- Joined
- Nov 18, 2011
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 0
Emory rejection. Just a formality, knew it was coming! Hoping for some good news today.
Emory rejection. Just a formality, knew it was coming! Hoping for some good news today.
Sorry to hear that! What track did you apply to, if you don't mind me asking?
It's lame but I really think that it's just less important to them to send rejections when their process is over than it is to get ready for the interviews themselves (scheduling etc). plus typical day in day out activities.[/QUOTE]
It most certainly is less important to them than it is to the applicant, but there are practical limitations on how quickly rejections can be sent out.
Or they're not really putting that much thought into the mental health and well-being of those who they plan to reject?
Probably not that much. Most internship sites are businesses and need to focus on filling their slots in an efficient manner. The reality is that almost all intern directed activities (e.g. application review, applicant notification, seminars and supervision for current interns) is non-reimbursable time, and the internship endeavors most likely operate at a net-loss to the agency and are subsidized (or not) from elsewhere. It really is unfortunate that a REQUIRED PORTION of the doctoral training for psychologists relies on the likely unfunded activities of agencies not affiliated with (or controlled or monitored by) the student's own educational institution. Having been on the internship faculty at agency before, I assure you that all of us who had gone through the process before were certainly empathetic with the general plight of the applicants, there certainly was not enough time (or need) to become emotionally involved with the applications of the rejected students to really be able to consider the individual emotional impact of the rejection.
The system is awful, it's unfair that such financial and emotional burdens are placed on applicants, and decisions may not always be made in a way that makes sense. However, these problems are primarily, if not exclusively, attributable to the demand side of the equation, rather than the supply side.
They typically don't require an on site interview and I am 10 months pregnant 🙂. I'm not able to travel for interviews that aren't local, so I applied to some CCs that are not local and was hoping for some luck.
The system is awful, it's unfair that such financial and emotional burdens are placed on applicants, and decisions may not always be made in a way that makes sense. However, these problems are primarily, if not exclusively, attributable to the demand side of the equation, rather than the supply side.
Likewise. 5 rejections, 1 interview, 12 to go. Feeling pretty crappy about myself.Mass email rejection from Division of Prevention and Behavioral Health/Terry Childrens Psychiatric Center
If it's an equation, both sides are equally responsible for the "problems." If there were an infinite number of sites, the demand wouldn't be an issue. There aren't enough sites for the current demand. You can say this is because there's too much demand or because there's not enough supply. Blaming one side and excusing the other is not logical.
People whose experience is mostly at hospitals (I'm assuming that's where you were?) typically need to put some care in phrasing and such for CC applications. CCs are used to hospital-experienced people who think that a CC will be a vacation internship, and language that suggests an applicant thinks that is a KOD at a CC. Not saying you THINK that, but they watch for suggestions of it. (In my CC experience, yeah I did see the 18 year old girl who was sad that she didn't get into her sorority [1 session] and the girl who was sad because she broke up with her boyfriend [2 sessions]. All of my other clients either had or were borderline for clinical disorders, a few had blossoming personality disorders, most presenting concerns were comorbid with major health problems, major family disruption, bereavement, childhood sexual abuse, financial distress, or academic distress).
Research indicates that responsibility is not equally distributed among all programs, however. So, it certainly is possible to isolate aspects of the problem that are more to blame than others. Ignoring that is Pollyannaish thinking; a significant amount of the problem in match rates would be relieved if a small number of programs were not sending 50-100 students to the match each year.
Personalized email invite to VA Eastern Kansas HCS, Leavenworth
This is true AND an equally significant amount of the problem in match rates would be relieved if a large number of sites offered 1 additional internship per year.
Mass email rejection from Penn Hospital (12/11). Super bummed about this one.
So, I know this has been asked a few times but thought I'd throw it out there again... has anyone heard from the neuropsych track at Oklahoma?
That sucks, sorry! I'm almost scared to ask - but what does a rude rejection look/sound like?Oh, On topic:
Today:
rejection from Iowa State CC (kinda rude, too)
Invite from UF CC
Would those who have heard mind answering a question for me?
What (interview/rejection) and how (phone call, personalized/mass email) have you heard from the following sites (list tracks if applicable):
Montefiore
Pace CC
Queens Children's
NCB
Jacobi
Beth Israel
Thank you!
Oh, On topic:
Today:
rejection from Iowa State CC (kinda rude, too)
Invite from UF CC
That sucks, sorry! I'm almost scared to ask - but what does a rude rejection look/sound like?
If it's an equation, both sides are equally responsible for the "problems." If there were an infinite number of sites, the demand wouldn't be an issue. There aren't enough sites for the current demand. You can say this is because there's too much demand or because there's not enough supply. Blaming one side and excusing the other is not logical.
On the other hand, if it's a training model for the field, then the trainers are responsible for the students/trainees. In that case, sites and programs are responsible for meeting the needs of the trainees. That isn't happening in a lot of cases.
If it's a business model, I find it difficult to believe that most internships operate at a loss.
I'm still waiting on Woodhull - their APPIC website said we'd be informed by 12/9. Did anybody else hear from them? Perhaps they aren't sending out rejections :-\
"
Although it certainly would be time consuming to send out rejections with individual feedback for each applicant, how much time does it really take to type an email address in the BCC line of a form rejection email? Thirty seconds or so? At that rate, even if a site received 300 applications they wanted to reject, it would only take roughly 2 1/2 hours of time to send notices to everyone. That really doesn't seem like too much time to me if it's stretched out over a week (i.e., 1/2 hour day).
Would those who have heard mind answering a question for me?
What (interview/rejection) and how (phone call, personalized/mass email) have you heard from the following sites (list tracks if applicable):
Montefiore
Pace CC
Queens Children's
NCB
Jacobi
Beth Israel
Thank you!
I thought someone posted about the U of Louisville School of Med but I just got a personalized invitation to interview for the Child Clinical and Pediatric track.
Hope more good news is on the way! Hang in there everybody!
Interesting... I never thought about it that way. Most of my experience is outpatient with children and families, and some experience with SMI adults (outpatient as well). I tried to phrase my CL that I was looking to increase my experience working with relationship issues and anxiety. All my LORs, however, focus on my work with children (and their families). I would love to gain experience working with young adults, though.
Unfortunately, even highly capable, qualified students from these massive programs are rejected sheerly by virtue of the name of their school at times. I regret not being able to relocate to a better program. I am scared that it will bite me in the butt despite strong credentials.
no whammies! c'mon now! no whammies!
What makes you think that? There has been a general trend toward more sites and spots over the last decade. In the same time, the match rate has gotten worse. For-profit institutions have no incentive to not enroll more students if the market demand for doc training programs tolerates a match rate of, say, 60%; conversely, standard institutions at which more students are a cost (stipend, tuition remission, health plan) rather than a revenue source (more $100k+ tuitions going to the school) would not take more students. If 10% more internship magically appeared, the market would balance by having for-profit institutions up their enrollments; the result would not be a match rate % increase.