Here is a really good e-mail from Dr. Ian Nicholson about the application process, small v. big things, and a few other worthwhile tidbits. People can get really particular with how they put their apps together (I was), so I thought some reinforcement of what is important will be useful for those people applying this year.
The bolding is mine, and I also I included some of my comments below. Reading over this was suprisingly therapeutic, as I am in the process of picking out post-doc fellowships for 2010, and I needed to remind myself of what really matters, and what is just my neuroses making an appearance.
-------------------------------------------------------
APPIC INTERN-NETWORK
---
I have been reading the comments on the listserv this year and they are a bit different than what I have seen in previous years. The big new issue this year is the online AAPI. It is more a challenge for students this year than the old form because you don't have the experience of previous students in filling it out. Also, what instructions seem clear to us may not be to someone completing the form who is concerned about filling it out as best as he or she can. I want to thank Karen for her leadership in the development of this form and thank her in advance for the work in shepherding both the applicants and the internship director through the first use of this form.
While it is difficult to make a transition, it is an almost universal truth that anyone who has gone through this in the past has wondered why we were still mired in the paper system and why we did not have an electronic system. It has been a huge job for those at APPIC who have worked on this for years. On a larger note, the discussions on the list have often begun to turn to issues that can seem, to the applicant at the time of potential, if not vital, importance. The concern is that if one were to make a fatal flaw that one would be rejected from the sites they are concerned about. This happens every year.
While some of those earlier discussions are not salient anymore (e.g., what colour paper do you use, do you paperclip or staple), others are still germane (e.g., do you single space or double space, do you put extra spaces between paragraphs). While these may be legitimate questions, please know that they often appear much more important to the applicants than they are to training directors. Personally, I have come to believe that concerns sometimes these concerns sometimes arise from local "urban internship myth" where word will spread around a programme that X or Y needs to be done, "so-and-so was the only applicant from our programme who, a number of years ago, didn't do X or Y in that particular way and he/she didn't get any interviews", or "Didn't you know everybody does X". Anxieties can begin to balloon as a result.
However, issues such as those above mean little, if anything, in the actual process of reviewing the application. Such "rules" are likely more a regional norm than an international training director rule. Please know that, as training directors, these things do not matter much to us. What matters is the content - the content is what reflects who you are, where you are in your training, and where you want to go professionally. I would not worry so much about if these 20 hours should go in this category or that category. Please trust that the form has been developed over many years in such a way as to allow the Training Directors to have a good idea who you are and what are your training needs (if it didn't match our needs, rest assured that training directors would be making requests to APPIC for changes in the AAPI to allow it to better match OUR needs in reviewing it so we can best learn who you are).
A good rule of thumb to follow is: if a programme doesn't explicitly mention it, it likely isn't something to be concerned about. Please know that it does an internship no good to have "secret" or "hidden" criterion that they use to weed out applications. It is in our best interest to be as transparent as possible in what we are looking for. If the material is not on the website or in their brochure, please feel free to email the programme's training director. We all get a number of such requests for information. It is part of what we do. If you get a "snarky" response (which should be a rarity), it will give you an idea of what a year at the site would be like.
One caution, don't feel the need to "have to" email a programme because you might be at risk compared to others who ask questions to the training director before the match. Believe me, whether or not someone has asked questions before does not play a role in our decision making.
Bottom line, if you concerned about how something should be done for a particular site, ask their training director. I would add that it is useful for me to get these questions as it underscores areas where we may have to clarify our application material. This is particularly true this year as many training directors have been slow to update their materials in light of the new format for application.
In other words, what really matters is who you are and what you have done. I will also state that there is often the perception that the more people you have write for you, the stronger you will look. Some people say that a place only asked for three letters but I have four references, so I will look better if I send four. That is NOT the case. Trust that who you are, your strengths as well as your areas for growth and development, can be found by three members of our profession who have had the opportunity to work with you and were a part of your development as a member of our profession.
In general, these are letters of "recommendation". That is, they give the reader a sense of what type of person/professional you are vis a vis what we have to offer. A fourth letter extolling your virtues and strengths adds little, if anything, to your portfolio. Sometimes people say that there is this fourth type of experience they would like to have covered in the
letters. However, the reader of the application will see what type of person/professional you are in the other three recommendations that outline your strengths and your AAPI outlines your clinical experience.
It is probably a question one would ask oneself is, was I so very different as a psychologist-in-training in the four different settings that I require four different letters to show who I really am. If that is the case, the reference letter reader might ask, "why does this candidate come across so differently as a professional when working with different people and different settings that he/she needs four letters to describe who he/she is." In other words, please trust that the three writers really do know you and can adequately reflect on you.
At this stage, you have to trust that your experiences are strong and that your application reviewers know what they are doing (if they don't, do you really want to spend a year there?) Please remember that, as training directors of our internship programmes, we want the best possible match for our site so we can offer the most for the person's development (and the more we can grow and develop from having them with us).
One area that I believe should demand your attention, however, is how you write your AAPI, particularly your essays. It is a demonstration of your writing. AAPI's that are poorly written, with poor grammar and poor spelling are, much to my surprise, much too common. While you may think that these issues should play no role, they do. In particular, they reflect on the amount of care and attention to detail that you have taken in writing your APPI essays.
If you take that little care in your AAPI, the question that follows is: "How much care will you take in your clinical work with our patients if you are here working with us." Another comment I have heard from file reviewers goes something like this: "If this an example of their best writing, how much time and I going to spend on revising their letters and reports before it goes out with my signature on it."
A comment on the length as well. Once again, the model from applicants is sometimes that "more is better". The concern is that 500 words will not allow me to display who I am properly but 550 (or 600 or 750) will allow me. Once again, please trust that your file reviewers will be able to see who you are, even without the capacity to put in that extra 50 or 100 words per essay. Trust that they can see who you in the 500 words and in the types of experiences you have had.
After all the hundreds of hours you have spent in courses and in clinical experience, don't underestimate the importance on how you present that material in the AAPI essays. While I am certain you are well aware of it already, I will reinforce the point of ensuring that you have others review the material and help you revise it before it is sent.
Another issue that I have seen over the years (but I don't believe has come up recently this year) is how to handle personal information. In other words, how much self-disclosure (e.g., psychotherapy history, sexual orientation, religion, marital status, children) is important. On this issue, I tend to go to the issue of how important is the issue to the person. For example, if this is of central importance to you and will influence your work on internship, then it is likely important to mention it.
Will it result in some lowering of your applications in the eyes of some training directors, possibly yes. However, more related to the idea of being true to yourself, unless you plan to hide something the entire year you are on internship, then you should disclose it. If a programme will react negatively to the issue and you might end up there by "hiding" this important aspect of yourself, then you will likely have a negative experience that year (simply because you wanted to go there so bad you hid an important, central part of yourself from you).
This is too important a year to go somewhere where you will not be comfortable for the year and you will not be welcomed for who you really are. For anyone who has not yet started on their AAPI essays, I would strongly advise starting work on them. It may not look like that much to write, but don't let running out of the necessary time to do your best on it hurt your chances in getting the best match possible for your internship year.
I know it is hard to recognize sometimes, but what you have accomplished, what you write, how well you write it, and what people say about you are really what carry the day, not can you capture this 30 hours or which category this 50 hours should be placed. In some ways, please trust in your training and trust in the system. However, when the stakes seem this great and you only have one shot at it, these trusts are hard to come by. As psychologists(-to-be) you know what happens to people under those types of circumstances.
All the best to everyone in the process.
Ian
-------------------------------------------------------
If you didn't notice, you should have your essays well on their way. The essay section is the one area where you can directly speak to the internship committees. Do NOT treat them lightly. I'd suggest you get them reviewed by one of your supervisors, peers, and at least one really good editor.
In my case I had general feedback from a supervisor and redrafted them. Then I floated them to peers and then redrafted. Then I floated them to my supervisor again and then redrafted. Lastly I floated them to a couple of good editors. Even though I consider myself a solid writer, you'll have looked at your essays so much that things drift together, and a good editor can pick little things out that you may have missed. Later on interviews a received a number of comments on my essays, which helped validate the effort put in.
