2011 APPIC Internship Application Thread

[JockNerd]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Yes, the solution proposed by Stedman and colleagues seems viable, practical, and fair. No wonder the APA is ignoring it.

Seriously, though, we all have a duty/responsibilty to light a fire under the collective asses of the APA (and APAGS) until something is done about this. Yes, inidividual's bear a good deal of responsibility for landing in a position where they may time out of their degree. We each had some choice in where we applied, when we applied, how we prepared ourselves beforehand, and our training path while in grad school. However, we cannot legislate the decision-making processes of people who major in psychology without adequate education on what it takes to actually make a living after the bachelor's degree. So the buck has to stop with the predatory programs that take advantage of student ignorance.

Are you writing to the APAGS folks right now? 😛

 

[PsychScience]

If you look at last year's thread there were at least a few people in the boat of NEVER obtaining their degrees. At least one was nearing the end of a student visa I believe, while others were at/approaching the 7-year deadline. For example, you take 5 years to complete your coursework (not so unusual), then don't match the 1st year. That means you HAVE to match the 2nd year or you will never get your degree. Scary... Sure, inidividuals may not be completely innocent in this situation but there are a lot of people who work and/or have families and simply cannot complete a program in 4 years, leaving not-so-much time to get/finish internship.

Sadly, I did see some of those postings (and they did a very effective job of reminding me that even qualified people with more than a few interviews don't match), so I do think it happens, and I feel for those people. However, I think in my previous post I was trying to point out that not every one who does not match this year is in danger of never ever getting their degree. Personally, I feel like I'm in a good position to match this year, but if I don't (and I realize that is also a very real possibility), my program has a strong enough reputation of matching students to APA internships and has provided me with the solid training necessary for internship that I think I would match the next time I would have to reapply. We also don't have some of the time limitations that were mentioned in that thread, so if for some reason I don't match the 2nd time 🙂eek🙂, I still wouldn't be in danger of being booted from the program.

 

[O Gurl]

Are you writing to the APAGS folks right now? 😛

Absolutely. 😉

Well, I will probably just send a copy of the letter I sent to the APA exec office about a week ago (and to which I received no reply).

 

[IsItOver]

Sadly, I did see some of those postings (and they did a very effective job of reminding me that even qualified people with more than a few interviews don't match), so I do think it happens, and I feel for those people. However, I think in my previous post I was trying to point out that not every one who does not match this year is in danger of never ever getting their degree. Personally, I feel like I'm in a good position to match this year, but if I don't (and I realize that is also a very real possibility), my program has a strong enough reputation of matching students to APA internships and has provided me with the solid training necessary for internship that I think I would match the next time I would have to reapply. We also don't have some of the time limitations that were mentioned in that thread, so if for some reason I don't match the 2nd time 🙂eek🙂, I still wouldn't be in danger of being booted from the program.

I think we have a 7 year limit but I'm only a 4th year, so I can fail two more times 🤣

Are you writing to the APAGS folks right now? 😛

Again, this is something I would do if I wasn't such a lazy ass, but I am, so I am going to suggest it in case anyone out there is LESS lazy than I (though I'll try to get inspired during my overnight shift tomorrow): If someone composes a letter which contains our concerns, and the pospotion of utilizing the suggested solution, it can then be distributed for everyone to "sign" and forward. I see this happen quite frequently for other things (letters to governors about saving seat turtles, etc) and it tends to be quite effective. Many more people will forward a letter than will write one. I will happily volunteer to proof-read anything anyone wants to compose (English Minor) 😀

 

[IsItOver]

Absolutely. 😉

Well, I will probably just send a copy of the letter I sent to the APA exec office about a week ago (and to which I received no reply).

Oh! Oh!! Oh!!! I didn't see this until I had posted. But, if you already HAVE a letter.... 😀😀😉

 

[O Gurl]

Oh! Oh!! Oh!!! I didn't see this until I had posted. But, if you already HAVE a letter.... 😀😀😉

Indeed! I like where this is going. I'd be more than happy to send what I have (after I polish it up for mass circulation of course) and maybe we can post it in a thread where people can "sign up" to forward it along to APA....

 

[IsItOver]

So O Gurl and I (mostly O Gurl lol) are going to compose a letter. I'm thinking we will ask people send it to the APAGS director and the APA exec office. Any other suggestions (with email addresses)?

We want to make it available to as many people as possible. Any suggestions on the best way to do this or people who want to come on board and help set that up?


(APA is the donkey, tee-hee)

 

[PsychScience]

So O Gurl and I (mostly O Gurl lol) are going to compose a letter. I'm thinking we will ask people send it to the APAGS director and the APA exec office. Any other suggestions (with email addresses)?

We want to make it available to as many people as possible. Any suggestions on the best way to do this or people who want to come on board and help set that up?


(APA is the donkey, tee-hee)

I think that this is a really great idea, especially since I believe advocacy at the grassroots level is an incredibly important part of resolving this issue. However, I think the content of the letter is probably just as important (if not more so) as the intent of the letter. So, what actually is the request to APA? If it is just to increase internship availability, I don't think this is a viable option. However, I am all about supporting long-term solutions that address the internship imbalance while also preserving the value of a doctorate in psychology and promotes quality training and services. Also, should we be discussing this in the match imbalance thread- I feel a little guilty for being part of derailing this one, oooops! Hard to talk about internship applications though without talking about the match imbalance and the repercussions for the field and the individuals within it.

 

[O Gurl]

I think that this is a really great idea, especially since I believe advocacy at the grassroots level is an incredibly important part of resolving this issue. However, I think the content of the letter is probably just as important (if not more so) as the intent of the letter. So, what actually is the request to APA? If it is just to increase internship availability, I don't think this is a viable option. However, I am all about supporting long-term solutions that address the internship imbalance while also preserving the value of a doctorate in psychology and promotes quality training and services. Also, should we be discussing this in the match imbalance thread- I feel a little guilty for being part of derailing this one, oooops! Hard to talk about internship applications though without talking about the match imbalance and the repercussions for the field and the individuals within it.

I agree in terms of not derailing this thread. If you want to bump another, I am happy to move there or move to PM. The crux of my original letter (which I can retrive from my office computer in the morning) was about raising accreditation standards, so we will have to expand on the internship imbalance (Stedman approach).

 

[PsychScience]

I agree in terms of not derailing this thread. If you want to bump another, I am happy to move there or move to PM. The crux of my original letter (which I can retrive from my office computer in the morning) was about raising accreditation standards, so we will have to expand on the internship imbalance (Stedman approach).

Okay, bumped 🙂

 

[IsItOver]

I think that this is a really great idea, especially since I believe advocacy at the grassroots level is an incredibly important part of resolving this issue. However, I think the content of the letter is probably just as important (if not more so) as the intent of the letter. So, what actually is the request to APA? If it is just to increase internship availability, I don't think this is a viable option. However, I am all about supporting long-term solutions that address the internship imbalance while also preserving the value of a doctorate in psychology and promotes quality training and services. Also, should we be discussing this in the match imbalance thread- I feel a little guilty for being part of derailing this one, oooops! Hard to talk about internship applications though without talking about the match imbalance and the repercussions for the field and the individuals within it.

Agreed, I'm just putting the word out for anyone who wants to get involved (not trying to begin a long convo). Please feel free to PM me or O Gurl with any specifics and I will update the group on major advances, as this topic is obviously coming up repeatedly on this thread.

 

[ADDICTED2STATS]

I have a couple things to post. First, If I enter my rank list, say, today. Can I go back and change things between now and next Wednesday, or is it that once it's entered it's final?

Next, I am having a very difficult time ranking my top sites, I would welcome some opinions on the issue. I have 4 places that are all my top site right now. They vary in terms of training, research opportunities, and prestige. I want to get an academic position once done, so I have been leaning heavily toward the prestige factor (especially since I went to fairly small, non-prestigious, school). At any rate, I feel like one site (or possibly two) would prepare me very well for an academic position, but wouldn't be looked on as favorably as the more prestigious site by future academic employers. A fourth site has the coolest training I have seen at any of the sites, making it very desirable, but doesn't have the prestige or research opportunities offered by the other three. So, when it comes to an academic job, what is key: research/publication history, prestige of the internship/training, training that most people in clin psych never get (which speaks to the ability to add something that few departments have), or a large network of psychologists (both academic & nonacademic) who went to the same site?

 

[nononora]

I have a couple things to post. First, If I enter my rank list, say, today. Can I go back and change things between now and next Wednesday, or is it that once it's entered it's final?

The list can be compiled, entered and edited until you click "List Complete" at which it is final. You have to declare the list complete prior to the deadline I believe.

Next, I am having a very difficult time ranking my top sites, I would welcome some opinions on the issue. I have 4 places that are all my top site right now. They vary in terms of training, research opportunities, and prestige. I want to get an academic position once done, so I have been leaning heavily toward the prestige factor (especially since I went to fairly small, non-prestigious, school). At any rate, I feel like one site (or possibly two) would prepare me very well for an academic position, but wouldn't be looked on as favorably as the more prestigious site by future academic employers. A fourth site has the coolest training I have seen at any of the sites, making it very desirable, but doesn't have the prestige or research opportunities offered by the other three. So, when it comes to an academic job, what is key: research/publication history, prestige of the internship/training, training that most people in clin psych never get (which speaks to the ability to add something that few departments have), or a large network of psychologists (both academic & nonacademic) who went to the same site?

From what I've heard, it really comes down to # of pubs in quality journals and to a lesser degree, poster presentations. I'm not sure that working with Pilkonis at Western Psychiatric and not publishing is going to look very impressive at all.

 

[PsychScience]

I have a couple things to post. First, If I enter my rank list, say, today. Can I go back and change things between now and next Wednesday, or is it that once it's entered it's final?

Yep! You can certify, and then come back any time before the deadline and switch it. I did this so that I could test out how I felt about my rank list. If I entered and then didn't think about it, I figured I was subconsciously happy with my rankings... If I was still ruminating, I could change. not sure if this is the most effective approach, but it worked for me.

Next, I am having a very difficult time ranking my top sites, I would welcome some opinions on the issue. I have 4 places that are all my top site right now. They vary in terms of training, research opportunities, and prestige. I want to get an academic position once done, so I have been leaning heavily toward the prestige factor (especially since I went to fairly small, non-prestigious, school). At any rate, I feel like one site (or possibly two) would prepare me very well for an academic position, but wouldn't be looked on as favorably as the more prestigious site by future academic employers. A fourth site has the coolest training I have seen at any of the sites, making it very desirable, but doesn't have the prestige or research opportunities offered by the other three. So, when it comes to an academic job, what is key: research/publication history, prestige of the internship/training, training that most people in clin psych never get (which speaks to the ability to add something that few departments have), or a large network of psychologists (both academic & nonacademic) who went to the same site?

I would also take a peak at the APPIC program directory online. They have a spot where it has the "Summary of Post-Internship Employment Settings of Each Internship Class". If you haven't looked at this yet, this could be helpful in getting a sense of what that site has best prepped people in the past for different positions!

 

[IsItOver]

The list can be compiled, entered and edited until you click "List Complete" at which it is final. You have to declare the list complete prior to the deadline I believe.

Just to clarify, you can edit the list at any time up until the deadline. Each time you edit it you will have to click "List Complete." However, you will still be able to go back and edit it later.

 

[nononora]

Just to clarify, you can edit the list at any time up until the deadline. Each time you edit it you will have to click "List Complete." However, you will still be able to go back and edit it later.

Thanks. Mine saved without my clicking "List Complete" though. *shrug*

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thanks. Mine saved without my clicking "List Complete" though. *shrug*

The list will be saved without clicking it as complete, but it will not be certified (I believe). Thus, you're likely best off re-certifying the list each time you make changes just to be safe.

 

[PsychScience]

The list will be saved without clicking it as complete, but it will not be certified (I believe). Thus, you're likely best off re-certifying the list each time you make changes just to be safe.

This sounds correct! You have to certify it (hit list complete) after you enter it or if you come back to edit it (You will get an email after you certify it and every time you re-certify, so this lets you know your list is saved for the ranking). Even after you certify/hit list complete, you can still come back and change! So until the deadline, your list can be adjusted.

 

[arsesta]

I have a couple things to post. First, If I enter my rank list, say, today. Can I go back and change things between now and next Wednesday, or is it that once it's entered it's final?

Next, I am having a very difficult time ranking my top sites, I would welcome some opinions on the issue. I have 4 places that are all my top site right now. They vary in terms of training, research opportunities, and prestige. I want to get an academic position once done, so I have been leaning heavily toward the prestige factor (especially since I went to fairly small, non-prestigious, school). At any rate, I feel like one site (or possibly two) would prepare me very well for an academic position, but wouldn't be looked on as favorably as the more prestigious site by future academic employers. A fourth site has the coolest training I have seen at any of the sites, making it very desirable, but doesn't have the prestige or research opportunities offered by the other three. So, when it comes to an academic job, what is key: research/publication history, prestige of the internship/training, training that most people in clin psych never get (which speaks to the ability to add something that few departments have), or a large network of psychologists (both academic & nonacademic) who went to the same site?

I've heard that prestige of the site matters a lot for academic research positions, and make sure you think about publishing opportunities, protected research time, and the productivity of the faculty while on internship. Are you thinking of doing post-doc too? I think you can look at internship as a stepping stone to a great post-doc where you will be getting your grants and go super productive with writing/pubs. This is how I would rank what you've listed in the order of importance:

1) research/publication history
2) prestige of the internship/training/post-doc
3) a large network of psychologists (both academic & nonacademic) who went to the same site
4) training that most people in clin psych never get (which speaks to the ability to add something that few departments have)

 

[ADDICTED2STATS]

I've heard that prestige of the site matters a lot for academic research positions, and make sure you think about publishing opportunities, protected research time, and the productivity of the faculty while on internship. Are you thinking of doing post-doc too? I think you can look at internship as a stepping stone to a great post-doc where you will be getting your grants and go super productive with writing/pubs. This is how I would rank what you've listed in the order of importance:

1) research/publication history
2) prestige of the internship/training/post-doc
3) a large network of psychologists (both academic & nonacademic) who went to the same site
4) training that most people in clin psych never get (which speaks to the ability to add something that few departments have)

Thanks for the comments. Basically the majority of people from all these sites go on to postdocs after internship, with a small group going straight to faculty jobs.

The problem is that the most prestigious site also has the least of amount of research opportunities (essentially little to no publication opportunities and very little protected research time). The least prestigious site of the 4 has the most research opportunities (e.g., interns getting 5-10 publications in very reputable journals during the internship year). So would future employers prefer to see 15 pubs and a prestigious internship or 20-25 pubs and a less prestigious internship?

The issue of postdoc is also a dilemma. I'm going to apply for postdocs, but also plan to apply for faculty jobs during internship. I would prefer to get a faculty job and start working rather than put it off 2 more years.

 

[LM02]

The problem is that the most prestigious site also has the least of amount of research opportunities (essentially little to no publication opportunities and very little protected research time). The least prestigious site of the 4 has the most research opportunities (e.g., interns getting 5-10 publications in very reputable journals during the internship year). So would future employers prefer to see 15 pubs and a prestigious internship or 20-25 pubs and a less prestigious internship?

I find this all a bit puzzling, actually. Given that the internship year is still primarily a clinical year - even at the most research-oriented sites - I can't see how interns are churning out 5-10 publications? I'm on faculty in a medical school, and I barely manage to churn that out! And that this is at the least prestigious of the bunch is puzzling, too...

Is this confirmed, or simply as advertised?

In the end, publications matter a great deal on the job market. But 15 is well within the expectation of someone coming fresh out of internship onto the job market. Would 25 be better? Sure. But I think the prestige should not be minimized - especially because "who you know" matters just as much in our field as others.

Good luck!

 

[Ollie123]

I'm years away from being a position of authority on the matter, but I find it hard to believe any site where interns regularly get 5-10 publications in top-tier journals in a single year could be "less prestigious" than just about anyplace. Are we talking Yale vs. Duke, or are we talking Yale versus east nowhere community mental health clinic? I find it hard to believe the latter is regularly publishing in top tier journals at that rate.

Both are important, but its really hard for me to believe the difference in prestige can be that huge...if its a nuanced difference, I would go with wherever you think will improve your CV the most. Though as LM02 pointed out, sometimes that "references" list you tack onto the last page can be one of the most vital parts of a CV.

If you wouldn't mind PMing me, I'm curious of the details. Your username makes me think we likely have some common interests and perhaps have met at a conference in the past🙂

 

[KayJay85]

I find this all a bit puzzling, actually. Given that the internship year is still primarily a clinical year - even at the most research-oriented sites - I can't see how interns are churning out 5-10 publications? I'm on faculty in a medical school, and I barely manage to churn that out! And that this is at the least prestigious of the bunch is puzzling, too...

Is this confirmed, or simply as advertised?

In the end, publications matter a great deal on the job market. But 15 is well within the expectation of someone coming fresh out of internship onto the job market. Would 25 be better? Sure. But I think the prestige should not be minimized - especially because "who you know" matters just as much in our field as others.

Good luck!

I agree. My understanding is that internship is expected to be a year of light (if any) research productivity. If you can come out with 15 pubs and a more prestigious site then I do not know that I would sacrifice it for more pubs.

 

[ADDICTED2STATS]

I find this all a bit puzzling, actually. Given that the internship year is still primarily a clinical year - even at the most research-oriented sites - I can't see how interns are churning out 5-10 publications? I'm on faculty in a medical school, and I barely manage to churn that out! And that this is at the least prestigious of the bunch is puzzling, too...

Is this confirmed, or simply as advertised?

In the end, publications matter a great deal on the job market. But 15 is well within the expectation of someone coming fresh out of internship onto the job market. Would 25 be better? Sure. But I think the prestige should not be minimized - especially because "who you know" matters just as much in our field as others.

Good luck!

Least prestigious is certainly relative in this case. All of these internships are excellent sites. I was also very leery of the high number of publications, but everyone I spoke with assured me this was accurate. A psychinfo search of former interns also suggests this is the norm.

 

[Orbitofrontal]

I just submitted and certified my rankings, and I feel paranoid that I've done it wrong somehow! Hopefully this stuff works out!

 

[Existenz]

va or university va or university va or university....gonna be a rough next few days

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Ranking definitely isn't a stress-free process, that's for sure. I suppose I'm lucky in that I have a clear first/last-place and the rest can be set based mostly on location (since I'd be happy matching at any of them), but even then, I've "tweaked" my list probably a dozen times thus far.

 

[BiggE]

Is anyone else having a hard time ranking their 2nd and 3rd sites?
I know I am. Considering that there's a big drop off in match percentages between 2nd and 3rd spots I am still unsure of my order.

One site has 8 slots; BUT it will require a 3 hour relocation; It is a very established APA site; I had a really good vibe from the entire interview process.

The other site has 6 slots (well 3 really since it seems that they only take about 3 Psy.D students a year), big name hospital, interviews were a bit impersonal, BUT it is within a commuting distance.

So it really comes down to location vs # slots (and better chances that I will match to this site)
I have no idea what to do. I only wish that the chances of us matching to our 3rd site were just as good as 2nd site's chances.

 

[Archetype]

The drop off in chances of matching to the 3rd vs 2nd site is actually in our favor. Just base your decision on where you'd really like to end up. A 3 hr move really is pretty minimal compared to what many of us are facing. I'll probably have to move from east coast to west coast, and that's 2 days if I drove straight!

Go with your gut 🙂

 

[docma]

I'm not clear that the statistics about percentage that match at each rank is really a true measure of your "chances" of matching there--at least I don't think you can put that together with "chances" based on number of slots available. I am very poor at understanding the algorithm or probabilities in this process--so am just raising the question given that an earlier poster seemed to be suggesting that more slots and placing it 2nd versus third increased probability. Ultimately, I do think your preference always needs to guide the order--meaning preference about where you want to be-irregardless of how it may increase or decrease likelihood. I'd welcome more explanation from anyone who understands the calculus of this process.

 

[paramour]

So, I'm curious re: the process outlined in the JAR by Stedman and colleagues. If it limits programs to "allowing" a certain number of students to apply to internship based upon their previous year's match rate, does it propose how the program selects which students get to apply? I can see programs claiming that they are doing so objectively but doing so based upon favoritism, as they do so with so many other things, which is only going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms when students aren't allowed to apply for internship b/c the DCT's student was allowed to apply for internship over someone who may have been "more qualified," for example. Thoughts?

I am starting to get tired of these complaints (no offense 🙂). Legal problems---what are students going to do, sue their programs because they can't get a job?

Being in a poor quality training program is one thing - but as students, we/you also have the autonomy to make of your training what we want. YOU can search out quality practicum training experiences. YOU can search out training and professional development opportunities. YOU can search out additional lab or research experiences. Is it not possible that there are perhaps just fewer students with initiative/hard work/intelligence/creativity in some training programs (particularly of the for-profit type).

Not necessarily. In my program, these experiences have to be approved by the DCT. If the DCT decides that she does not want you to work any additional practicum experiences b/c we already have paid practicum experiences that they force upon you, even though they may not be especially quality sites (much less ones that provide one with very many client hours or ones that provide one with the experience that you need/want), then you're out-of-luck. If she doesn't stamp them, then you cannot work them. We've had students try and fail on multiple occasions.

Thank you Paramour, it has truly been a crazy ride. I believe you are applying next year, correct? If so, I would be happy to share my materials with you and the things I learned going through the process. My fingers are crossed waiting for Feb 25th!

Meh, most likely not. I believe that my advisor wants me to consider it, and I have informed him and my department multiple times that I have no intention of doing so. I initially was supposed to apply this year, but I was not provided with an externship/practicum, so I did not have the client hours (not that I was concerned, as I wanted the research assistantship anyway!) Now, I'm supposed to apply next year, but I've told them I'd prefer to wait another year as I only recently transferred labs, which has caused some issues, not to mention some ongoing medical problems that caused a snafu. It's been a grand experience! I like the number 7 better for graduation anyway; 6 seems sooo uneven!

I'll keep my fingers (& toes, too!) crossed for you!

 

[IsItOver]

I just submitted and certified my rankings, and I feel paranoid that I've done it wrong somehow! Hopefully this stuff works out!

I totally selected the wrong tracks for two of my programs (child instead of adult). I can only imagine if I hadn't gone back and checked... 😱

I'm not clear that the statistics about percentage that match at each rank is really a true measure of your "chances" of matching there--at least I don't think you can put that together with "chances" based on number of slots available. I am very poor at understanding the algorithm or probabilities in this process--so am just raising the question given that an earlier poster seemed to be suggesting that more slots and placing it 2nd versus third increased probability. Ultimately, I do think your preference always needs to guide the order--meaning preference about where you want to be-irregardless of how it may increase or decrease likelihood. I'd welcome more explanation from anyone who understands the calculus of this process.

The statistic don't relate to your odds, they merely reflect the percentage of people who matched to their top choices in past years. It indicates that the site most people think they were best fitted for also thought the same of them. It sort of indicates that your "gut" is your best indicator! This is a GOOD thing and indicates that most people will match to their preferred sites. This does NOT indicate that your chances of matching at a site go down if you list them lower.

REMEMBER: YOUR RANK LIST IS A WISH LIST!! The only thing you need to consider is: which site do you like the best?!

So, I'm curious re: the process outlined in the JAR by Stedman and colleagues. If it limits programs to "allowing" a certain number of students to apply to internship based upon their previous year's match rate, does it propose how the program selects which students get to apply? I can see programs claiming that they are doing so objectively but doing so based upon favoritism, as they do so with so many other things, which is only going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms when students aren't allowed to apply for internship b/c the DCT's student was allowed to apply for internship over someone who may have been "more qualified," for example. Thoughts?

I haven't read the article, so I may just be adding to the confusion, but I'm willing to take that risk 😉 As it was described to me, the suggestion is that APA limit the number of new students a program can accept, based on their match rate. If, however, it is the way you describe then I have to agree, that sounds like it will just create more issues...

 

[O Gurl]

I'm not clear that the statistics about percentage that match at each rank is really a true measure of your "chances" of matching there--at least I don't think you can put that together with "chances" based on number of slots available. I am very poor at understanding the algorithm or probabilities in this process--so am just raising the question given that an earlier poster seemed to be suggesting that more slots and placing it 2nd versus third increased probability. Ultimately, I do think your preference always needs to guide the order--meaning preference about where you want to be-irregardless of how it may increase or decrease likelihood. I'd welcome more explanation from anyone who understands the calculus of this process.

I just want to second what IsItOver said. It does not effect your likelihood. I certainly cannot explain the details of the process and won't even try for risk of embarrassing myself. But somehow, it matches you to your highest ranked spot that also ranked you within their numbers of available slots or lost out on the people they ranked ahead of you. So the best approach is to rank your sites as a dream/wish list because you have nothing to lose.

 

[paramour]

I haven't read the article, so I may just be adding to the confusion, but I'm willing to take that risk 😉 As it was described to me, the suggestion is that APA limit the number of new students a program can accept, based on their match rate. If, however, it is the way you describe then I have to agree, that sounds like it will just create more issues...

D'oh! I think you're right and I somehow misread some folks' posts in my post-blizzard-addled mind. Sorry, ladies & gents! 😳 Thanks for clearing my confusion, IsItOver. Makes a lot more sense that way. Good thing I have another day off. 😴

 

[O Gurl]

So, I'm curious re: the process outlined in the JAR by Stedman and colleagues. If it limits programs to "allowing" a certain number of students to apply to internship based upon their previous year's match rate, does it propose how the program selects which students get to apply? I can see programs claiming that they are doing so objectively but doing so based upon favoritism, as they do so with so many other things, which is only going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms when students aren't allowed to apply for internship b/c the DCT's student was allowed to apply for internship over someone who may have been "more qualified," for example. Thoughts?

I agree with what you and ItIsOver derived from the article: that it limits the number of students a program can admit based on MATCH rates. I just wanted to point out that the process you described above, in theory, should already be in place. The DCT's approval of the AAPI is his/her clearance of the student's candidacy. Still, I'd be in favor of more thorough vetting at the program level. For my program, students have to clear through a committee of supervisors in terms of hours, diversity of experience, research accomplishments, and progress on their dissertaton. There is also a deadline for dissertatoin proposal before one can apply.

Not to dismiss your concerns about objectivity, but I'd wager that most programs and DCTs really want student to apply as soon as they are ready/competitive. It serves them no benefit to delay a strong applicant.

 

[paramour]

I agree with what you and ItIsOver derived from the article: that it limits the number of students a program can admit based on MATCH rates. I just wanted to point out that the process you described above, in theory, should already be in place. The DCT's approval of the AAPI is his/her clearance of the student's candidacy. Still, I'd be in favor of more thorough vetting at the program level. For my program, students have to clear through a committee of supervisors in terms of hours, diversity of experience, research accomplishments, and progress on their dissertaton. There is also a deadline for dissertatoin proposal before one can apply.

Not to dismiss your concerns about objectivity, but I'd wager that most programs and DCTs really want student to apply as soon as they are ready/competitive. It serves them no benefit to delay a strong applicant.

Yep, my program requires all students be cleared before they can apply for internship based upon hours, dissertation progress, other academic progress, etc. We have to submit an internship application packet to our department, which includes our request for permission to apply, before we even consider applying for internship. Our "pre-application" from my understanding requires a heck of a lot of work in itself but is supposed to be helpful in prepping us for the internship applications. We shall see.

My concern (during my mis-interpretation of the original posts) was that if there were say a group/sub-group of equally qualified students for internship, how would it be decided which students were chosen to apply for internship and which were held back for the following year? How would they objectively make that decision? As these questions were based upon the erroneous assumption that students would be held back because the previous year's internship cohort did not match 100%, then they are no longer of concern. 🙂

 

[O Gurl]

My concern (during my mis-interpretation of the original posts) was that if there were say a group/sub-group of equally qualified students for internship, how would it be decided which students were chosen to apply for internship and which were held back for the following year? How would they objectively make that decision? As these questions were based upon the erroneous assumption that students would be held back because the previous year's internship cohort did not match 100%, then they are no longer of concern. 🙂

Ahhhh.... I see. Sorry for my slowness.

 

[erg923]

Can someone explain to me why one would actually want to be in grad school for 7 years. Good lord, I have been looking forward to match day since my first year here. Ugh! Get me out of here!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

As it was described to me, the suggestion is that APA limit the number of new students a program can accept, based on their match rate. If, however, it is the way you describe then I have to agree, that sounds like it will just create more issues...

I wrote a few diatribes on this idea. I forget which internship thread it landed in, but if anyone is curious do a search and let me know what you think.

 

[paramour]

Ahhhh.... I see. Sorry for my slowness.

No worries! I obviously had my own lightbulb moment earlier. I could see there being all sorts of people grabbing up arms for APAGS with the scenario I had envisioned; I let my imagination run amok at times. 😀

 

[paramour]

Can someone explain to me why one would actually want to be in grad school for 7 years. Good lord, I have been looking forward to match day since my first year here. Ugh! Get me out of here!

Our program's designed to be completed in 6, although most take longer for various reasons (I think they're starting to try to cut down on this recently).

And I like the number 7 better. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[erg923]

Yes, well I think I have a "keeping up with the Jones's" problem too. A buddy of my from high school just bought a boat and took my wife and I out on it when we were back visting my folks this past summer.

Now my priorty is to secure a salaried postion and buy a boat....all this "science" crap can wait. 😀

 

[paramour]

Yes, well I think I have a "keeping up with the Jones's" problem too. A buddy of my from high school just bought a boat and took my wife and I out on it when we were back visting my folks this past summer.

Now my priorty is to secure a salaried postion and buy a boat....all this "science" crap can wait. 😀

I can appreciate that problem. I miss my materialistic things at times. 😛 I quit a well-paying job to go back to school (and sometimes kick myself in the arse for it!) and had to readjust my thinking and priorities when I eventually got my happy rear into grad school (I admittedly slip more than a time or two). In the meantime, another year or two isn't going to kill me when I remember that the monetary crap didn't really make me especially happy most of the time. Going from dirt poor to comfortable and then adjusting to grad school poverty isn't the most pleasant of things, but I can manage for another year or three without a boat. I at least have my motorcycle . . . 😍

And b/c I missed that you were applying this internship cycle, g'luck to you on match day, erg!

 

[paramour]

No idea what inspired me to finally traipse through the entirety of this thread, but I found myself getting just a wee bit anxious for you folks around December 13th (when it's already almost over! woo hoo! yippee! hurray!). 😳

I know that I've already crossed my fingers for those I've known in the past (JN, irish, erg), but I saw a few other names that I recognized (and a lot of new ones) and wanted to wish everyone the best come the 25th. I hope that you all match at your top/preferred sites and you can all celebrate (or at least get some much deserved rest!). G'luck!

 

[Existenz]

Is anyone else having a hard time ranking their 2nd and 3rd sites?
I know I am. Considering that there's a big drop off in match percentages between 2nd and 3rd spots I am still unsure of my order.

One site has 8 slots; BUT it will require a 3 hour relocation; It is a very established APA site; I had a really good vibe from the entire interview process.

The other site has 6 slots (well 3 really since it seems that they only take about 3 Psy.D students a year), big name hospital, interviews were a bit impersonal, BUT it is within a commuting distance.

So it really comes down to location vs # slots (and better chances that I will match to this site)
I have no idea what to do. I only wish that the chances of us matching to our 3rd site were just as good as 2nd site's chances.

wow you're lucky, most NP sites have 1-2 spots :X

 

[clinpsych]

Today I got an e-mail from one of my top choices with an ambiguous subject line, which made my stomach drop. I was terrified that it was notification that I was no longer under consideration, but thankfully it wasn't. Phew!

I really don't under why sites notify candidates that they are no longer under consideration at all. Given that ranking those sites can't hurt us, it seems unnecessarily mean.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I really don't under why sites notify candidates that they are no longer under consideration at all. Given that ranking those sites can't hurt us, it seems unnecessarily mean.

1. It would take too much time.
2. Many sites will have a rank list that is quite long, particularly if they want to avoid the clearing house (or whatever it is called now).

 

[erg923]

I think its courteous of them. I, personally, like to have a good hold on what sites I have a realistic chance of matching to. Plus, it doesn't hurt to rank it, but if you are ranking many sites, it can certainly complicate your list if you are having a tough time figuring out the order. Id rather not have to mess with more decisons than i realistically need to make/consider when doing my rank list.

 

[LM02]

1. It would take too much time.
2. Many sites will have a rank list that is quite long, particularly if they want to avoid the clearing house (or whatever it is called now).

Also, it's possible that the site has decided to not rank you at all. In which case, there is no chance of matching there, and they are doing you a favor. It's harsh, but it does happen.

 

[Existenz]

I'm not clear that the statistics about percentage that match at each rank is really a true measure of your "chances" of matching there--at least I don't think you can put that together with "chances" based on number of slots available. I am very poor at understanding the algorithm or probabilities in this process--so am just raising the question given that an earlier poster seemed to be suggesting that more slots and placing it 2nd versus third increased probability. Ultimately, I do think your preference always needs to guide the order--meaning preference about where you want to be-irregardless of how it may increase or decrease likelihood. I'd welcome more explanation from anyone who understands the calculus of this process.

seeing that is like grating fingernails over a chalkboard🙁