Last year a match (both APA and non APA) was completely impossible for at least 568 people. Is there anyway to break that number down and see how much/many is spill over from previous years applicants who didnt match? Im curious to see what the increase was (if any) had their not been continuous spill over from previous years. I am also surprised that we produce nearly 4000 psychologists a year in this country. This strikes me as twice as much as what the market can really handle right now? Am I off base here?
Erg, I'm guessing that you are right, that there was quite a few more reapplicants in the pool. Logically, it makes sense that if a higher percentage of people don't match, they would be reapplying again. That being said, however, I doubt that all of the people who did not match end up reapplying. I know that in the area I live in there is a professional school that is not accredited, and their students are not required to do an APPIC internship. Quite a few of their students enter the match each year, some don't match, and often those that don't match find something else to do that will meet the qualifications for their program so they can just be finished. They usually don't stick around for a second match cycle. I imagine it is a similar scenario for students in other non accredited programs without an APPIC requirement. I guess my point, is that the increase in students can not simply be from re-applicants. I also realize this was not what you were saying, and I agree that it would be interesting to find out what percentage of people applying this year make up the difference for the increase in volume.
I think it would also be quite interesting to get concrete data breaking down the possible reasons for this increase. It shouldn't be too hard to show with numbers how the increase in professional schools is related to the increase in applicants (If at all). If this is indeed the reason that there is such an increase, then we are in some very serious trouble in the next couple of years, because since 2007 there have been an increase in programs which means more students jumping into the match process. I also think it would be really interested to look at and see if the increase in applicants is related to the change of the clearinghouse. With the clearinghouse changing it means that students can no longer get shady backdoor internships by JUST applying through the clearinghouse. To be considered for the new 2nd match, you have to be registered for the first.
Sadly, the only attempt to manage this problem thus far has been an increase in non-accredited internship sites (e.g. potential slave-labor positions). That only benefits the sites that receive the free/cheap labor. The only way to make a dent in this trend is to crack down on the professional school programs that are admitting outrageous numbers of doctoral candidates each year.
I agree 100% that the solution can not simply be to increase APPIC sites. I think this would have some serious consequences for both quality training and the services we provide clients. Since I'm going through the Match process right now, there is a small piece of me that would like the sites to just magically increase so that I felt more assured of getting matched and finishing my program. So I sympathize with those who advocate for this. However, this is an incredibly shortsighted solution to a very complex problem.
I wonder if part of the continuing problems regarding the match comes, in-part, from the (unintentional) apathy of us students. For example, when a student matches, how much time and energy do they spend thinking about the match after that Friday in Feb? Probably not alot. I often wonder that after I match (knock on wood, lol), will I continue to have the motivation to make a huge stink about the awful process and lobby for change with the powers that be? I have to say, at this point, I am so eager to get out and get on with my career, my priorities revolve around networking, getting a good job, buying a house, and having children. You, know, "normal stuff," lol. I wonder if others are privy to the same things after the match and if this, possibly, contributes to the relatively unchanged nature of the situation?
I definitely agree that a workforce analysis is DESPERATELY needed. Once we have data to show that the work environment can literally not support the volume of psychologists pouring into the field it becomes leverage to advocate for change.
I hope it is not the case that students become jaded after match, and thus forget about the problem. Truthfully, this problem is not just affecting just the match rates. Rather, the match rate is simply a symptom of a much larger problem. Personally, I think it is a simple reflection that there are so many people entering the field and that the field can not sustain it (evidence again, that would come from a workforce analysis). So, if students finally match, and decide never to think about it again, they are only hurting themselves in the long run because I do believe the entire future of our field is affected by this problem (not to be melodramatic or anything
🙄)
