APPIC Internship Match Rates By University Program (2000-2010)

Therapist4Chnge said:

APPIC just posted it....courtesy of Dr. Greg Keilin.

http://www.appic.org/downloads/APPIC_Match_Rates_2000-10_by_Univ.pdf

Click to expand...

Ahh you beat me to it! Just got the email. Thanks for putting it on here.

Hmm....so if there are 2 or less applicants in a given year it looks like they don't report how many matched? I wonder why that is.

Therapist4Chnge said:

Because of privacy concerns.

Click to expand...

Ah.....I didn't even think of that. Thanks for the answer!

It's a little annoying for school psychology programs that have very small numbers of applicants every year, but it looks like you can figure it out by checking the overall numbers at the top.

Thanks for putting that up! It's unfortunate that they don't put up stats on who matches in the Clearinghouse, or after all the regular match happens. While it's not ideal to be in the clearinghouse, it would still be nice to know which programs tend to get their students matched even if it is not on match day.

It doesn't count the clearing house, I take it?

What really struck me about these statistics: the majority of doctoral programs have decent average match rates (75-95%), but there are a sizable minority with really awful match rates that drag down the averages for everyone. In thinking about the implications of this, it seems that on one hand this is encouraging news -- at least for those of us not at the professional schools with the poor match rates. On the other hand, since most of us compete for the same pool of internships, even students from the best programs are potentially affected by a surplus of applicants.

psychmama said:

What really struck me about these statistics: the majority of doctoral programs have decent average match rates (75-95%), but there are a sizable minority with really awful match rates that drag down the averages for everyone. In thinking about the implications of this, it seems that on one hand this is encouraging news -- at least for those of us not at the professional schools with the poor match rates. On the other hand, since most of us compete for the same pool of internships, even students from the best programs are potentially affected by a surplus of applicants.

Click to expand...

While I think it might effect student placement to some extent, my guess is that school's with low rates are low because their applicants are less than stellar. So even though that means more people are competing, if those people tend to not get accepted, than are they really causing any competition for better students? Additionally, I would imagine that those students that are getting placed are pretty impressive, as they are competing with applicants from very good programs. If that in fact is the case, and they are getting placements, than good for them. They obviously have earned it regardless of what program they come from.

I also wanted to note a certain attitude I have noticed about applicants from "professional school" and how they drain the resources for students from "better programs." I think it is interesting that we are complaining about students from prof. schools securing placements and thus reducing the amount for students from "university programs." What difference does it make? Why shouldn't they get these positions? What makes university based students more deserving than prof. schools? The fact that they are placing must suggest they have some desirable qualities, or they wouldn't secure internships in the first place.

My guess is that applicants from prestigious universities automatically have an advantage over those from less-prestigious schools. For example, Yale's match rate was 100% while University of Washington's match rate was 88.9%. However, US News and Report ranks University of Washington's program at #1, while Yale is ranked at # 6. I realize the problems with rating systems, but my point is that for 10 years in a row, Yale has had 100% match rate for their students while University of Washington has only had an 88.9% match rate, even though U Washington is tied for # 1. Does this make sense?

My guess is that Yale students placed because of the perceived prestige of their program. Is it fair that students from an Ivy League school have an advantage over students from a state school? Also, imagine you are that student from U Washington, or another state school, that is passed up because an Ivy leaguer applied and was accepted based on their program's prestige. I imagine you would be shouting from the rooftops, "It isn't fair, I come from a better program, I should have been chosen." - My guess is now you would understand the battle that those from professional schools face.

Moral of the story: just because a school has a good or bad reputation doesn't mean that its training is automatically superior/inferior. If this were the case, U Washington would place 100% of the time and not Yale. We all have an image in our minds of what it means to be a graduate of Yale - does that mean that image is accurate and based on fact?

When you think of Harvard, what comes to mind? Prestige, rigorous training, etc. When you think of Argosy, what comes to mind? Bottom of the barrel, minimal training, etc. However, how much of this perception is based on fact instead of heresay? Is it fair to judge an applicant based on their school's prestige?

For those of us who automatically judge a student based on program reputation, we should be careful. Someday, the tables may be turned and we may be the ones who are judged unfairly. It always sucks to be on the receiving end of discrimination, but as long as we support its practice by unfairly judging others, we run the risk of too being unfairly judging. Discrimination is a two-way street; in a world that tolerates discrimination, everyone is equally at risk. It's just a matter of time before you become the minority.

I imagine the image goes something like this:

Ivy League > Private School > State University > Professional School

You may look down on prof. students, but remember, Ivy Leaguers look down on you as well.

Note: I also found it interesting that while Harvard also had a 100% match rate, I couldn't find a ranking for its program on US News and Report.

psychmama said:

What really struck me about these statistics: the majority of doctoral programs have decent average match rates (75-95%), but there are a sizable minority with really awful match rates that drag down the averages for everyone. In thinking about the implications of this, it seems that on one hand this is encouraging news -- at least for those of us not at the professional schools with the poor match rates. On the other hand, since most of us compete for the same pool of internships, even students from the best programs are potentially affected by a surplus of applicants.

Click to expand...

There was JUST a citation for this analysis on another thread

Parent, M. C., & Williamson, J. B. (2010). Program Disparities in Unmatched Internship Applicants, Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4, 116-120.

BSWdavid said:

My guess is that applicants from prestigious universities automatically have an advantage over those from less-prestigious schools. For example, Yale's match rate was 100% while University of Washington's match rate was 88.9%. However, US News and Report ranks University of Washington's program at #1, while Yale is ranked at # 6. I realize the problems with rating systems, but my point is that for 10 years in a row, Yale has had 100% match rate for their students while University of Washington has only had an 88.9% match rate, even though U Washington is tied for # 1. Does this make sense?

My guess is that Yale students placed because of the perceived prestige of their program. Is it fair that students from an Ivy League school have an advantage over students from a state school? Also, imagine you are that student from U Washington, or another state school, that is passed up because an Ivy leaguer applied and was accepted based on their program's prestige. I imagine you would be shouting from the rooftops, "It isn't fair, I come from a better program, I should have been chosen." - My guess is now you would understand the battle that those from professional schools face.

Moral of the story: just because a school has a good or bad reputation doesn't mean that its training is automatically superior/inferior. If this were the case, U Washington would place 100% of the time and not Yale. We all have an image in our minds of what it means to be a graduate of Yale - does that mean that image is accurate and based on fact?

When you think of Harvard, what comes to mind? Prestige, rigorous training, etc. When you think of Argosy, what comes to mind? Bottom of the barrel, minimal training, etc. However, how much of this perception is based on fact instead of heresay? Is it fair to judge an applicant based on their school's prestige?

For those of us who automatically judge a student based on program reputation, we should be careful. Someday, the tables may be turned and we may be the ones who are judged unfairly. It always sucks to be on the receiving end of discrimination, but as long as we support its practice by unfairly judging others, we run the risk of too being unfairly judging. Discrimination is a two-way street; in a world that tolerates discrimination, everyone is equally at risk. It's just a matter of time before you become the minority.

I imagine the image goes something like this:

Ivy League > Private School > State University > Professional School

You may look down on prof. students, but remember, Ivy Leaguers look down on you as well.

Note: I also found it interesting that while Harvard also had a 100% match rate, I couldn't find a ranking for its program on US News and Report.

Click to expand...

A few points to make:

First, although I agree with you (for the most part) that perceived prestige is important, people who are receiving and reviewing applications and interviewing applicants are well aware of the University of Washington's high prestige as a research institution (in general) and as a clinical psychology program (specifically). If they're looking for prestige, they've got it with an applicant who's studied under Linehan. Although Harvard is a big, beautiful name, the program itself was only accredited recently (last summer? correct me if I'm wrong) and has some great researchers, but not quite the same reputation- yet.

I also think that looking merely at percentages and not the overall numbers is misleading. Harvard placed 100%, but out of 16 people in 10 years. This is probably because it's a fledging program, and my guess is that if you compare it to other fledging programs (without the big, beautiful name, see, maybe Seattle Pacific: approx 50%) the numbers would go down. Yale's more established, but the program still placed 34/34 in 10 years. Very impressive, but not a great output for a program that take 4-6 students per year (http://www.yale.edu/psychology/clinical_perfdata.html). Where are all the other students going? Nowhere.

On the other hand, UW placed 88.9% (an excellent percentage, BTW, I'm not sure where you're getting the "only" thing) out of 99 students. It's certainly true they didn't place every student (I'd be shocked though if those numbers didn't go up to at least 95-98 after clearinghouse) but it's a large enough sample to actually consider the issue in the first place, and they're moving students through the program reasonably fast. (Although the number of people taking 7 years alarms me a tad, I'll admit (http://web.psych.washington.edu/areas/admissionsdata/clinical.html). But keep in mind, when one person out of ten doesn't match, the percentage goes from 100% to 90%- like that. Whether or not they later match in clearinghouse.

The math on all this can look much more... prestigious than it is. Without all that, I'm not sure your base argument makes much sense- the internship match isn't (it doesn't seem to me) about prestige for the sites, it is about quality applicants who fit, period. Is it shocking an institution that spends a lot of its money investing in resources, researchers and mentors for its students would be well-equipped to train such an applicant?

olychick65 said:

A few points to make:

First, although I agree with you (for the most part) that perceived prestige is important, people who are receiving and reviewing applications and interviewing applicants are well aware of the University of Washington's high prestige as a research institution (in general) and as a clinical psychology program (specifically). If they're looking for prestige, they've got it with an applicant who's studied under Linehan. Although Harvard is a big, beautiful name, the program itself was only accredited recently (last summer? correct me if I'm wrong) and has some great researchers, but not quite the same reputation- yet.

I also think that looking merely at percentages and not the overall numbers is misleading. Harvard placed 100%, but out of 16 people in 10 years. This is probably because it's a fledging program, and my guess is that if you compare it to other fledging programs (without the big, beautiful name, see, maybe Seattle Pacific: approx 50%) the numbers would go down. Yale's more established, but the program still placed 34/34 in 10 years. Very impressive, but not a great output for a program that take 4-6 students per year (http://www.yale.edu/psychology/clinical_perfdata.html). Where are all the other students going? Nowhere.

On the other hand, UW placed 88.9% (an excellent percentage, BTW, I'm not sure where you're getting the "only" thing) out of 99 students. It's certainly true they didn't place every student (I'd be shocked though if those numbers didn't go up to at least 95-98 after clearinghouse) but it's a large enough sample to actually consider the issue in the first place, and they're moving students through the program reasonably fast. (Although the number of people taking 7 years alarms me a tad, I'll admit (http://web.psych.washington.edu/areas/admissionsdata/clinical.html). But keep in mind, when one person out of ten doesn't match, the percentage goes from 100% to 90%- like that. Whether or not they later match in clearinghouse.

The math on all this can look much more... prestigious than it is. Without all that, I'm not sure your base argument makes much sense- the internship match isn't (it doesn't seem to me) about prestige for the sites, it is about quality applicants who fit, period. Is it shocking an institution that spends a lot of its money investing in resources, researchers and mentors for its students would be well-equipped to train such an applicant?

Click to expand...

Well, thank-you, that does make more sense out of the numbers. Overall, my point is that a prestigious program doesn't automatically produce stellar graduates. Sure, the chances of better training are drastically increased with the availability of more resources, but I still find it interesting that some of the Argosy programs place between 40%-50%. For programs that are considered so bad, that seems pretty high. Conversely, for a program like U Washington that only places 88.9%, that seems rather low considering their reputation. I guess reputation is only part of it. Note, I am not an Argosy fan and don't agree with their practices. But the logistics behind this process are quite intriguing.

BSWDavid - Some points for consideration:
1) I think you underestimate how nuanced the match can be. First off, when it comes to internships the people involved in decision making are going to be clinical psychologists. Within this field, I'm not sure Yale carries any more weight then University of Washington. I'd be surprised to meet a first year clinical student who hadn't heard the names Linehan, Marlatt, etc. just as much as they'd heard Nolen-Hoeksema, Brownell, etc. University of Washington is widely known as one of the very best schools in the country - that isn't a secret among clinical psychologists that only people who checked the rankings will know. Maybe Yale has a higher match rate because the students applied to more sites...maybe not. Maybe Yale has a higher match rate because the students had more diverse interests and thus could consider more internships...maybe not. Match rates are somewhat useful...rankings are really only mildly useful. However, I don't think either is useful when looking at nuances. Is the #1 ranked school dramatically better than the #2 school? Certainly not...either would be fantastic. However, can you say the same thing between #1 and #200? There's probably a noticeable difference there.

2) Where people are matching also plays a major role. If the Yale grads matched at Brown, MGH, MUSC, and Western Psychiatric one year, that is very different from 50% of the Argosy applicants matching, half or more of those ending up at non-APA sites, with about 20% of the total applicants ending up at the less competitive APA sites, and maybe only 1-2 (if that) going on to the really well-known sites that have national or international recognition. This ties back to #1 and why its hard to compare small differences in match percentage. When you have only have 5 students per year, if Yale got 2-3 students who decided for one reason or another that they didn't care about going to a top-tier, research-heavy internship in a major city, that could have created the differences in their match rates.

3) I think you are falling into a common trap on this board...failing to understand distribution curves. No one says every grad from Argosy is incompetent, no one says every grad from Yale is fantastic. However, I would say that a substantially higher percentage of Yale grads are competent because Yale takes steps to make SURE that is the case. They only accept the best students, they have far more prestigious faculty with very high standards, they require students to attend proven internships, the students have far more opportunities for research and other activities...etc. If I'm going to bet money (and hiring someone is doing exactly that)...my money is on the Yale grad. Would there be exceptions based on other qualifications? Maybe. However, I'd wager that 99% of the time, the Yale grad is going to have the better "other qualifications" anyways, and that's kind of the point.

Is that discrimination? I don't think so. Especially not when it is used to argue against the schools instead of against the students (which is another common mistake many make on these boards...they can't help but personalize any argument against their school...something that I take as further support of the relative lack of appropriate training at many of these schools ).

2. Not every program plays by the same rules.
a. Many programs require their students secure an APA internship, no exceptions.
b. Some programs strongly encourage APA sites, but they will grant some exceptions for APPIC sites.
c. Some program strongly discourage APA sites, and instead push for APPIC and Non-acred. sites.

The other issue is that some programs have special, set aside internships only for people within their own program- no student outside of that program is eligible. Sometimes that rule makes sense, i.e. some military internships, which (IMO) require specific training and ask interns to become active military, so having students within USHUS who are already active is logical. However- schools like Argosy-Hawaii have also done this, for no specific reason. It seems to me like a way to give their students a protected set of spots so they can graduate and arbitrarily inflate their match numbers without competing with other students or dealing with fit issues at all.

Therapist4Chnge said:

2. Not every program plays by the same rules.
a. Many programs require their students secure an APA internship, no exceptions.
b. Some programs strongly encourage APA sites, but they will grant some exceptions for APPIC sites.
c. Some program strongly discourage APA sites, and instead push for APPIC and Non-acred. sites.

Click to expand...

There are also school psychology programs like my own where an APA internship is considered unnecesary for the profession but not actively discouraged. This leads to a certain selection bias where the people who do apply are usually the ones who are top candidates resulting in an unusually high acceptance rate.

FadedC said:

There are also school psychology programs like my own where an APA internship is considered unnecesary for the profession but not actively discouraged. This leads to a certain selection bias where the people who do apply are usually the ones who are top candidates resulting in an unusually high acceptance rate.

Click to expand...

This. There's a huge disparity in school psych internship applicants by program, because, to some degree, APPIC and APA internships are not nearly as established/expected in School Psych as they are in Clinical and Counseling Psych--some programs "strongly encourage" everyone to go APA (I haven't heard of any who explicitly require it, though there could be one or two), a few mostly encourage APPIC sites, some have around a fifth ti third go APPIC/APA (the rest probably go CDSSP, though it doesn't seem to uncommon for people to pursue internships outside of that), and some have almost no students who go the APPIC/APA route. Additionally, some programs require that the internship takes place (at least in part) in a school setting, which really limits applicants in terms of applying to APA/APPIC sites. All this variance in "program culture" makes it much more difficult to compare across programs and across much rates, as there's probably some degree of self-selection going on at some programs that don't strongly encourage APA or APPIC sites. OTOH, more purely school-focused School Psych programs (as opposed to those who lean more towards the child clinical side of School Psych) may have valid reasons why many students wouldn't necessarily go the APPIC/APA route, if it's not conducive with or necessary for their particular career aims.

1. Not all sites are created equal.
a. There are APA-acred, APPIC-acred, and Non-acred sites included in the match.
b. The "competitiveness" of sites within each acred. level effects the likelihood of getting an interview and securing a spot.
c. Since "fit" is so important, some sites move down and/or eliminate applicants who may be using them as a "safety" site.

Click to expand...

I thought all sites in the APPIC database were APPIC approved--is this not the case? If so, how do you distinguish between APPIC and non-APPIC sites in the directory? Thanks!

In my program, nearly everyone applies (and a majority are accepted) to APA sites. The few who do NOT go APA are the exception (and are generally individuals NOT interested in an academic career, FROM the local area of the university, and desire to only work within a school setting). The culture in our department pushes students towards APA sites, though is accepting of individuals who go the school route.

With a fairly sizeable number of school-based APA sites (not to mention many clinical sites that are welcoming of school psych students), I am surprised that some of the stronger programs have such few students who go the APA route.

futureapppsy2 said:

This. There's a huge disparity in school psych internship applicants by program, because, to some degree, APPIC and APA internships are not nearly as established/expected in School Psych as they are in Clinical and Counseling Psych--some programs "strongly encourage" everyone to go APA (I haven't heard of any who explicitly require it, though there could be one or two), a few mostly encourage APPIC sites, some have around a fifth ti third go APPIC/APA (the rest probably go CDSSP, though it doesn't seem to uncommon for people to pursue internships outside of that), and some have almost no students who go the APPIC/APA route. Additionally, some programs require that the internship takes place (at least in part) in a school setting, which really limits applicants in terms of applying to APA/APPIC sites. All this variance in "program culture" makes it much more difficult to compare across programs and across much rates, as there's probably some degree of self-selection going on at some programs that don't strongly encourage APA or APPIC sites. OTOH, more purely school-focused School Psych programs (as opposed to those who lean more towards the child clinical side of School Psych) may have valid reasons why many students wouldn't necessarily go the APPIC/APA route, if it's not conducive with or necessary for their particular career aims.



I thought all sites in the APPIC database were APPIC approved--is this not the case? If so, how do you distinguish between APPIC and non-APPIC sites in the directory? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Specialist level school psychologists are not able to intern at an APA site to the best of my knowledge. They can only work in schools though, and in a school few people will even know what an APA internship is, let alone care if you have one. So if you primary concern is competing with specialist level school psychologists in a school setting, I don't think an APA internship would be the way to go. You'd be better off doing something that gives you experience directly related to where you will be working.

Obviously though if you want to work outside the schools then it's much more helpfull.

Therapist4Chnge said:

It seems that programs are pushing more for APA-acred internships, though it could be a geographical restriction for some. I'd recommend that route, particularly with more and more Specialist-level professionals coming out. I'm not sure if they are able to intern at APA-acred. sites, but I think that is one point of differentiation an early career school psychologist can have compared to others.

Click to expand...

I dont think "Ivy" really applies in psychology-at least not in the same way.

The "Ivys" of psychology are really Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, UCLA, UCSD, Illinois-Urbana, Florida, Penn, etc. Not exactly your typical Ivys. Of course places like Yale and Harvard, Standford produce good clinical researchers, but frankly, in terms of applicants for predoc clinical internships, there would be no reason for these students to have much advantage over any of the Tier I or even "middle-of-the-road" university based programs, and I don't think that there is real evidence that they do...

I also don't see any evidence that there is some kind of exponential curve of prejudice from the ivory tower. That is, I dont think anyone from Harvard looks down on a Minnesota Ph.D.....nor should they. Perhaps Meehl helps with that though...lol

BSWdavid said:

Moral of the story: just because a school has a good or bad reputation doesn't mean that its training is automatically superior/inferior. If this were the case, U Washington would place 100% of the time and not Yale. We all have an image in our minds of what it means to be a graduate of Yale - does that mean that image is accurate and based on fact?

Click to expand...

This is also wildly inaccurate. Many, many factors go into the match. You are focused on one variable (i.e., program affiliation) out of 50. You have no idea what applicant characteristics were in play here. It is the individial students within a program that are doing the applying, and the ones who are ultimately responsbile for their sucess, not the program itself.

Markp said:

Currently students in my program come from places like Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, McGill, American University, USMA, UNC and other well known institutions. There is a reason that despite these USN rankings that we attract students from the Ivy League and other prestigious programs.

Mark

Click to expand...

I think, though, that the same could be said for most university-based Ph.D programs in terms of the applicants they attract. I ran into many students from prestigious schools on interviews for fairly standard clinical programs. Not that I'm disparaging your program in any way, I just don't think that aspect alone is a great marker for program quality.

Point taken about U.S. News and World Report rankings being flawed. They are of very limited utility.

erg923 said:

I dont think "Ivy" really applies in psychology-at least not in the same way.

The "Ivys" of psychology are really Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, UCLA, UCSD, Illinois-Urbana, Florida, Penn, etc. Not exactly your typical Ivys. Of course places like Yale and Harvard, Standford produce good clinical researchers, but frankly, in terms of applicants for predoc clinical internships, there would be no reason for these students to have much advantage over any of the Tier I or even "middle-of-the-road" university based programs, and I don't think that there is real evidence that they do...

I also don't see any evidence that there is some kind of exponential curve of prejudice from the ivory tower. That is, I dont think anyone from Harvard looks down on a Minnesota Ph.D.....nor should they. Perhaps Meehl helps with that though...lol



This is also wildly inaccurate. Many, many factors go into the match. You are focused on one variable (i.e., program affiliation) out of 50. You have no idea what applicant characteristics were in play here. It is the individial students within a program that are doing the applying, and the ones who are ultimately responsbile for their sucess, not the program itself.

Click to expand...

I was an undergrad at Indiana and I can say I was extremely impressed with their faculty. Their undergrad program was very difficult.

bump this seems interesting