2011-2014 Internship Match Statistics (by program & state)

[Therapist4Chnge]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hot off the (electronic?) presses….

2011-2014 Match Statistics: (by program) and (by state)

Let the discussions begin!

 

[cara susanna]

They have APA rates now! It's like Christmas (only deeply depressing!)

 

[psychtalk1274]

The only other thing I'd wish they would add is a column for post mast vacancy matches. that would move a particular school from 75% (3 out of 4 matching) to 100% at an apa accredited internship site.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'd like to point out everyone's favorite program (and Google Ads regular) Cal Southern had an awesome 0% match rate. *shocked face*

 

[erg923]

That cal southern thread was kick ass!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Woo, I'm actually included as a data point now.

I agree that including phase II data would be nice, though.

 

[psych84]

Didn't realize Canadian Uni's are included..look at our awesome match rates!

 

[Ollie123]

It's like Christmas (only deeply depressing!)

On a more serious note - these data seem about right. Having the APA-specific data in there really highlights the discrepancies in match rates even further. Of the "usual suspects" that appear to have decent match rates, the APA match rates are often miserable.

 

[psych84]

Didn't realize Canadian Uni's are included..look at our awesome match rates!

 

[cara susanna]

Woo, I'm actually included as a data point now.

I agree that including phase II data would be nice, though.

That was a weird thing for me. Like, they're numbers on the .pdf but I know exactly who they are (including myself).

 

[psychrat]

Some of the professional schools have over 70 students applying each year. That is disturbing- they are flooding the application pool.

 

[cara susanna]

I had no idea there were so many Alliants until I scrolled through that document.

 

[PsychBiker]

Some of the professional schools have over 70 students applying each year. That is disturbing- they are flooding the application pool.

Even though I have met students from Argosy while at a practicum and already knew this, I am still baffled by the size of their cohorts. The people in these cohorts don't even all know each other - can you imagine that? My old cohort was like a family...

 

[PsychBoxe]

An important, somewhat obvious topic, just outside of the match - At least one professional school (one close to where I live) encourages a 2 year, part-time non-accredited internship rather than entering the match. Therefore, their cohort is considerably larger than the number of students who enter the match.

 

[WisNeuro]

Woohoo, my alma mater is rocking a 96% APA match rate in that time!

 

[psych84]

Woohoo, my alma mater is rocking a 96% APA match rate in that time!

Mine..15 attended, 14 matched, 1 didn't, all 14 attended accredited internship.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

The only other thing I'd wish they would add is a column for post mast vacancy matches. that would move a particular school from 75% (3 out of 4 matching) to 100% at an apa accredited internship site.

The Site where I matched had applied for APA accreditation and after several reviews they were approved two years later retroactive to 2010. However, these statistics do not reflect that it became APA accredited as I was the only student to obtain an APA accredited internship in my cohort. Apparently these statistics do not reflect post match as everyone in my cohort found an internship.

 

[erg923]

The ability to scramble after the fact and slide into a spot likley reflects applicants factors more than program factors. I think not including post-match is likley because it better reflects program factors/quality.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The ability to scramble after the fact and slide into a spot likley reflects applicants factors more than program factors. I think not including post-match is likley because it better reflects program factors/quality.

I would agree with the post-match numbers (plus, those might be tough to track). But I think including Phase II data (perhaps in separate columns) seems feasible, given that it's all also automated/computerized now.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I wish the data were in a spreadsheet, as an addendum at least….as having each program take up a page is a tough way to evaluate across programs.

 

[psychrat]

Mine..15 attended, 14 matched, 1 didn't, all 14 attended accredited internship.

My program too, only I am the one person who did not match.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Random first thoughts:

- The 4-year range makes the percentages a little deceiving
- so many random schools (e.g, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY (INDIA), ANDREWS UNIVERSITY (BERRIEN SPRINGS, MI))
- many new unaccredited programs and newly accredited programs I have never heard of
- I can't believe certain schools actually matched people to accredited internships (e.g, California Institute of Integral Studies, Capella)
- Looks like the Chicago School of Prof Psych in LA matched people despite being sued by their students

I think the bottom line, most telling stat is the percentage of students receiving accredited internships. This, however, only provides the percentage of students applying that receive any APPIC/APA internship followed by the percentage of those internships that are accredited.

Generally, there are unaccredited programs that still place students into accredited sites. This actually surprised me and make me think the match the statistics can be improved once unaccredited programs are no longer allowed to participate in the match in 2018. I would love to get the number if unaccredited programs' students registering for match and actually matching (to both accredited and unaccredited sites). Unfortunately, most likely these spots will move into the secondary internship market that we have little knowledge about.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

- Looks like the Chicago School of Prof Psych in LA matched people despite being sued by their students

IIRC…8% match rate? What a mess out there. I'm actually surprised more of the questionable programs haven't been sued.

I think the bottom line, most telling stat is the percentage of students receiving accredited internships. This, however, only provides the percentage of students applying that receive any APPIC/APA internship followed by the percentage of those internships that are accredited.

Remember…APPIC membership is not an accreditation, it is a membership. The only accredited programs in the APPIC match are APA / CPA (Canada)…so that % is matched to APA/CPA.

I would love to get the number if unaccredited programs' students registering for match and actually matching (to both accredited and unaccredited sites). Unfortunately, most likely these spots will move into the secondary internship market that we have little knowledge about.

I've written on this before, and it was really difficult to get any kind of #'s on the secondary internship market. To get a TRUE handle on the imbalance all of those students needs to be included, not just APPIC students. There has been mention on here and on the listservs that some programs encourage their students to skip APPIC all-together. It is more than a bit concerning that we as a field don't know these numbers. A few years back CAPIC disclosed their #'s in a presentation, but I haven't seen anything recently. If anyone has this info from the past 2-3 years, I'd love to see it.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Remember…APPIC membership is not an accreditation, it is a membership. The only accredited programs in the APPIC match are APA / CPA (Canada)…so that % is matched to APA/CPA..

perhaps I was being unclear. Forest Institute's APA match rate for the 4 years is 25%. That is the following formula:
(Match to APA site only) / (Total Match to APA/APPIC sites) x 100% = 25%

However, I would prefer that the more telling statistic is provided:
(Match to APA site only) / (Total Applicants) x 100% = 19%

Here is a particularly slanted presentation. Alliant LA's PsyD program is currently at a 4 year mark of 50%, which is pretty horrendous. However, we have seen a world of posters come to this board thinking a 50/50 chance is worth taking. However, if data were presented clearly showing the percentage of students that received APA accredited internships (out of total registered applicants) it would be 23%. Maybe that would be much more sobering for the applicant.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, I agree. It clouds numbers a bit. Many schools (mine included) won't actually let us go to sites that are not APA accredited. Those that have "agreements" set up at non-accredited sites for their weaker students (I'm looking at you Alliant) definitely have their numbers inflated (although even with the inflation the numbers are terrible).

 

[erg923]

What's that "transpersonal" schools status?

 

[cara susanna]

What's that "transpersonal" schools status?

0% APA. 50% non-APA.

 

[463951]

Yeah, I agree. It clouds numbers a bit. Many schools (mine included) won't actually let us go to sites that are not APA accredited. Those that have "agreements" set up at non-accredited sites for their weaker students (I'm looking at you Alliant) definitely have their numbers inflated (although even with the inflation the numbers are terrible).

Agreements? Like a consortium?

 

[463951]

Generally, there are unaccredited programs that still place students into accredited sites. This actually surprised me and make me think the match the statistics can be improved once unaccredited programs are no longer allowed to participate in the match in 2018. I would love to get the number if unaccredited programs' students registering for match and actually matching (to both accredited and unaccredited sites). Unfortunately, most likely these spots will move into the secondary internship market that we have little knowledge about.

Are these unaccredited schools required to tell students about this? For example, let's say a student was starting at one of these schools this Fall, and of course the school will spew all the typical crap -- "we'll get accreditation by then" (maybe they will, maybe they won't). But surely they have to tell students they will not be able to participate in the match if they remain unaccredited in 2018?? Not saying that these schools have morals, but I am looking at it from a legal standpoint. Couldn't they get sued?

Furthermore, if these schools are required to tell students about not being able to participate in the match, it will dissuade students from attending, and these schools will die out, which will help with the internship imbalance.

 

[Spydra]

I too am wondering if unaccredited schools will be telling prospective and new students about the 2018 changes or risk potential litigation. Something tells me that some of them will just work harder to meet bare minimum APA standards so that they can become accredited.

 

[WisNeuro]

Agreements? Like a consortium?

Captive internships, agreements with PP individuals, there are many ways to get around it.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I too am wondering if unaccredited schools will be telling prospective and new students about the 2018 changes or risk potential litigation. Something tells me that some of them will just work harder to meet bare minimum APA standards so that they can become accredited.

I have no idea how these programs will handle the change. My guess is that the biggest offenders will likely not care.

I used Alliant LA PsyD again (randomly chosen), which is actually accredited. Here is the # of students that even registered for APPIC match:

2011 - 12
2012 - 14
2013 - 33
2014 - 40

Here is the C-20 data from their website (http://www.alliant.edu/documents/cspp/domain-g/lapsyddomaing.pdf):

2011 - 136
2012 - 99
2013 - 65
2014 - not yet posted

Just using this single-case example, for an accredited program, only about 20% of students even registered for the match between 2011 & 2013. Out of those, only 13 students matched to an accredited internship (4.3%, now that is a telling statistic).

In my view, a program isn't going to concentrate too much on the match if only 20% of the students are registering for it and less than 5% are being matched to accredited sites. I would imagine the issue would be even of less interest for an unaccredited program.

Alliant San Diego PsyD has similar poor numbers: 24% registered for match and 5.2% matched to accredited positions.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Gotta love CA prof schools. 🙁

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I would love to get the number if unaccredited programs' students registering for match and actually matching (to both accredited and unaccredited sites).

I guess someone out there was actually listening to me
http://mitch.web.unc.edu/files/2013/10/MatchRates.pdf

This is for match rates to accredited internships out of total registered applicants

All Programs - 66.58 (30.13)
All PhD Accredited - 81.48 (18.24)
All PhD Unaccredited - 26.46 (35.55)
All PsyD Accredited - 47.33 (23.38)
All PsyD Unaccredited - 7.58 (11.43)

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I guess someone out there was actually listening to me
http://mitch.web.unc.edu/files/2013/10/MatchRates.pdf

This is for match rates to accredited internships out of total registered applicants

All Programs - 66.58 (30.13)
All PhD Accredited - 81.48 (18.24)
All PhD Unaccredited - 26.46 (35.55)
All PsyD Accredited - 47.33 (23.38)
All PsyD Unaccredited - 7.58 (11.43)

Wow, that bolded number is actually the one that's most surprising to me. We know there are a handful of "severe offenders" when it comes to the internship imbalance, and that the majority of these programs offer the Psy.D., but I didn't realize the overall average was that much lower than for accredited Ph.D. programs.

 

[WisNeuro]

Funded, Accredited Ph.D programs are where it's at.

 

[CaliMac]

Alliant San Diego PsyD has similar poor numbers: 24% registered for match and 5.2% matched to accredited positions.

I attended their orientation last year and was told, after I specifically asked, that they encourage CAPIC internships and that the internship balance is due to many sites being unable to meet the payment requirement specified by the APA.

 

[WisNeuro]

That still wouldn't explain the discrepancy between degrees and matching. Why not the more parsimonious explanation that they have a ton of students and few of them stand out when compared to other applicants?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I attended their orientation last year and was told, after I specifically asked, that they encourage CAPIC internships and that the internship balance is due to many sites being unable to meet the payment requirement specified by the APA.

My take: I hope they weren't implying this is a bad thing. After all, I wouldn't want sites that can't meet those payment requirements (which are already low) offering internships.

 

[Icculus8]

These numbers worry me because I feel like I could have easily been tricked by schools when going through the application process. I knew at the time how important the match statistics were, but I honestly was not as well versed in exactly all of the finer details about the match, accredited internships, etc. That is my fault for not doing my due diligence, but it makes me wonder how many students are misled by schools boasting about 'match rates' without expanding on or focusing on the differences in opportunities available after not completing an APA accredited internship. All things considered, I am extremely proud but also perhaps somewhat lucky that I ended up at a university that has achieved a 100% accredited internship match rate, but I look forward to seeing how the field progresses

 

[CaliMac]

My take: I hope they weren't implying this is a bad thing. After all, I wouldn't want sites that can't meet those payment requirements (which are already low) offering internships.

I may have misunderstood, but I felt they implied that it was unrealistic to require paid internships, as though the rules were unnecessarily stringent and negatively impacting deserving candidates.

Have I thanked you all lately for opening my naive eyes?

 

[CaliMac]

That still wouldn't explain the discrepancy between degrees and matching. Why not the more parsimonious explanation that they have a ton of students and few of them stand out when compared to other applicants?

Oh silly WisNeuro, this is California. You totally don't know about life here. CAPIC is all we need! Who would care about employability in another state?

 

[MCParent]

I may have misunderstood, but I felt they implied that it was unrealistic to require paid internships, as though the rules were unnecessarily stringent and negatively impacting deserving candidates.

Have I thanked you all lately for opening my naive eyes?

The lower end of allowable pay is not the largest part of the expenses of interns. Interns require space, supervision (meaning opportunity cost for those supervising), didactic training (more opportunity cost), self-study time for accreditation (massive opportunity cost), equipment, HR/logistic support, costs incurred during interviewing, etc. I've never bought the contention that the stipend limits site growth.

 

[docma]

The lower end of allowable pay is not the largest part of the expenses of interns. Interns require space, supervision (meaning opportunity cost for those supervising), didactic training (more opportunity cost), self-study time for accreditation (massive opportunity cost), equipment, HR/logistic support, costs incurred during interviewing, etc. I've never bought the contention that the stipend limits site growth.

As M.C. Parent points out stipends are not the sole obstacle, but that alone can be a major barrier for sites. All the other elements he lists are critical and in these times many excellent clinical settings cannot rally the resources to establish or expand internships. It is a major accomplishment and often the result of a decade's work to simply become accredited.

The professional schools should be required to establish and fund internship sites, open to all candidates, with positions equal in number to their annual internship cohort.