to what I want to do. That isn't to say my training wasn't generalist - it was - but I was able to frame it in a way that it was clear why I had sought out that type of training. I could say the same for my application as a whole actually, since I tried to paint a clear picture throughout. At most of my top choices I was applying with people I knew from conferences, former graduates of our program I had sought out, etc. which unquestionably was helpful since I know it meant I got a closer look than others. It paid off - in contrast to many I found the process very reinforcing and not TOO stressful. Yes, that much travel and time away from the family was unfortunate. Interviews were not a big deal for me and kind of enjoyable, in part because I approached it as an opportunity to meet future collaborators rather than thinking about being evaluated. Personal connections again help with this...its a big difference being interviewed by someone you've already spoken to a dozen times who knows your work versus never seeing someone prior to walking into their office. My comfort level was dramatically different during interviews with the latter folks.

So basically, my advice to applicants can be summed up with: 1) Stay (productively) busy, 2) Meet people, 3) Learn to be a storyteller and 4) Chill.

 

[RGeller]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
15 sites, all APA accredited

How many interviews you received
11

If you matched or not and to what type of site
Matched at 1st Choice. AMC with many research opportunities.

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
Mostly neuropsych tracks at VAs and AMCs, almost all with at least some protected time for research. Although after interviewing, I decided I didn't just want to do neuropsych on internship, so I was glad I had applied to some places that offered other experiences as well (e.g., health psych).

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
I didn't have a ton of hours. I had around 550 face to face hours (~350 were assessment), but I had worked in a hospital setting doing neuropsych and health psych and also in a university clinic doing a variety of different assessments and intervention. I had a couple of 1st author publications and then another 4 co-authored publications. The places I didn't get interviews at were all VAs that seemed to want more clinical hours. I was applying from a clinical science program with a good reputation for neuropsych and I worked a well-known advisor. I was interested in an academic career and I applied to places where interns were likely to have those same goals.

 

[LightBulb]

Lightbulb, I am a practitioner too. Most all of us are.

And frankly, one of the reasons I brought it up was because you stated that you do not have any "connections" in the field. Connections are made by being involved in your field outside the minimum confines of your graduate school curriculum/requirements, such as presenting research at conferences, collaborating with fellow students or faculty inside or outside the department, etc. Research isnt just peer reviewed publications. Most folks certainly believe that it's the immersion in the science (along with concurrent clinical application of that knowledge) that makes the doctorate the doctorate , so this isnt a training model discrepancey (PhD. vs. Psy,D) we are talking about here. When a program fails to basically require this of their students, at least to some degree, then I really start to have doubts about the integrity of the program. And by proxy, it's students outcomes.

None of this is personal, its expressing concerning about programs that let this happen. It puts their students at a disadvantage for internship, and ultimately, jobs. Or least jobs that cant also be filled by LCSWs.

Erg,

This is not about Psy.D. versus Ph.D at all. This is about where I chose to focus my attention. If I had chosen to focus my attention toward publishing, my program would have supported that choice and indeed I had plenty of opportunity. The problem was that the opportunity would have been in addition to my classwork, my teaching hours, and my other life responsibilities. I justify my choices by knowing that not publishing does not mean that I am not using the research in practice and it does not mean that I might not want to publish some of the many documents that I wrote but, maybe at a later date.

I can understand how you feel that publishing might separate us from the LCSW's and yet I do not agree that it is the only (or even primary) skill of our field that makes us different from master's level practitioners in other disciplines. I think that what separates us and translates into being able to serve the public (obtain jobs) is our ability to write psychological evaluations and to research information.

I was not thinking of making connections in the way that you described it. I am not much given to attending events and being in the spotlight, it just does not interest me. So, yes, in that sense, not having connections was entirely my own fault.

Again, I do not recommend or advocate for my methods and yet there will always be outliers....

Peace.

 

[rmenoch]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
I applied to 20 sites (all APA-accredited). 19 UCCs and 1 teaching hospital.

How many interviews you received
11

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched in Phase I to my first choice - a teaching hospital with two major rotations specialized area that I have experience.

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
I'm primarily focused on LGBT identity and mental health so all my sites had an emphasis on this population. I also have an interest in forensics but getting an internship with both of these training areas seemed unlikely. I'm primarily clinically focused, although I do have interest and experience in applied research looking at health disparities within the LGBT community.

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
The site I matched at happened to have a rotation focused on serving transgender clients and a rotation focused on forensics. Given that I have most of my experience in these two specialized areas, I think that helped. I have worked with numerous transgender clients (e.g., providing therapy and assessments). Also, I spent a year working at a state prison and a year working for a mental health program affiliated with the tribal court on a reservation. I think the combination of these experiences made me competitive for my top site. My main hurdle was not being a Canadian citizen, as the site is in Canada and they are supposed to give preference to Canadian applicants. Apparently I got over this hurdle somehow.

I have a decent number of hours (550 therapy/300 assessment/70 providing supervision). I have 13 poster/paper presentations and 1 published book review, but I don't have any research publications. I think only having worked at a UCC for a single year, along with the breadth of my experiences, made some sites question whether I would be a good fit for a UCC. I go to a decent University-based Ph.D. program in Clinical, although it is in a rural area. I've also been told that I interview quite well.

 

[cara susanna]

Erg,

This is not about Psy.D. versus Ph.D at all. This is about where I chose to focus my attention. If I had chosen to focus my attention toward publishing, my program would have supported that choice and indeed I had plenty of opportunity. The problem was that the opportunity would have been in addition to my classwork, my teaching hours, and my other life responsibilities. I justify my choices by knowing that not publishing does not mean that I am not using the research in practice and it does not mean that I might not want to publish some of the many documents that I wrote but, maybe at a later date.

I can understand how you feel that publishing might separate us from the LCSW's and yet I do not agree that it is the only (or even primary) skill of our field that makes us different from master's level practitioners in other disciplines. I think that what separates us and translates into being able to serve the public (obtain jobs) is our ability to write psychological evaluations and to research information.

I was not thinking of making connections in the way that you described it. I am not much given to attending events and being in the spotlight, it just does not interest me. So, yes, in that sense, not having connections was entirely my own fault.

Again, I do not recommend or advocate for my methods and yet there will always be outliers....

Peace.

I think erg's confusion stems from your having implied that you don't have a lot of hours, which one would expect from more clinically-oriented applicants. I just reread the post in question and you said "enough hours for the top sites"--perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying?

 

[G Costanza]

How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)
I applied to 20 APA accredited university counseling centers. I did not limit myself geographically and more than half of the sites would be considered very competitive.

How many interviews you received
I received 19 interviews

If you matched or not and to what type of site
I matched to a pretty sweet university counseling center

What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)
I was obviously looking for a UCC but only interested in working at a place that had a diverse student body, offered supervision of practicum students, and had a track record of previous interns finding work at a UCC.

Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)
My application was okay but I'm no all star. I had an average amount of contact hours, worked at a variety of settings, and had a handful of presentation but no pubs (one conditionally accepted to a flagship journal). Additionally, I think my letters of rec were pretty sharp. While interviewing, some sites commented on what my references had said about me.

So why did I get so many interviews? I can't be certain but I think my genuine interest in multiculturalism and being White played a big role. I talked a lot about work with diverse populations and wrestling with my own privileged identities in most of the essays. I found that UCC's either really valued multiculturalism at it's core or at least valued it on the surface presumably because that's the direction of the field. Obviously my interests line up well for sites that are deeply committed multiculturalism but I'm also a "safe" candidate for sites that value multiculturalism on the surface. Meaning, I can talk about privilege and oppression but I'm a white heterosexual male so it's not as intimidating when I do it - as opposed to someone with oppressed identities. This feeling was further supported when sites would commend me for my passion in social justice/multiculturalism but I would look around at who was working there and see people that looked just like me. Kind of incongruent.

So while hard work certainly explains some of my success, I'm not discounting privilege as a contributor.

 

[erg923]

Correct. If I see a dearth of the scholar side I would obviously expect a heavy Practitioner side...which the person also denied. I think this a program oversight that shouldn't be allowed to happen at the doctoral training level, and I tried to frame it they way.

In other words if you are still light on BOTH sides of training by the time you apply for internship, then something is wrong at the programmatic level.

 

[LightBulb]

Correct. If I see a dearth of the scholar side I would obviously expect a heavy Practitioner side...which the person also denied. I think this a program oversight that shouldn't be allowed to happen at the doctoral training level, and I tried to frame it they way.

In other words if you are still light on BOTH sides of training by the time you apply for internship, then something is wrong at the programmatic level.

I have explained that this was not a program issue and yet you continue to ignore me. There are factors at play that are outside of the norm and do not fit into the either/or situation that you have framed. My program and the sites that interviewed me felt that I had ample experience and yet that does not always translate to hours listed. Could it be true that you do not know and have not accounted for every possibility?

 

[LightBulb]

I think erg's confusion stems from your having implied that you don't have a lot of hours, which one would expect from more clinically-oriented applicants. I just reread the post in question and you said "enough hours for the top sites"--perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying?

Thank you for explaining this odd and very skewed view of the situation. I did not understand what his confusion was about until I read your explanation .

 

[empathiosis]

With all due respect, this is supposed to be a thread for people to post their stats and match outcomes. This is not a thread for people to question the integrity of other people's programs and choices. If you must opine on those topics, start a different thread instead of hijacking this one. I love SDN and it has been very helpful to me, but I am *really* tired of having to read constant rants about this or that program and how it is bringing about the decline of the field. Or rants about the questionable intelligence or integrity of applicants for wanting to apply to said programs. It's insulting to all. And blocking the offenders doesn't help because then one just gets disjointed conversations.