2009-2010 Internship Thread

[Therapist4Chnge]

Per a member request....here is the 2009-2010 thread.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BellaPsyD]

thanks T4C!!

How far along is everyone in the process? I, admittedly, didn't get as much done this summer as I had hoped to!

 

[sicologia]

thanks T4C!!

How far along is everyone in the process? I, admittedly, didn't get as much done this summer as I had hoped to!

Thanks for asking, Bella. I didn't want to be the first to admit that I've put things off until now. I'm still writing my essays and getting my clinical hours straight.

 

[cmuhooligan]

thanks T4C!!

How far along is everyone in the process? I, admittedly, didn't get as much done this summer as I had hoped to!

I have pretty good drafts set for essays 1-4. My next goal is to start working on the cover letters. I don't plan on working on the APPI until early October, since I figure that there is no sense calculating my hours now, 3 months before applications are due.

 

[BellaPsyD]

I have my sites, essay 1 and 2 done, and all my hours calculated (anyone use time2track.com?)...going to work on essay 3 ASAP

 

[cmuhooligan]

I have my sites

What type of sites are you applying to?

 

[sicologia]

(anyone use time2track.com?)...

Yep, I'm using time2track.com, but the process is still very arduous. I hope to have my hours compiled or somehow organized by September.

 

[psychanon]

Wow, you guys have started on your essays and stuff? Wow, I'm really feeling like a slacker. I started revising my CV a little bit. And I've looked at site web pages, although not in detail. But as for everything else...still on my to do list. I'm not too concerned (I'm pretty good at writing fast), but I should start soon-- just so many other things keep stealing my attention! The thing I'm really dreading is the hour counting....I haven't kept track of my hours at all so far, so I it will be really laborious. What is this time2track thing?

 

[sicologia]

What is this time2track thing?

It's a website 2 grad students back in the 90s came up with to help students log there clinical hours. It costs a bit, but in the long run, I think I'll find it useful.

 

[BellaPsyD]

ahh- finished my CV as well- took a day to do that one!

What type of sites are you applying to?

I'm hoping to end up in a general hospital- I'm really focusing more on medical type psych- I would love to end up doing surgery consults. I am applying to a few rehab places as well since I have practicum experience there and in neuro. LOL- and I'm only applying around the warmer coastlines - I know, I know- but I want to get out of Chicago and cold weather!

My biggest problem is that my school program is new and not APA accredited- but get this- the APA is reading the last set of dissertations they required for approval and told my school that they are thinking we will be accredited this December (they met about us at the last meeting and just requested a few more diss. and then approval so they are expediting us)....this sucks b/c apps are mostly due in November so I cannot check that I am APA-accredited!

 

[psy86]

Wow, you guys have started on your essays and stuff? Wow, I'm really feeling like a slacker.

Hah, glad to hear it, psychanon. I'm in basically the same place. I planned (but failed) to work on the essays this summer. Oh well, I write best under pressure anyway.

 

[psychmama]

Hi all,

I'm applying this fall. I was wondering for those applying in the NYC area, how many sites are you thinking of applying to? Our DCT is suggesting we apply to 16-20 sites. It seems like a lot, but given the crazy match rates lately, maybe she's right!

What do others think?

 

[cmuhooligan]

Hi all,

I'm applying this fall. I was wondering for those applying in the NYC area, how many sites are you thinking of applying to? Our DCT is suggesting we apply to 16-20 sites. It seems like a lot, but given the crazy match rates lately, maybe she's right!

What do others think?

I believe that your "returns" start to diminish after application #15.

 

[psychmama]

I think there are some statistics on the APPIC website showing this is so. However, since it's not broken down by geographic region, there's probably no way to know if this holds true everywhere, for all individuals.

 

[BellaPsyD]

^ that's what I'm wondering. I was planning on 15, but I have 20 and am not sure what to eliminate!

 

[parto123]

I believe that your "returns" start to diminish after application #15.

Why would this be true? Its not like the sites you apply to know how many you sent out. If anything, the numbers showing same or fewer interviews for 15+ applications demonstrates that it does help. This is because, generally, “weaker” applicants tend to be the ones sending out the most applications, so if they are able to net the same number of interviews as the stronger applicants, it would say sending out 20+ applications paid off.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Ultimately it comes down to fit.....though with the ever increasing competitiveness, I'd think that a minimum of 10 sites, but 15 would probably be safer.

Regardless of how many sites you are applying to.....start early! Apps can take much longer than expected, and the last thing you want to do is rush an app to one of your top choices.

 

[dekared82]

I'm applying to about 15, though over half are school sites.

 

[elite1]

What does it hurt to apply to 20 or so sites? If you apply to 10 or 15 and only get a few interviews, you're screwed immediately and you're going to be under SO MUCH pressure during those 2 or so interviews. Thus, why apply to more sites because you are likely to get more interviews? If you get too many interviews, allyou have to do is cancel some of them. That is what I did....

 

[psychanon]

Well, APPIC has published statistics showing that applying to more than a certain number (which I can't remember-- around 15) sites can reduce your chances of matching, or at least does not increase your chances of matching. There's really no reason to apply to sites that you are not a reasonable match for.

 

[parto123]

Well, APPIC has published statistics showing that applying to more than a certain number (which I can't remember-- around 15) sites can reduce your chances of matching, or at least does not increase your chances of matching. There's really no reason to apply to sites that you are not a reasonable match for.

If anything, the numbers showing same or fewer interviews for 15+ applications demonstrates that it does help to send more applications. This is because, generally, “weaker” applicants tend to be the ones sending out the most applications, so if they are able to net the same number of interviews as the stronger applicants, it would say sending out 20+ applications paid off.

.

 

[psychanon]

yeah, i think there's a case for weaker applicants sending more applications. APPIC really doesn't have data to distinguish between that idea and the idea that dong more applications dilutes the attention that you spend on each one (which is seems to be what most people infer from those data). My guess is that most people who apply to 20+ sites are including some sites that aren't a strong match for them, maybe because of geographical limitations. I don't think there's a compelling reason not to apply to a high number of sites if 1) they are all a reasonable match for you, and 2) you have time to write the extra essays. I don't think it's smart to travel to 25 interviews if they're not local, though, but that's a decision you can always make later.

 

[parto123]

yeah, i think there's a case for weaker applicants sending more applications. APPIC really doesn't have data to distinguish between that idea and the idea that dong more applications dilutes the attention that you spend on each one (which is seems to be what most people infer from those data). My guess is that most people who apply to 20+ sites are including some sites that aren't a strong match for them, maybe because of geographical limitations. I don't think there's a compelling reason not to apply to a high number of sites if 1) they are all a reasonable match for you, and 2) you have time to write the extra essays. I don't think it's smart to travel to 25 interviews if they're not local, though, but that's a decision you can always make later.

I don't think there is a good reason not to just apply to dozens and dozens of places. The fact that there is absolutely no application fee is really a major flaw in the process and its surprising more people don't take advantage of it. A close friend of mine did the match last year and I was helping with the application (he was a mediocre candidate and his program only had about a 70% match rate). He was only applying in the tri-state area, and after he sent out his main 15 or so applications, he simply took his essays he already made and in little time just changed the site names in the essays and made applications for about another 25 places. His thinking was, why not? What could it hurt him, it only took him a few more hours, and worst come to worst he has to cancel a few interviews if he gets too many.

Well, get too many interviews he did. In that second batch of 25 he sent out, he didn't get any of the very competitive sites, but he did manage to snag many decently selective places. All the sites describe themselves in such generic ways, that they really have little way of telling whether you are using a generic counseling center essay, or hospital essay, etc.

 

[Cosmo75]

I've heard that the average interview rate is 40% of applications sent. But have also been told that the higher you go over about 18 apps, the worse your return becomes. I applied to 14 sites, got 7 interviews. There were some people in my program with up to 13 interviews. I don't know if they applied to 25 sites or not. They did have a mix of APA and non-APA sites on their lists. I chose to only apply to APA approved sites. I'm not sure if that makes a difference in interview %, though I'd guess it does since the APA sites are more competitive generally. The people with over 10 interviews also tended to apply across the country, which made their month of January quite tiring (and expensive).

 

[cmuhooligan]

Do you guys know when sites typically update their information (i.e., brochure for 2009-2010)? I would like to start on my cover letters but I don't want to write them based on information in the old brochures.

 

[psychmama]

I know that many of the sites have already updated their brochures. Also, you may be aware of this already, but each site's page on the APPIC directory shows when it was last updated, making it a bit easier to know if you are working with current information about training directors and the like.

At our last internship application meeting, our DCT really pushed the idea of being as flexible as possible about where we apply, how many sites we apply to, etc. She said "Basically, if you can stand to be there for a year, I wouldn't rule it out." How sad that the "match" process has come to this... Of course, my program is invested in being able to post great match numbers, so they understandably push this philosophy. Still, whatever happened to the concept that the internship is the "capstone" of our training, and should be about our needs as well as the needs of the site?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

.....whatever happened to the concept that the internship is the "capstone" of our training, and should be about our needs as well as the needs of the site?

We had a thread awhile back that talked about this......if you search "internship", it should probably pop up. I think it is a worthwhile thing to talk about again this year, though I want to keep this thread about applying and whatnot.

 

[cmuhooligan]

I know that many of the sites have already updated their brochures. Also, you may be aware of this already, but each site's page on the APPIC directory shows when it was last updated, making it a bit easier to know if you are working with current information about training directors and the like.

That's not quite what I was referring to. I was asking about program's brochures, not their pages listed on APPIC's website. As I'm aware that many sites are updated on APPIC, but have not posted new brochuers on their websites (this is the crucial information needed, as it discusses various rotations in detail).

 

[BellaPsyD]

^if you can't find it on the site's link, then on the APPIC page it will tell you how to contact them for more info- definitely do it. I've already done it for a few sites.

 

[psychmama]

We had a thread awhile back that talked about this......if you search "internship", it should probably pop up. I think it is a worthwhile thing to talk about again this year, though I want to keep this thread about applying and whatnot.

I'm sorry. I did not mean to derail the thread.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm sorry. I did not mean to derail the thread.

No worries! I was just mentioning that not because you were derailing it per se, but because it is a worthwhile discussion if people wanted to talk about it.

 

[dekared82]

Does anyone find Essay 1 (autobiographical statement) difficult to write? I have been contemplating for few hours about how to start it...

 

[cmuhooligan]

Does anyone find Essay 1 (autobiographical statement) difficult to write? I have been contemplating for few hours about how to start it...

I don't think you're alone; I found it the most difficult to write, most likely because it's the most ambiguous.

 

[Cosmo75]

#1 was definitely the hardest for me. I wrote the others first. My first run of essay 1 was nixed by my advisor as too bland, and that it didn't really tell them who I was. One thing I was told to do that worked really well was ask friends, family, etc. who really know you well to send some adjectives or phrases they'd use to describe you. That really helped me write something much more "catchy" and unique. It's tough because you have to balance the TMI factor with being interesting.

 

[dekared82]

#1 was definitely the hardest for me. I wrote the others first. My first run of essay 1 was nixed by my advisor as too bland, and that it didn't really tell them who I was. One thing I was told to do that worked really well was ask friends, family, etc. who really know you well to send some adjectives or phrases they'd use to describe you. That really helped me write something much more "catchy" and unique. It's tough because you have to balance the TMI factor with being interesting.

That's how I am feeling...I want it to stand out and be unique, personal even...but also clearly stating my professional interests; it's definitely hard to balance especially in 500 words.

What's the TMI factor?

Thanks for the responses CMU and Cosmo...glad to hear I'm not alone on this

 

[Cosmo75]

What's the TMI factor?

Too Much Information

 

[psychmama]

I've also been having some troubles with essay 2. I think that's because my theoretical orientation is integrative. When I try to describe this, it sometimes sounds "wishy washy" or like I don't have a cohesive theoretical basis for how I formulate and treat.

I once went on an interview for grad programs where the faculty member said that the concept of eclecticism is like "bad soup" -- with a whole bunch of ingredients thrown in that don't really go together. At times I'm inclined to agree, and yet I often find I blend elements depending on what I think will work best with particular clients. Anyone else have this issue?( Then again, it may just be me...)

 

[dekared82]

I've also been having some troubles with essay 2. I think that's because my theoretical orientation is integrative. When I try to describe this, it sometimes sounds "wishy washy" or like I don't have a cohesive theoretical basis for how I formulate and treat.

I once went on an interview for grad programs where the faculty member said that the concept of eclecticism is like "bad soup" -- with a whole bunch of ingredients thrown in that don't really go together. At times I'm inclined to agree, and yet I often find I blend elements depending on what I think will work best with particular clients. Anyone else have this issue?( Then again, it may just be me...)

I have not begun that essay, but have you tried providing a case example where the integrative approach is particularly useful in conceptualizing the case? It might help readers understand your choice of theoritical orientation.

 

[psychmama]

I have not begun that essay, but have you tried providing a case example where the integrative approach is particularly useful in conceptualizing the case? It might help readers understand your choice of theoritical orientation.

I've actually been considering doing that. I think it might make my approach more concrete. Thanks for the suggestion -- I think I'll try that!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

#1 was definitely the hardest for me. I wrote the others first.

One thing I was told to do that worked really well was ask friends, family, etc. who really know you well to send some adjectives or phrases they'd use to describe you.

I also wrote #1 last. I received feedback from colleagues, friends, and family....and it was helpful, but I still feel I have some tweaking to do. It definitely has taken awhile to take form....start early!

 

[psychanon]

Emailed to the APPIC list tonight:

2008 APPIC Match
Survey of Internship Applicants

September 1, 2008


PART 2: SUMMARY OF APPLICANT PLACEMENT BY
APPLICANT AND PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS


This report is the second of three parts of the results from the
survey of applicants who were registered for the 2008 APPIC Match,
and provides match rates across a variety of applicant and program
characteristics.

Please note that, in many e-mail programs, this message is best
viewed using a fixed-width font.

Please note:

1. Many of these characteristics are likely to be correlated
(e.g., having children, being older, geographic restrictions).
One should not assume cause-and-effect relationships based on
this data.

2. No significance testing has been performed on this data.
Thus, one should not assume that differences are significant.

3. Some results with small n's have not had the match rate
calculated.

4. Applicants who withdrew from the Match or did not submit a
Rank Order List were counted as "unmatched."

5. Match rates are calculated based on the information provided
by respondents to the survey.

All 3,759 applicants who registered for the APPIC Match were sent an
e-mail message (along with two reminder e-mails) about the availability
of the survey at a specific internet address. A total of 2,637
internship applicants (70%) completed some or all of the survey.


1. Placement of Matched Applicants by Type of Doctoral Program

Clin PhD Clin PsyD Couns School
======== ========= ===== ======
Armed Forces Med Ctr 1.2% 3.8% 2.2% 0.0%
Child/Adol Psych/Pediatric 20.7% 14.9% 5.0% 29.2%
Comm Mental Health Center 11.3% 26.5% 13.3% 10.4%
Consortium 12.3% 7.1% 6.5% 19.8%
Medical School 27.2% 6.9% 2.9% 13.2%
Prison/Other Correctional 2.7% 6.9% 2.5% 0.0%
Private General Hospital 7.6% 6.6% 2.2% 2.8%
Private Outpatient Clinic 2.8% 6.6% 2.9% 4.7%
Private Psych Hospital 3.7% 4.7% 2.9% 0.9%
Psychology Dept 2.5% 2.5% 1.8% 1.9%
School District 1.1% 1.4% 0.7% 42.5%
State/County/Oth Pub Hosp 13.5% 13.1% 5.8% 6.6%
University Counseling Ctr 4.9% 13.6% 51.8% 0.0%
VA Medical Center 25.3% 10.5% 16.5% 0.0%
Other 2.6% 4.7% 2.2% 9.4%

NOTE: Respondents were permitted to provide multiple responses
in defining the setting of their placement; thus, columns add
to more than 100%. Combined programs omitted due to small n.


2. Type of Doctoral Program

Clinical Match rate = 79% n = 2091
Counseling Match rate = 86% n = 328
School Match rate = 84% n = 127
Combined Match rate = 82% n = 62


3. Degree sought:

Ph.D. Match rate = 84% n = 1521
Psy.D. Match rate = 76% n = 1104


4. Accreditation (APA or CPA) status of doctoral program:

Accredited Match rate = 81% n = 2488
Not Accredited Match rate = 60% n = 139


5. Location of doctoral program:

United States Match rate = 80% n = 2525
Canada Match rate = 86% n = 80
Other Match rate = 61% n = 18


6. Doctoral program housed within a religiously-affiliated
institution?

Yes Match rate = 83% n = 356
No Match rate = 80% n = 2256


7. Model of doctoral program:

Scientist-Practitioner Match rate = 84% n = 1292
Practitioner-Scholar or Match rate = 75% n = 1005
Scholar-Practitioner
Practitioner Match rate = 73% n = 30
Clinical Scientist Match rate = 84% n = 116
Local Clinical Scientist Match rate = 77% n = 56
Other Match rate = 81% n = 126


8. Years enrolled in current doctoral program (includes the
current academic year; excludes other graduate programs;
does not include year of internship):

2nd Year Match rate = 67% n = 24
3rd Year Match rate = 78% n = 362
4th Year Match rate = 80% n = 1106
5th Year Match rate = 83% n = 749
6th Year Match rate = 84% n = 255
7th Year Match rate = 82% n = 81
8th Year or greater Match rate = 64% n = 50


9. Status prior to entering current doctoral program:

No prior graduate training Match rate = 82% n = 1533
Master's degree in psychology Match rate = 80% n = 618
Master's degree in mental health Match rate = 78% n = 215
field other than psychology
Master's degree in unrelated field Match rate = 69% n = 81
Enrolled in Master's program in Match rate = 73% n = 67
psychology but did not receive
a degree


10. Size of doctoral class (i.e., number of students who
began doctoral program in the same year as respondent)

1 - 10 students Match rate = 85% n = 1208
11 - 20 students Match rate = 80% n = 482
21 - 30 students Match rate = 75% n = 335
31 - 40 students Match rate = 70% n = 138
41 - 50 students Match rate = 78% n = 130
51 - 60 students Match rate = 68% n = 79
61 - 70 students Match rate = 79% n = 52
71 - 80 students Match rate = 76% n = 63
81 - 90 students Match rate = 72% n = 36
91 - 100 students Match rate = 71% n = 49
101 and greater Match rate = 83% n = 37


11. Number of times participating in Match:

First time in Match Match rate = 81% n = 2392
Second time in Match Match rate = 76% n = 220
Third time in Match Match rate = 78% n = 9
Fourth time in Match n = 2


12. Response to the following item: "My doctoral program
faculty provided a high level of support for my
internship application and interview experience."

Strongly Agree Match rate = 86% n = 953
Agree Match rate = 80% n = 811
Neutral Match rate = 83% n = 336
Disagree Match rate = 74% n = 353
Strongly Disagree Match rate = 58% n = 169


13. Age of applicant:

Ages 23-25 Match rate = 80% n = 225
Ages 26-30 Match rate = 84% n = 1504
Ages 31-35 Match rate = 81% n = 477
Ages 36-40 Match rate = 68% n = 153
Ages 41-45 Match rate = 74% n = 73
Ages 46-50 Match rate = 55% n = 55
Ages 51-55 Match rate = 52% n = 48
Ages 56-60 Match rate = 76% n = 17
Ages 61+ n = 6

NOTE: These results should be interpreted
cautiously. There are many variables that may be
correlated with age (e.g., geographic restrictions,
having children, number of sites to which one applied).
Thus, the differences observed above, if significant,
may be due to factors other than (or in addition to)
age.


14. Number of dependent children living with applicant:

None Match rate = 82% n = 2180
One or more Match rate = 74% n = 370


15. Number of adult dependents living with applicant:

None Match rate = 81% n = 2417
One or more Match rate = 67% n = 116


16. Current marital or relationship status:

Married/partnered Match rate = 82% n = 1382
Not married/partnered Match rate = 80% n = 1170


17. Country of citizenship:

United States Match rate = 80% n = 2345
Canada Match rate = 85% n = 113
Other Match rate = 85% n = 91


18. Gender:

Male Match rate = 82% n = 540
Female Match rate = 80% n = 2013
Other n = 3


19. Racial/Ethnic identification:

African-American/Black Match rate = 79% n = 154
American Indian/Alaskan Match rate = 75% n = 36
Native
Asian/Pacific Islander Match rate = 76% n = 158
Hispanic/Latino Match rate = 85% n = 187
White (non-hispanic) Match rate = 81% n = 2002
Bi-racial/Multi-racial Match rate = 78% n = 74
Other Match rate = 75% n = 63


20. Sexual Orientation:

Heterosexual Match rate = 81% n = 2343
Gay Male Match rate = 76% n = 58
Lesbian Match rate = 83% n = 59
Bisexual Match rate = 76% n = 72
Other Match rate = 90% n = 10


21. Disability:

None Match rate = 81% n = 2334
Blind/Visually Impaired Match rate = 67% n = 6
Deaf/Hard of Hearing Match rate = 75% n = 8
Physical/Orthopedic Match rate = 73% n = 11
Learning Dis./Cognitive Match rate = 64% n = 33
Chronic Health Cond. Match rate = 78% n = 63
Mental Illness Match rate = 79% n = 29
Other Match rate = 60% n = 20


22. Geographic restriction on internship search:

None Match rate = 83% n = 1265
Due to significant family, Match rate = 70% n = 514
financial, and/or health
considerations
Due to personal preference Match rate = 85% n = 745


23. Completion of comprehensive / qualifying / preliminary
exams:

Prior to submitting Match rate = 82% n = 2122
internship applications
Later Match rate = 70% n = 161


24. Completion of proposal for dissertation or research
project:

Prior to submitting Match rate = 82% n = 1679
internship applications
Later Match rate = 79% n = 641


25. Number of publications listed on vita:

Zero Match rate = 77% n = 1043
One or more Match rate = 85% n = 1294


26. Number of presentations listed on vita:

Zero Match rate = 73% n = 497
One Match rate = 82% n = 254
Two Match rate = 81% n = 240
Three or more Match rate = 84% n = 1339

 

[psychmama]

I got The survey data from APPIC too. It mostly served to stress me out further, although most of the numbers were no surprise. One question -- what do you all make of the lower match-rate for older students and those with children?

 

[psychanon]

I got The survey data from APPIC too. It mostly served to stress me out further, although most of the numbers were no surprise. One question -- what do you all make of the lower match-rate for older students and those with children?

Probably those two items are correlated with other factors, such as geographic restriction (probably the biggest one). Also, maybe when older folks with kids choose programs, they choose ones that are closest to their kids' schools and their spouses' jobs...perhaps leading them to choose not-so-great programs. And for those who are a lot older than average...like those 6 people 61+....I wouldn't count out ageism. But I bet that's not the primary factor.

Here's the next part the survey-- it was sent out a little later. It has some interesting figures.

PART 3: COMPARISON OF APPLICANTS BASED ON DEGREE TYPE


This report is the third of three parts of the results from the
survey of applicants who were registered for the 2008 APPIC
Match, and provides a comparison of applicants based on type of
doctoral degree sought (Ph.D. and Psy.D.).

Please note that, in many e-mail programs, this message is best
viewed using a fixed-width font.

Please note:

1. Many of these characteristics are likely to be correlated
(e.g., having children, being older, geographic
restrictions). One should not assume cause-and-effect
relationships based on this data.

2. No significance testing has been performed on this data.
Thus, one should not assume that differences are significant.

All 3,759 applicants who registered for the APPIC Match were sent
an e-mail message (along with two reminder e-mails) about the
availability of the survey at a specific internet address. A total
of 2,637 internship applicants (70%) completed some or all of the
survey.


1. Training model of doctoral program:

Ph.D. Psy.D.
Scientist-Practitioner 80% 7%
Practitioner-Scholar or 9% 78%
Scholar-Practitioner
Practitioner 0% 3%
Clinical Scientist 8% 0%
Local Clinical Scientist 0% 5%
Other 3% 7%


2. Years enrolled in current doctoral program (includes the
current academic year; excludes other graduate programs;
does not include year of internship):

Ph.D. Psy.D.
2nd year 1% 1%
3rd year 8% 21%
4th year 33% 55%
5th year 37% 17%
6th year 14% 3%
7th or later 7% 2%


3. Status prior to entering current doctoral program:

Ph.D. Psy.D.
No prior graduate training 61% 55%
Master's degree in psychology 22% 25%
Master's degree in mental health 9% 8%
field other than psychology
Master's degree in unrelated field 3% 4%
Enrolled in Master's program in 2% 3%
psychology but did not receive
a degree


4. Size of doctoral class (i.e., number of students who
began doctoral program in the same year as respondent)

Ph.D. Psy.D.
1 - 10 students 74% 8%
11 - 20 students 17% 21%
21 - 30 students 4% 26%
31 - 40 students 2% 10%
41 - 50 students 2% 9%
51 or more 2% 26%


5. Debt accrued to date as a consequence of attending
GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PSYCHOLOGY, including tuition, fees,
living expenses, books, etc. Includes all forms of
debt; does not include undergraduate debt or debt that
is unrelated to graduate training.

Ph.D. Median = $ 40,000
Mean = $ 51,117
S.D. = $ 53,036

Psy.D. Median = $ 110,000
Mean = $ 109,534
S.D. = $ 58,460

Percent of applicants with:

No debt Ph.D. = 22% Psy.D. = 7%
Debt <= $50,000 Ph.D. = 62% Psy.D. = 17%
Debt >= $100,000 Ph.D. = 19% Psy.D. = 64%


6. Types of internship programs that would be considered
acceptable by applicant's doctoral program.

Accredited internship Ph.D. = 99% Psy.D. = 97%
APPIC-member, not accredited Ph.D. = 34% Psy.D. = 81%
Not accredited, non-APPIC Ph.D. = 17% Psy.D. = 36%
Unpaid internship Ph.D. = 19% Psy.D. = 45%


7. Match Rate
Ph.D. Psy.D.
Matched 84% 76%
Not Matched 14% 20%
Withdrew or did not 2% 5%
submit rankings


8. Times participating in the APPIC Match:

Ph.D. Psy.D.
First time 91% 91%
Second time 9% 8%
Third time 0% 0%
Fourth time 0% 0%


9. Percentage of matched applicants that were placed at an
APA- or CPA-accredited program:

Ph.D. = 95%
Psy.D. = 71%


10. Practicum hours and testing reports reported on the AAPI:

Ph.D. Psy.D.
Intevention & Assessment Hours
Median 833 726
Mean 943 799
St. Dev. 616 383

Supervision Hours
Median 390 313
Mean 428 354
St. Dev. 221 192

Adult Testing Reports
Median 6 6
Mean 21 20
St. Dev. 78 74

Child/Adolescent Testing Reports
Median 5 5
Mean 14 13
St. Dev. 33 39


11. Number of applications submitted:

Ph.D. Median = 13.0
Mode = 15.0
Mean = 13.2
S.D. = 5.0

Psy.D. Median = 15.0
Mode = 15.0
Mean = 15.0
S.D. = 6.3


12. Number of interviews offered:

Ph.D. Median = 7.0
Mode = 6.0
Mean = 6.8
S.D. = 3.7

Psy.D. Median = 5.0
Mode = 4.0
Mean = 5.9
S.D. = 3.9


13. For matched applicants - setting to which they were
matched (respondents were instructed to check all
that applied):

Ph.D. Psy.D.
Armed Forces Medical Center 1% 4%
Child/Adol. Psychiatric/Pediatrics 18% 16%
Community Mental Health 12% 26%
Consortium 12% 7%
Medical School 20% 7%
Prison / Other Correctional 3% 7%
Private General Hospital 6% 7%
Private Outpatient Clinic 3% 7%
Private Psychiatric Hospital 3% 5%
Psychology Department 2% 2%
School District 5% 2%
State / County / Other Public Hosp. 11% 13%
University Counseling Center 15% 13%
VA Medical Center 21% 11%
Other 3% 5%


14. Rank of program to which applicant was matched:

Ph.D. Psy.D.
#1 choice 50% 44%
#2 choice 21% 24%
#3 choice 12% 13%
#4 choice 7% 8%
#5 choice 4% 5%


15. Age of applicant:

Ph.D. Median = 30.3
Mode = 29.0
Mean = 28.0
S.D. = 5.5

Psy.D. Median = 30.8
Mode = 28.0
Mean = 26.0
S.D. = 7.1

Percent of applicants who were:

Age 25 or less Ph.D. = 6% Psy.D. = 13%
Age 40 or older Ph.D. = 6% Psy.D. = 12%
Age 50 or older Ph.D. = 2% Psy.D. = 4%


16. Gender

Female Ph.D. = 79% Psy.D. = 79%
Male Ph.D. = 21% Psy.D. = 21%


17. Racial / Ethnic identification:

African-American/Black Ph.D. = 7% Psy.D. = 5%
American Indian/Alaskan Ph.D. = 2% Psy.D. = 1%
Native
Asian/Pacific Islander Ph.D. = 7% Psy.D. = 6%
Hispanic/Latino Ph.D. = 6% Psy.D. = 9%
White (non-hispanic) Ph.D. = 78% Psy.D. = 78%
Bi-racial/Multi-racial Ph.D. = 3% Psy.D. = 3%
Other Ph.D. = 2% Psy.D. = 3%


18. Sexual Orientation:

Heterosexual Ph.D. = 92% Psy.D. = 93%
Gay Male Ph.D. = 2% Psy.D. = 2%
Lesbian Ph.D. = 3% Psy.D. = 2%
Bisexual Ph.D. = 3% Psy.D. = 3%
Other Ph.D. = 1% Psy.D. = 0%


19. Disability:

None Ph.D. = 94% Psy.D. = 93%


20. Geographic restriction on internship search:

None Ph.D. = 50% Psy.D. = 50%


21. Of those who reported a geographic restriction, the reason
for the restriction:

Due to significant family, Ph.D. = 35% Psy.D. = 46%
financial, and/or health
considerations

Due to personal preference Ph.D. = 61% Psy.D. = 52%

 

[psychmama]

Probably those two items are correlated with other factors, such as geographic restriction (probably the biggest one). Also, maybe when older folks with kids choose programs, they choose ones that are closest to their kids' schools and their spouses' jobs...perhaps leading them to choose not-so-great programs. And for those who are a lot older than average...like those 6 people 61+....I wouldn't count out ageism. But I bet that's not the primary factor.

Yes, that's my thought too -- that there are a number of factors inter-correlated with age, and ageism is only a factor in extreme situations. In addition to geographic restrictions on choosing internship sites, older students often has more limited options in terms of the grad program they end up at, as well as how many "extras" (clinical, research) they can take on. All of these may play a role in making them less attractive candidates.

Still...it makes me question the best way to "package" myself on the applications. In some ways, being older gives you great life experiences to talk about. At the same time, if you overdo it, you risk highlighting your age. Like it or not, some people are prejudiced against older students. Of course, some sites may assume that "non-traditional" age students must be highly motivated and disciplined to have made it through grad school, making them more attractive.

Bottom line for me, I think, is that you can really over-think this internship application process. Maybe it's best at some point to just let the chips fall where they may?

 

[psy86]

Do your programs provide any support for the internship application process? Like... meetings? Or... information?

There seems to be nothing at all available here; I'm piecing it together myself through workbooks etc. and have set up an individual meeting with the DCT. But I'm feeling kind of annoyed that the program is doing absolutely nothing at all proactive to help us. Is this typical?

 

[Ollie123]

We have two meetings a year. One early on to discuss the application process, and one at the end where people who successfully matched share their secrets and what they learned about the process. No idea if that's normal or not.

 

[cmuhooligan]

Do your programs provide any support for the internship application process? Like... meetings? Or... information?

There seems to be nothing at all available here; I'm piecing it together myself through workbooks etc. and have set up an individual meeting with the DCT. But I'm feeling kind of annoyed that the program is doing absolutely nothing at all proactive to help us. Is this typical?

My program has 3 meetings in the fall for those applying, as well as conducting mock interviews. Overall, students have found this to be very helpful.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My program has a number of meetings (some more helpful than others). There are a bunch of resources they put together...though I still think there is room for improvement. I have a couple of professors who are helping me with site selection and reviewing my CV, but that is because I actively sought them out.

 

[psy86]

Heh, thanks guys. I don't expect things to change around here, but at least I feel justified in my disgruntlement.

 

[psychanon]

My program has one of those meetings where the people who just applied share their experiences and tips. Nothing more. I guess it'd be nice to have on more meeting, but honestly having anything too frequent would cut into the time I need to spend doing other things too much.

PS- to Psy86-- For what it's worth, I think having a bunch of meetings not only take up a lot of time but would foster anxiety more than anything else. But if you think you need more help than you're getting, you can always try bringing your questions here and we can try our best to help each other!