2011 APPIC Internship Application Thread

[IsItOver]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Someone asked about cover letters. This is from the Appic website:

"You need to prepare only a single "generic" cover letter to be used when submitting applications in Phase II. Contrary to the approach used in Phase I, in Phase II it is not necessary for you to customize your cover letter to each site, nor will sites expect you to do so. Some applicants may choose to develop more than one "generic" cover letter if they will be applying to different types of sites in Phase II.

There is one exception: Sites that have vacancies in more than one program/track (or sites that otherwise need to know specifics about the program(s) or track(s) to which applicants are applying) may ask applicants to specify in their cover letters the program(s) to which they are applying. Such requests will be publicized via the late-breaking news service, described above. In those situations, you should create a separate cover letter for that site (consisting of the "generic" text along with an additional sentence or two that conveys the information needed by that site)."

One reality of the match imbalance is that there is disadvantage in going into the match before your 5th year and without significant progress on the dissertation. I believe way too many students have been led to believe that they can/should be able to complete all the requirements, including internship, within 4 years. Most traditional university based programs do not encourage this belief, I don't think. However, there is some tendency within the professional school model to support the idea that this will be easy to do when in fact it is not in the current supply/demand circumstances, unless there is a captive internship program available or you are willing to relocate.

At my school we can apply in our 3rd year! A few people match... lol

Idk but I would think the imbalance is more to blame in that it creates a scenario where well-qualified applicants basically lose at a game of musical chairs because their simply are not enough positions. The computer system seems to be one of the only saving graces to the process given that it tries to match the applicant to the highest site on their list. Is there something I am overlooking?

While it is easy to blame a non-human, impersonal element, the computer system does actually work in the favor of applicants. Unfortunately, sites are interviewing 40-80 ppl usually for something like 5-10 slots. The numbers just aren't in our favor... 😎

I hope everyone used the post-match survey to express their outrage at the current internship imbalance. I used this as an outlet to voice my support of limiting program's incoming class sizes until they are able to improve their match rates.

 

[ThisIsCrazy]

I don't write this to piss anyone off, but to try and offer some support and perspective. I did match so I have NO IDEA how each of you feels right now but even thinking about not matching makes me nauseous so I'm sure if you take that times about 100 million that is how awful not matching feels.

However, I think it is very important to revisit your application, history, interviews, etc. even if you think you "slipped through the cracks." Which I agree happens every year, however I don't see it as an error in the program or a statistical anomaly. This was my fear and what I envision as an applicant "slipping through the cracks" in the system.

John is a great applicant and he gets 6 interviews, fabulous! He gets great feedback from his sites and they truly view him as a top applicant. But...top applicant doesn't necessary mean guaranteed spot.

Internship A: 3 spots, he gets ranked 4th
B: 2 spots he gets ranked 3rd
C: 1 spot he gets ranked 2nd

and so on. And it's just bad luck that all the spots are filled before they go to him. So he's in the top 15% at all of his sites - so he's a great candidate right? Yes, absolutely, BUT there HAS to be something that differentiates him from the students that got ranked just that little bit higher. Is this scenario highly unlikely? Yes. But I use it to highlight how even if you are an awesome candidate and got lots of interviews and good feedback there are ALWAYS things we can improve and you shouldn't let your anger at the process affect how you move forward to have the most successful results.

Friends of mine that didn't match before contacted training directors of sites they interviewed at and asked for feedback as to what they could do to have been ranked higher or to make themselves more appealing and all received good feedback that ultimately helped them match.

Again, I don't mean this in anyway to be negative and I have no idea what you're going through but just trying to be helpful.

 

[psydtobe]

this may get lost in the shuffle since this thread has switched to more of matching vs not matching. i tried to read all the pages, but i was wondering can i count the hours i did during my practicum for my MA degree? it would not fall under my current doctorate program , but i wonder could it give me an advantage in terms of experience?

 

[AGradStudent]

I am planning to apply next year or maybe wait until my 5th year so please forgive my ignorance of any issues at hand. When you say "the system" do you mean the actual computer-based matching program? Or are you referring to the overall internship imbalance?

That makes a lot of sense. Anyone else have thoughts on this or care to share how many sites they plan to apply to for phase II?

 

[AGradStudent]

Please ignore my previous post above, I quoted the wrong post!

At this point, just one. It's tempting to apply to more, but given what I want to do in the end (neuropsych), I think it's a better decision for me to wait a year if I'm unable to get into a solid neuropsych program this year.

That makes a lot of sense. Anyone else have thoughts on this or care to share how many sites they plan to apply to for phase II?

 

[psydperson]

Please ignore my previous post above, I quoted the wrong post!



That makes a lot of sense. Anyone else have thoughts on this or care to share how many sites they plan to apply to for phase II?

I unfortunately did not match, despite having interviews I thought went really well...
This time around, I am applying to more sites and not geographically limiting myself. Although, I reallyyyyyy want to stay where I am (CA). I would rather take a decent site than have to wait a whole year again.

 

[erg923]

I would just like to add that the computer matching system really has nothing to do with it. It simply follows what the human's have wished. Its the human part, and the simple imbalance part, that is the culprit here.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but its sounds like we have quite a few people here who didn't match despite a sizeable number of interviews (agradstudent, ItIsOver, psydperson, cervello, blindchaos)? Unless these people can really ID certain issues that affected them (or areas of their CV that might be weaker than the avg applicant), I'm afraid we are indeed looking at a "bad luck" situation here due to the numbers. A training model that simply accepts that a large number of well qualified applicants will not match simply due to the numerical impossiblity of doing so is unacceptable. Period.

 

[AGradStudent]

I would just like to add that the computer matching system really has nothing to do with it. It simply follows what the human's have wished. Its the human part, and the simple imbalance part, that is the culprit here.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but its sounds like we have quite a few people here who didn't match despite a sizeable number of interviews (agradstudent, ItIsOver, psydperson, cervello, blindchaos)? Unless these people can really ID certain issues that affected them (or areas of their CV that might be weaker than the avg applicant), I'm afraid we are indeed looking at a "bad luck" situation here due to the numbers. A training model that simply accepts that a large number of well qualified applicants will not match simply due to the numerical impossiblity of doing so is unacceptable. Period.

I agree with you on the "bad luck" because although I am sure there is always room for improvement, anyone I've talked to about not matching who is familiar with my clinical work has been very surprised about the results. While it feels nice to receive some validation, the significant imbalance really has left a lot of incredible applicants unmatched.

 

[aventurine]

At tip for those who have children, especially women: do not mention or refer to being a parent, especially a mother, in your application or at your interviews. Sites are not supposed to discriminate, but I'm sure they do.

I remember it being discussed on match-news some years ago and also have friends and classmates find out the hard way that this can be the kiss of death. I don't know one person for whom mentioning that ended well.

 

[erg923]

Oh good grief Adventurine, thats ridiculous. I am pretty confident that even stone cold internship TDs know that psychologists are actual HUMAN BEINGS! Would you really want to go to an internship site that thinks like this? I am not sure I would "fit" there very well. Chances are that would just be the tip of the iceberg, anyway.

This reminds me of the person who asked if they should take off their wedding band at interviews...good lord. 🙄



PS: Incidentally, I have always thought of mothers as informally trained psychologists anyway. Supervsiors have often commented to the moms in my program how their parenting skills added a bit of maturity, calmness, and realism to their therapy. I have no idea why a TD would view motherhood as a negative thing?

 

[KayJay85]

Match II will consist of 256 spots for 937 Applicants. 72 of the spots are APA accredited positions.

These numbers are atrocious. I'm just thinking out loud here (online ), but many programs require the completion of an accredited internship. This means that many trainees are competing with 936 others for 72 sites. I think that the imbalance culprits (programs pumping insane numbers of applicants into the pool year after year) should be restricted to unaccredited sites from the beginning. Or simply put, programs should comply to a max class size (e.g. no more than 10-12 applicants from their program each year) and should have to demonstrate a solid match rate (> 80%) in order for their trainees to apply to APA accredited sites. Or better yet, de-accredit the culprits. So says this panicked trainee. 😡😡😡

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

A handful of sites may view having children as a risk towards the applicant being able to put in long hours, but I think it is more the rare exception than the rule. Will a site that requires longer hours and more of the intern's time than most have an issue with an applicant who expresses outside responsibilities....maybe. I don't think there would be more than a handful of sites with this issue. Sadly, I think there would be more fellowships with this issue, but that is a discussion for another day.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

For people interested in the imbalance issue...there have been a couple of good threads on the topic, which may be worth a read.

 

[erg923]

A handful of sites may view having children as a risk towards the applicant being able to put in long hours, but I think it is more the rare exception than the rule. Will a site that requires longer hours and more of the intern's time than most have an issue with an applicant who expresses outside responsibilities....maybe. I don't think there would be more than a handful of sites with this issue. Sadly, I think there would be more fellowships with this issue, but that is a discussion for another day.

I'm sure your right, however, I have been lucky enough NOT to be exposed to anyone with this attitude...not in my internship interview sites, nor here in my graduate program. I really think that attitude has lessened considerbaly over the years and isn't really present at many internship sites. However, I did rule-out sending an application to the Harvard/Cambridge program after reading on their website that interns reported working between 55-60 hour each week. The stipend was 19k. Get real...

 

[aventurine]

Oh good grief Adventurine, thats ridiculous...

Ridiculous, but a reality for some. I expect some internship directors may view motherhood (or, at least the responsibilities/issues associated with parenting young children) as negative for the same reasons that some employers view it as negative (less flexibility in terms of hours, more absences due to family illness or family emergencies, potential childcare issues, the notion that the family is prioritized over the workplace).

While this type of discrimination (and, unlike in years past, I actually do not think this, like most biases, is usually conscious or overt) may not be ubiquitous, it's not my impression that it is rare, either. Of the people I know who did not match, most of them were mothers who made reference to having children at some point in the application process--and I 100% do not believe their applications were weaker than those who matched.

So, YMMV, but I would advise a little discretion until after the match. It's easy to say you wouldn't want to intern at a site that had this type of attitude, but most would choose a less-than-ideal match to none at all.

(Plus, I think this is really not so much an issue once you're actually in, as they have time to get to know you and your work and see that you're as dedicated as anyone, but more so during the selection process.)

 

[aventurine]

I have been lucky enough NOT to be exposed to anyone with this attitude...not in my internship interview sites, nor here in my graduate program.

I don't think this is the kind of thing that will be explicit, in this day and age. I don't think TDs or supervisors are likely to express anything of the sort. That doesn't mean those perceptions or biases aren't there on some level and that they don't affect rankings. I have not encountered anyone who demonstrated such an attitude, but that doesn't mean it's 100% eradicated.

I have no qualms about disclosing that I have small children at my workplace, but I wouldn't do it while applying for a position. First impressions count for so much on an interview, so I wouldn't mention anything if I thought there was even a remote possibility it could work against me, especially as you usually don't know what the interviewer is thinking or what their biases, conscious or unconscious, may be.

I'd never heard of anyone taking off a wedding ring for an interview, though!

 

[clinpsych]

I did rule-out sending an application to the Harvard/Cambridge program after reading on their website that interns reported working between 55-60 hour each week. The stipend was 19k. Get real...

I was surprised to see that they had a slot available in Phase II. Now, it makes a bit more sense.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I was surprised to see that they had a slot available in Phase II. Now, it makes a bit more sense.

That workload doesn't sound to be out of the ordinary compared to many of the academic medical centers at which I interviewed (i.e., 10-12 hour days), but the stipend is definitely on the lower side, especially for Boston. Not that even "high-end" stipends pay well, of course.

 

[psych123456]

at phase I CHA stipend was 23.5$ not 16

 

[AcronymAllergy]

at phase I CHA stipend was 23.5$ not 16

Hmm, perhaps the extra spot was opened up after-the-fact, then; or was not included in the initial match due to the lower stipend and the idea that this would've made it less-desirable.

 

[blindchaos]

I would just like to add that the computer matching system really has nothing to do with it. It simply follows what the human's have wished. Its the human part, and the simple imbalance part, that is the culprit here.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but its sounds like we have quite a few people here who didn't match despite a sizeable number of interviews (agradstudent, ItIsOver, psydperson, cervello, blindchaos)? Unless these people can really ID certain issues that affected them (or areas of their CV that might be weaker than the avg applicant), I'm afraid we are indeed looking at a "bad luck" situation here due to the numbers. A training model that simply accepts that a large number of well qualified applicants will not match simply due to the numerical impossiblity of doing so is unacceptable. Period.

I can only speak for myself here, but I received 7 interviews (for 10 tracks), all APA, and I know for sure that I was ranked for *at least* 4 of those tracks (per each site's own report). While it makes me feel better to know that the interviews did actually go well (and I wasn't just imagining it b/c that's what I wanted to see) and that I was ranked for multiple tracks and I was *that close* to matching, it is also quite frustrating to know that I was *that close* and didn't match. There isn't a single spot open at any of the places I interviewed and only one spot open from places I applied to but did not get an interview (I'm revamping my essays and such and trying again...and of course applying to other places).

I think the biggest problem in my situation was that a lot of the tracks I interviewed for were each accepting 1 person. I like to think that it's possible I was ranked #1 🙂rolleyes🙂 at a site but they were too far down on my list so they matched with their #2 or #3 because that person ranked them very highly.

It's a really frustrating process and the sheer numbers for Phase II make me sick. I didn't make the final cut for the 75% of people who did match...and now I have to be in at least the top 25% of those of us who are left over for a spot anywhere (and that, by the numbers, is likely not APA)?? Ugh 🙁 I know that it doesn't work like that or that I was at the very bottom of the applicant pool as I had a decent number of interviews at very competitive sites and was ranked by at least 4, but it's hard to feel optmistic when looking at the numbers for Phase II...

....that being said, I'm very thankful to be going through Phase II rather than Clearinghouse!

 

[ClinApp]

I think the biggest problem in my situation was that a lot of the tracks I interviewed for were each accepting 1 person. I like to think that it's possible I was ranked #1 🙂rolleyes🙂 at a site but they were too far down on my list so they matched with their #2 or #3 because that person ranked them very highly.

If it makes you feel better, I don't think it's possible for it to work this way (your rankings shouldn't have mattered, unless you didn't rank them at all). However, you could have been ranked #2 at a site but if the person they ranked #1 picked the site, too, and didn't match at one of their own higher-ranked programs, they would get the one available spot. Vying for one spot at a site is very challenging, makes it seem more like a lottery or crap shoot. This must be an incredibly frustrating situation.

 

[blindchaos]

If it makes you feel better, I don't think it's possible for it to work this way (your rankings shouldn't have mattered, unless you didn't rank them at all). However, you could have been ranked #2 at a site but if the person they ranked #1 picked the site, too, and didn't match at one of their own higher-ranked programs, they would get the one available spot. Vying for one spot at a site is very challenging, makes it seem more like a lottery or crap shoot. This must be an incredibly frustrating situation.

Aaaaaaaaand my overly optimistic bubble has just been burst...

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Aaaaaaaaand my overly optimistic bubble has just been burst...

Unfortunately, ClinApp is correct--there's no way the program would have matched a lower-ranked applicant to one of your sites if, by the time the program got to that portion of your list, you were still waiting on a position. You would've bumped out the lower-ranked person, and the program would've then begun working its way down their list.

However, the number of interviews you landed definitely does suggest that your application was appealing. Thus, I'd check with advisors before revamping things too much and potentially fixing something that's not broken. As others have suggested, you could also email some of the TDs at sites where you interviewed and ask what it was that separated their #1's from their #2's and #3's, or if there was anything specific that happened during your interviews resulting in a non-#1 rank. Keep in mind also that with some sites, it's possible they have long-standing relationships with various other programs, and these relationships might be the sole discriminating factor between a tier one and a tier two or three ranking.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I can only speak for myself here, but I received 7 interviews (for 10 tracks), all APA, and I know for sure that I was ranked for *at least* 4 of those tracks (per each site's own report).
I think the biggest problem in my situation was that a lot of the tracks I interviewed for were each accepting 1 person.

....that being said, I'm very thankful to be going through Phase II rather than Clearinghouse!

Your situation was exactly what happened to me during my first application cycle. I landed 7 interviews at top academic medical centers, some with multiple track options....and I came up empty. The "tracks" give you more opportunities to match, but the competition is most likely just as fierce. Many of the top sites don't have to go very far down their list, so being #2 or #3 won't be enough.

Be careful with non-APA sites in Phase II. If you were able to secure 7 interviews at APA-acred sites, you may be selling yourself very short if you accept a non-APA acred site in Phase II. Trust me when I say that I understand the pressure you are facing, but taking a year to strengthen your app may serve you much better in the long run. It stunk to be "behind" my cohort, but now I'm in a great position and I never would have made it hear if I didn't take that extra year to strengthen my application.

...you could also email some of the TDs at sites where you interviewed and ask what it was that separated their #1's from their #2's and #3's, or if there was anything specific that happened during your interviews resulting in a non-#1 rank.

I did this, and it was very very helpful. A few of the TDs provided me with a detailed response about my application, and they pointed out a few things that I could do to address relative areas of weakness. I sat down with my mentor and we discussed the feedback, which was the impetus for outlining my next year's goals.

 

[IsItOver]

this may get lost in the shuffle since this thread has switched to more of matching vs not matching. i tried to read all the pages, but i was wondering can i count the hours i did during my practicum for my MA degree? it would not fall under my current doctorate program , but i wonder could it give me an advantage in terms of experience?

If you look at the AAPI Online it differentiates the hours accrued towards terminal master's degree, versus those accrued towards your doctorate. Hope that helps!

That makes a lot of sense. Anyone else have thoughts on this or care to share how many sites they plan to apply to for phase II?

I'm basically applying to any place I think I may have a chance of placing. In the past I was an "APA-snob," mostly for job and licensing security, and would only consider those. Now I'm also applying to APPIC. No matter what the site is like, I am sure there is SOME state out there that will license me! Down to 50 so far...lol

Any one else having trouble finalizing their generic cover letters? I think my self-esteem took more of a hit than I realized, and I feel like my CL is crap 🙁

 

[blindchaos]

Your situation was exactly what happened to me during my first application cycle. I landed 7 interviews at top academic medical centers, some with multiple track options....and I came up empty. The "tracks" give you more opportunities to match, but the competition is most likely just as fierce. Many of the top sites don't have to go very far down their list, so being #2 or #3 won't be enough.

Be careful with non-APA sites in Phase II. If you were able to secure 7 interviews at APA-acred sites, you may be selling yourself very short if you accept a non-APA acred site in Phase II. Trust me when I say that I understand the pressure you are facing, but taking a year to strengthen your app may serve you much better in the long run. It stunk to be "behind" my cohort, but now I'm in a great position and I never would have made it hear if I didn't take that extra year to strengthen my application.

Thank you for sharing - it made me feel a little better 😳 I'm applying to a lot of places in Phase II (APA and APPIC....and one CPA simply because it would be a great fit even though it presents a whole new set of hurdles), but I'm still making sure that I'm just applying to places that have what I want. There are very very few places left that have *exactly* what I want (the site that didn't offer me an interview in phase I, the CPA one, and one I didn't bother applying to in phase I since I figured I didn't have a chance in h*ll) but there are quite a few that are close enough to what I want that I would still be happy there and continue down the career path that I want. Then I'm just going to see where I get interviews and see how the interviews go and go from there. I may leave out non-APA sites from my rankings if I have enough APA interviews and feel very good about my chances of matching, but I'm guessing I'll throw in a few at the bottom to be safe. Who knows. Need to finish these applications first!

Have any SDN American students matched to CPA (Canadian) program? I'd be curious to hear what your experience has been like (or interview tips and/or logistic info if you just matched there). One program is a strong fit, but I know they prefer Canadians and the internship won't be APA anymore since the APA is no longer covering Canadian internships/programs. In terms of licensure/future jobs in the States, would a CPA internship (that previously had dual APA and CPA accred) be a little easier (in terms of getting a post doc, licensure, and attaining future jobs) than a USA non-APA internship? I'm going to apply to the CPA one regardless and work through the details later if I get an interview and it goes well....but I would certainly appreciate any info from people who have been through it or will be going through it!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

APA and CPA acred. have historically been viewed as equals. With the relatively recent decision to cease acred. across the border, I'm not sure anyone can say for certain that it will/won't change. I have not heard of any problems with APA/CPA acred. for jobs, as both acred. are known and respected.

I believe the issue with CPA sites is their preference/requirement to give Canadian applicants first dibs at the placement. I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that American applicants were at a distinct disadvantage because of this issue, which is why most forego applying to CPA sites.

 

[blindchaos]

I believe the issue with CPA sites is their preference/requirement to give Canadian applicants first dibs at the placement. I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that American applicants were at a distinct disadvantage because of this issue, which is why most forego applying to CPA sites.

The site I'm applying to prefers (but does not require) Canadian applicants and other applicants who are already living in Canada (landed immigrant I think it's called? Landed something...the closest thing a non-Canadian can come to being a Canadian citizen - a foreigner with permanent residency, basically as I understand it). I know I'm at a disadvantage since I am neither of those, but it's a great fit and it's free to apply...so why not? I'm not familiar with the size of the Canadian intern-hopefuls pool, but I am tempted to guess there are not a whole lot left and only a tiny number of landed applicants so...to me it's worth a shot.

Speaking of which....anyone know the status of Canadian applicants (how many are left??)? 😛

 

[blindchaos]

Also...now that the shock of Match Day has worn off (a bit), I had to share this....

Late in the evening on Match Day, after finding out I did not match, I turned my iPod on, turned it on shuffle but made it start on a specific song. I know it's pathetic and cheezy, etc, but there is one particular Mandy Moore song that is just soothing to me - so that's what I had it start on. After listening to that song, my iPod decided that the next song should obviously be "Porn Star Dancing". Thanks for the subtle career change suggestion, iPod! 👍

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Speaking of which....anyone know the status of Canadian applicants (how many are left??)? 😛

Looks like 38.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 APPIC MATCH - PHASE I
STATISTICS FOR APPLICANTS FROM CANADIAN SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS IN CANADA

The number of applicants from Canadian schools who registered for the APPIC Match this year increased by 37 (26%) to 179, while the number of positions in Canada increased by 11 (9%) to 132. A total of 38 applicants from Canadian schools were not matched to an internship position, while 13 Canadian positions remain unfilled.

Here are the changes in numbers of applicants from Canadian schools and positions in Canada as compared to the 2010 APPIC Match:

Applicants: Registered for the Match +37 (+26%)
Withdrew or did not submit ranks +10 (+125%)
Matched +23 (+23%)
Unmatched +4 (+12%)
Positions: Offered in the Match +11 ( +9%)
Filled +9 ( +8%)
Unfilled +2 (+18%)

APPLICANTS FROM CANADIAN SCHOOLS
================================
PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I
------------------------
Applicants Registered in the Match 179
Applicants Who Withdrew or Did Not Submit Ranks 18
Applicants Participating in the Match 161
(includes 2 individuals who participated in the Match as a "couple")

MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I
------------------------
Applicants Matched 123 (76%)
To Canadian Programs 109 (89%)
To U.S. Programs 14 (11%)
Participating Applicants Not Matched 38 (24%)

RANKINGS IN PHASE I
-------------------
Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant:
Matched Applicants 6.5
Unmatched Applicants 3.1
Overall 5.7

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS IN CANADA
=============================
PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I
------------------------
Training Sites Participating in the Match 37
Programs Participating in the Match 61
Positions Offered in the Match 132

MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I
------------------------
Positions: Filled in the Match 119 (90%)
Remaining Unfilled 13 (10%)
Programs: Filled in the Match 52 (85%)
With Unfilled Positions 9 (15%)
Note: 1 program at 1 site submitted fewer ranks than the number of
positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for
2 positions, which remained unfilled.
Positions Filled By Applicants from Canadian Schools 109 (92%)
Positions Filled By Applicants from Non-Canadian Schools 10 (8%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[AGradStudent]

Any one else having trouble finalizing their generic cover letters? I think my self-esteem took more of a hit than I realized, and I feel like my CL is crap 🙁

I feel your pain. I think the devastation that came along with not matching has impacted the way I feel about my CL's now. That, and/or feeling frustrated with having to re-do the work I spent so much time and energy on.

I am so curious about how phase II will work, how many sites applicants are applying to, how many applicants sites will interview, etc. I know there are no real answers because it is the first year with phase II, but I can't help but wonder.

 

[AGradStudent]

Any one else compulsively checking "late breaking news" with the delusion that there will be a large amount of awesome sites added?
😕

 

[JDS1405]

Have any SDN American students matched to CPA (Canadian) program? I'd be curious to hear what your experience has been like (or interview tips and/or logistic info if you just matched there).

I'd like to weigh in on some of this, being from Canada. I'm at an American school and matched to an American site, but I interviewed at a number of Canadian schools so hopefully some of what I've learned will help you. Keep in mind though that I'm learning about the APA/CPA implications as well, so it's still best to get solid answers on anything that will impact your career trajectory. 🙂

In terms of interviewing suggestions, I found that the experience was very similar to interviewing at American sites. The Canadian questions did seem a bit more standardized across sites though - for example, just about all Canadian sites I interviewed at asked about good/bad supervision experiences, ethical dilemmas, a therapeutic case that didn't go so well and what I'd do differently, etc. These are popular questions in and of themselves, but there was something oddly identical about the way each site asked this that makes me think they were using a standardized form (probably CPA-encouraged). Otherwise, the American and Canadian interview experiences were pretty much exactly the same.

APA and CPA acred. have historically been viewed as equals. With the relatively recent decision to cease acred. across the border, I'm not sure anyone can say for certain that it will/won't change. I have not heard of any problems with APA/CPA acred. for jobs, as both acred. are known and respected.

I believe the issue with CPA sites is their preference/requirement to give Canadian applicants first dibs at the placement. I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that American applicants were at a distinct disadvantage because of this issue, which is why most forego applying to CPA sites.

The APA/CPA equality issue is tricky. *Many* people I've spoken to (professors at various schools, Canadian and American) have indicated to me that they consider the two accrediting bodies more or less equal and either would suffice for employment. However, some have also qualified this by saying that there are still some employers in the U.S. that do not recognize CPA. So completing a CPA internship and trying to come back to the U.S. could be a problem, but a relatively rare one depending on the types of jobs you're looking at. VA administrations are the exception, I think, as they specifically require APA accredited internship experience. I doubt they would accept a CPA internship if you plan to apply there for jobs after (but I'm not 100% sure on this).

Also, make sure your doctoral program will accept a CPA accredited internship for your degree. Mine specifically says APA, but they were willing to make the exception if I matched up north.

As for the Canadian preference issue - this wil vary across sites. The Canadian government mandates that employers give first consideration to Canadians (for any field) and if wanting to hire a foreign person, the employer must show that the foreign individual meets the job requirements in ways no Canadian applicant did (from what I gather, this is a fairly easy process for employers). That said, I have been told directly by one Canadian internship TD (and heard indirectly about others) that some Canadian sites do not give preference based on citizenship. They likely have had no problem getting through the government mandate. So my suggestion - unless a site specifically says it will ONLY consider Canadian citizens, go ahead and apply. There is a certain appeal to American-trained students so you might actually be at an advantage (just my experience).

The site I'm applying to prefers (but does not require) Canadian applicants and other applicants who are already living in Canada (landed immigrant I think it's called? Landed something...the closest thing a non-Canadian can come to being a Canadian citizen - a foreigner with permanent residency, basically as I understand it).

This made me laugh. 🙂 "Landed immigrants" - the step before Canadian citizenship. Pretty much the same as being a permanent resident here in the States.

There's only one Canadian site on the Phase II list I interviewed at and I'd be happy to share my experiences if anyone is curious (PM me). It was the London Consortium - they were absolutely amazing so feel free to msg me about them and I'll share. 🙂

 

[AGradStudent]

I wonder how many of the remaining applicants are going to withdraw from phase II ... Being that there is such an imbalance, anything will help 😉

 

[DOCit2me]

I wonder how many of the remaining applicants are going to withdraw from phase II ... Being that there is such an imbalance, anything will help 😉

I like your optimism... Sending all SDN phase II people best wishes!

 

[IsItOver]

I wonder how many of the remaining applicants are going to withdraw from phase II ... Being that there is such an imbalance, anything will help 😉

Hahaha should we start a rumor that ALL the Phase II sites are TERRIBLE and people should just take a yr to strengthen their applications instead of applying? 😉

 

[AGradStudent]

Hahaha should we start a rumor that ALL the Phase II sites are TERRIBLE and people should just take a yr to strengthen their applications instead of applying? 😉

Yes, hadn't you heard? 😉

 

[cervello]

Also...now that the shock of Match Day has worn off (a bit), I had to share this....

Late in the evening on Match Day, after finding out I did not match, I turned my iPod on, turned it on shuffle but made it start on a specific song. I know it's pathetic and cheezy, etc, but there is one particular Mandy Moore song that is just soothing to me - so that's what I had it start on. After listening to that song, my iPod decided that the next song should obviously be "Porn Star Dancing". Thanks for the subtle career change suggestion, iPod! 👍

Mine's not quite as funny, but I had a similar thing happen on Saturday. I was out to dinner with my SO and his family, and I got a fortune cookie that said, "You would do well in the field of computer technology." Good to know!

 

[blindchaos]

Well...I just found out that I literally could not have come closer to matching without actually matching. I know I'm not supposed to know this, but a site that I liked a lot informed me (on their own, I did not ask nor imply that I wanted to know nor did I tell them where I ranked them) that I was #2 for their one and only position. If what I understand from the comments above is correct, they had to have matched with their #1 choice then. I was literally ONE PERSON away from matching.

Makes me feel a LOT better and a LOT worse all at the same time! So freaking close!!!

 

[VeryNearlyThere]

Well...I just found out that I literally could not have come closer to matching without actually matching. I know I'm not supposed to know this, but a site that I liked a lot informed me (on their own, I did not ask nor imply that I wanted to know nor did I tell them where I ranked them) that I was #2 for their one and only position. If what I understand from the comments above is correct, they had to have matched with their #1 choice then. I was literally ONE PERSON away from matching.

Makes me feel a LOT better and a LOT worse all at the same time! So freaking close!!!

That does seem really frustrating, but I hope you hold onto the message that you were considered a great applicant by this site. The positive attitude will only help during this round.

I am still struggling with having matched at my last choice simply because my interview at my top choice seemed to go well. They had positive things to say about my application. It could very well be a similar situation to yours, and I did opt to ask for feedback from this site. I figure it cannot hurt to learn about things I can improve upon. Hopefully, I get a response.

Hang in there, blindchaos.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

That does seem really frustrating, but I hope you hold onto the message that you were considered a great applicant by this site. The positive attitude will only help during this round.

I am still struggling with having matched at my last choice simply because my interview at my top choice seemed to go well. They had positive things to say about my application. It could very well be a similar situation to yours, and I did opt to ask for feedback from this site. I figure it cannot hurt to learn about things I can improve upon. Hopefully, I get a response.

Hang in there, blindchaos.

This seems to just be a natural tendency with many of us highly-competitive academic-type people--a cohort-mate wondered the same when matching to her #2 rather than #1. I've even caught myself doing the same (i.e., "wow, this means I wasn't in their top three") despite feeling very fortunate and pleased to have landed with my second choice. And while information from the TD at your #1 site could be quite informative, especially if you're considering applying to post-docs in the fall, we also have to keep in mind that sometimes it just comes down to circumstance and behind-the-scenes factors (as Jon Snow pointed out).

All in all, it's a crazy and often painful process.

 

[VeryNearlyThere]

This seems to just be a natural tendency with many of us highly-competitive academic-type people--a cohort-mate wondered the same when matching to her #2 rather than #1. I've even caught myself doing the same (i.e., "wow, this means I wasn't in their top three") despite feeling very fortunate and pleased to have landed with my second choice. And while information from the TD at your #1 site could be quite informative, especially if you're considering applying to post-docs in the fall, we also have to keep in mind that sometimes it just comes down to circumstance and behind-the-scenes factors (as Jon Snow pointed out).

All in all, it's a crazy and often painful process.

Overall, I am truly glad I matched, even if not at a top choice. Acronym Allergy and Jon Snow, I think you nailed it on the head with your comments about what traits we commonly possess and the behind the scenes factors. There is not much we can do about the latter.

 

[DOCit2me]

Well...I just found out that I literally could not have come closer to matching without actually matching. I know I'm not supposed to know this, but a site that I liked a lot informed me (on their own, I did not ask nor imply that I wanted to know nor did I tell them where I ranked them) that I was #2 for their one and only position. If what I understand from the comments above is correct, they had to have matched with their #1 choice then. I was literally ONE PERSON away from matching.

Makes me feel a LOT better and a LOT worse all at the same time! So freaking close!!!

Thats great, because at least now you know it wasnt that you are bad at interviewing or anything, it was just that they had only one spot.

 

[widmup]

Above anything, I am grateful and happy that I matched to my third choice 🙂
What I found unsettling was that I checked the positions available for phase II and my second choice site has one unfilled position.... the case being that they only had one position to begin with. This leaves me wondering, what could I have possibly done so wrong that they did not even rank me? 🙁

 

[AGradStudent]

Maybe it is because I really thought I was going to (and should have) matched, but it is pretty frustrating and a bit annoying to read about people who are upset because they matched with their number two site, not number one. I am happy for all who matched, don't get me wrong. I am sure I would be a bit more understanding if I wasn't going through phase II and hoping for a placement, but it is currently a bit difficult to read. Just saying. 🙁

 

[IsItOver]

Maybe it is because I really thought I was going to (and should have) matched, but it is pretty frustrating and a bit annoying to read about people who are upset because they matched with their number two site, not number one. I am happy for all who matched, don't get me wrong. I am sure I would be a bit more understanding if I wasn't going through phase II and hoping for a placement, but it is currently a bit difficult to read. Just saying. 🙁

Here Here! Relax over-achievers!! 😉

Also, remember that not being ranked by a site isn't necessarily indicative of a flaw in YOU. For example, a very well-qualified, strong, independent, outgoing, open-minded friend of mine wasn't ranked by a site at which she interviewed. Upon looking a the site's brochure/website it seems to me that they are...stuffy. You know, stuck-up, holier then thou types (yes, I am assuming - that's all I cna do! lol). Based on this, she would have been a TERRIBLE fit, but what makes her a bad fit is exactly what I LOVE about her! So, to me, though not being ranked blows, in this case it's kind of a compliment 🙂

 

[blindchaos]

Maybe it is because I really thought I was going to (and should have) matched, but it is pretty frustrating and a bit annoying to read about people who are upset because they matched with their number two site, not number one. I am happy for all who matched, don't get me wrong. I am sure I would be a bit more understanding if I wasn't going through phase II and hoping for a placement, but it is currently a bit difficult to read. Just saying. 🙁

I'm right there with ya 🙁 My entire cohort matched except for me, and while I am very very happy for them (and everyone here who matched), it hurts when they complain about getting something other than #1 (I want to yell "at least you got *something*!' Especially if they got #2 or #3. I ranked 10 and didn't get anything). I know some of them really had their hearts set on their #1 (as did I) but at the end of the day, they still matched to somewhere they liked well enough to rank and obviously the site liked them too and I'm left to compete with 900+ people for 200+ spots just so I can have something. My #1? Gone. #2? Gone. #3? #4-10? All are gone.

With that being said, if I had been fortunate enough to match anywhere but did not get my #1, I too would certainly wonder what happened with my top choice and feel a little sad that I didn't get my favorite one. I *DO* wonder what happened there...that's just on top of not matching anywhere.

I think it's really just a difficult position to be in all around. Those who got their #1 are thrilled, and everyone else is left to wonder what happened, even if they did match. I would *love* to be able to complain right now that I got my #2 (or 3 or 4 or 10) instead of my #1, but I can't. I know nobody means any harm, it's just really difficult to hear that right now when there are quite a few of us who still have nothing (and will have nothing until at least March 28).

(....that and I'm feeling unusually bitter today about Phase I so it hurts a little more than usual 👎 That's on me though. Nobody to blame but myself.)

 

[AGradStudent]

I'm right there with ya 🙁 My entire cohort matched except for me, and while I am very very happy for them (and everyone here who matched), it hurts when they complain about getting something other than #1 (I want to yell "at least you got *something*!' Especially if they got #2 or #3. I ranked 10 and didn't get anything). I know some of them really had their hearts set on their #1 (as did I) but at the end of the day, they still matched to somewhere they liked well enough to rank and obviously the site liked them too and I'm left to compete with 900+ people for 200+ spots just so I can have something. My #1? Gone. #2? Gone. #3? #4-10? All are gone.

With that being said, if I had been fortunate enough to match anywhere but did not get my #1, I too would certainly wonder what happened with my top choice and feel a little sad that I didn't get my favorite one. I *DO* wonder what happened there...that's just on top of not matching anywhere.

I think it's really just a difficult position to be in all around. Those who got their #1 are thrilled, and everyone else is left to wonder what happened, even if they did match. I would *love* to be able to complain right now that I got my #2 (or 3 or 4 or 10) instead of my #1, but I can't. I know nobody means any harm, it's just really difficult to hear that right now when there are quite a few of us who still have nothing (and will have nothing until at least March 28).

(....that and I'm feeling unusually bitter today about Phase I so it hurts a little more than usual 👎 That's on me though. Nobody to blame but myself.)

It feels nice to have my feelings and experience validated right now. Thank you. I too have been feeling unusually bitter about phase I and although I try to remain optimistic about phase II, it is definitely difficult to hear people complain about matching at a site.

 

[blindchaos]

Hi Agradstudent,

You don't know how this is going to work out yet. I know I was pretty bummed the year I didn't match, though I expected it (really poor interview skills, as I said; I tend to make some rather comical errors in those situations). However, the clearinghouse spot I got was substantially better than some of the "safety" programs I interviewed at, and on par with the top programs at which I interviewed. I didn't apply there because I had an east-coast bias in my applications (for a few reasons) and you can only apply to so many places. In any case, on reflection, I'm ecstatic I didn't match because I would never have experienced what turned out to be an awesome internship in which I met lots of cool people, got great training, set myself up for additional great training (postdocs), and got to live in a wonderful city.

I think this is a fair point and maybe it will turn out like that for us too (I sure hope so). I'm certainly not throwing in the towel - I'm applying to a lot of places in Phase II and am going to hope for the best. It's just that *right now* it does hurt to hear others complain about matching somewhere other than #1. If Phase II goes really well and I get a spot I want, I'm sure I'll feel differently *then* b/c at least I'll have something. I think I'll even feel at least a tiny bit better (at least in general) once interview offers for Phase II start coming in. Just right now, it's adding to the pain of not matching. I'm not saying don't wonder what happened to #1, just keep in mind that there are plenty of us who would *love* to be in a position to wonder why we got #2-? instead of #1. It does hurt, and while I feel badly for everyone in the same position as I am in, I'm glad I'm not alone in identifying that it hurts. I was devastated when I didn't match and then I got frustrated with people who complained about not getting #1, and then that just made me feel worse (felt guilty about being frustrated with people who did not get their favorite spot).