Hello everyone
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
Dr. Ian R. Nicholson, C.Psych.