2012 APPIC Internship Application Thread

[Duck Duck Goose]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I saw someone post on here that they were told not to expect to match because they did not receive a business card on their interview. Was everyone offered business cards on their interviews? I received them at some, but I would say I did not receive one at most (even on interviews I thought went well). What are thoughts on this? 😀

No business cards either year. Some sites/interviewers just don't do them. Some do.

did anyone get emails from sites specifying that they will be ranking you? i only received an email like that from one site out of the six i interviewed at...

Again, some sites just don't do them. Some do (most don't).

...Each applicant is given only the final result the applicant obtains in the Match. Each program is provided only with the names of the applicants that it obtains in the Match, as well as the results of the Match for the other applicants ranked by that program."

So, does this mean that sites will know where I matched if I don't match to their site? Anyone else find this a little odd? I'm trying to think of what purpose this serves and I can't think of one. Any ideas about this? 😕

Yes, at sites where I've done practica and internships were available, the TD always commented (once via email to the trainees and training faculty) on where their top-ranked internship applicants had matched. I always assumed that they got this information from the applicants themselves but I guess not. Since no ranking information is exchanged (according to the rules) by sites or applicants prior to the match, this information can help TDs improve their programs to better fit interns' needs/wants. Thinking about it, it also probably helps them decide how many of their interviewees to rank the following year. For example, if all of the applicants that the site ranks matched somewhere, the site may want to rank more applicants the following year to avoid being in Phase II or the Clearinghouse. On the other side of the equation, applicants are able to discover the names of interns who matched to a particular site simply by calling the site and asking. But this information is next to useless for applicants.

Sorry that your site backed out. I had the other kind of experience where a site that I went to interview at actually told us on interview day that there was an additional position available. The TD said that they had been unsure that there would be funding for the position, so they didn't list it because APPIC frowns upon that kind of instability / backing out, but that they were now sure it would be funded. So it seems like your site didn't have all its ducks in a row. And if there's that one problem/misguidedchoice (to list a position you're not sure you'll be able to support) now, you can be sure that there would be other non-Kosher stuff happening later on in the training year. I did a practica at a site where they backed out of the match after applications (before interviews, I think) one year because of funding concerns (i.e., they lost it) and there were a lot of other things going on (e.g., sexual harassment concerns, control/power issues between supervisors and interns/trainees) that I'm sure APPIC wouldn't like interns to experience. I think the backing out after money has been invested represents (in 95% of cases) a deep lack of respect for trainees on the part of the sites. They don't really care about the inconvenience for applicants, they just want the benefits of having interns around (e.g., deeply discounted therapists/assessors).

What's interesting to me is that this kind of discussion about the imbalance that has been happening on the listserv didn't happen last year (to the best of my memory, which is usually really good). Whether or not any of the suggestions are adopted by APPIC, TDs hearing more of these complaints from students can only help future cohorts.

I submitted my rank list 2 weeks ago with my one site as #1 and 4 that didn't interview me for 2-5. Come on #1! 🙂

Good luck to everyone!

 

[DrivenDoctoress]

Whew, ranking list now submitted. I by no means feel certain about it, but changing my mind every 5 minutes isn't helping either, so I just committed and am going to stick with it and ride it out! I'm wishing all of us excellent luck in this process and am hoping to look on this thread on the 24th and see that everyone is satisfied with the results, whatever that means for them!

DuckDuckGoose-- I'm hoping that number 1 site works out amazingly for you! Did you get a good feel in the interview?

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Whew, ranking list now submitted. I by no means feel certain about it, but changing my mind every 5 minutes isn't helping either, so I just committed and am going to stick with it and ride it out! I'm wishing all of us excellent luck in this process and am hoping to look on this thread on the 24th and see that everyone is satisfied with the results, whatever that means for them!

DuckDuckGoose-- I'm hoping that number 1 site works out amazingly for you! Did you get a good feel in the interview?

Hey, thanks! Good luck to you, too! I've really appreciated your encouragement and reflections throughout the process this year. And remember all those studies about liking stuff more when you chose it or felt like you chose it (so you can reassure yourself that you'll really like wherever you match 🙂 ).

I got a good feeling at the interview (at least MUCH better than I did at that site last year) but I know I'm not the **best** candidate that they interviewed. Maybe all the *better* candidates will match elsewhere or decide that they don't want to deal with New England winters. 😛 (Can't I be the "good enough" intern applicant?) I'm a bit optimistic about matching to this site because one of my classmates is there this year and I know her training/professional history and mine is pretty similar. But we'll see. Either way, it's win-win for me. I'll be able to carpool with my husband if I match to this site (or maybe one even better/closer for/to me in Phase II) or we'll be starting a family and keeping my tuition money in the bank. Yay no more applying for internship in less than 7 weeks!

 

[ClinApp]

Congratulations to all the applicants here for completing this next important phase of the internship process! My rankings were being hotly debated down to the wire, but ultimately I made what I think was a well-reasoned attempt at balancing competing priorities of training goals, family obligations, and sanity.

I wish all of you the very best of luck and hope that the match gods smile favorably upon all of us aspiring interns! Thanks so much for all the support from the folks on here, I have found this to be a very useful forum during this challenging and uncertain time.

 

[psyman]

What a sorry and sad system the match is. Only profession where finishing your degree is NOT determined via concrete accomplishments (passing a standardized test or dissertation defense) or skill competecey ratings....but by your ability to get hired into a massively flooded job market (seriously, does that make any sense to any one!?). And...the person is given no feedback about how they can, for sure, finish their degree program. What a crock! Comments?

Totally agree with this. My ability to complete my degree (4 years into the program) depends on the market. Ridiculous.

Can anyone point to anything being done by the APA?

 

[fnip]

Anyone else obsessing about your rankings? I kept changing my mind up to the wire. Now I feel like I would change a few things, if I could.

 

[DrivenDoctoress]

DuckDuckGoose--- I'm loving your attitude, if you do match there that will be amazing and if you don't, it sounds like you'll still do great things that are just as (more?) important than internship. My sig other and I have thought about the prospect of starting our family if I don't match as well... it at least puts a more positive spin on things when we're reminded that this whole process (while seemingly all consuming) is only ONE PIECE of our lives.

fnip--- I'm trying not to even think about what I would do differently ranking-wise. I am surprisingly at peace with it as it is beyond my control now. I'm sure if I tried to dissect it again though I'd start going bonkers and second-guessing everything too, but I am just NOT interested in more of that... I've had enough for a lifetime after this. 😛

 

[ClinicalABA]

What a sorry and sad system the match is. Only profession where finishing your degree is NOT determined via concrete accomplishments (passing a standardized test or dissertation defense) or skill competecey ratings....but by your ability to get hired into a massively flooded job market (seriously, does that make any sense to any one!?). And...the person is given no feedback about how they can, for sure, finish their degree program. What a crock! Comments?

The whole system is an embarrassment to the field- from failure to control the supply side, to passing on the control of the demand side to entities outside of the university /training program. Within the current system, the financial and emotional costs of the way the interview/match process is run is cruel. It's not just that 1 in 4 won't match, it's that 1 in 4 can't match. I'm surprised there is not more organized outrage from DCTs.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

The whole system is an embarrassment to the field- from failure to control the supply side, to passing on the control of the demand side to entities outside of the university /training program. Within the current system, the financial and emotional costs of the way the interview/match process is run is cruel. It's not just that 1 in 4 won't match, it's that 1 in 4 can't match. I'm surprised there is not more organized outrage from DCTs.

At my school, the faculty decide who can rank APPIC member programs (APA accredited sites are open to all students, no faculty involvement AFTER the faculty approve the student to apply for internship - another subjective hoop to jump through). So students are allowed to apply to any program but then, if they're offered an interview, they need to ask the faculty's permission to rank any APPIC member site. In my case, this meant that the faculty did not approve my request to rank an APPIC member site in Phase II last year. Their reasoning was that they felt my training needs would best be met by an APA accredited site (I think my training needs would best be met by completing internship and getting my degree, no longer paying $4000 in tuition a year). I recently discovered that the faculty approved another student's request to rank that same APPIC member site in Phase II last year (same time as me). So some DCTs aren't too concerned with the imbalance because it allows faculty to flex their abuse of power muscles when a student who has asked too many questions (real, honest, "I would like to know more" questions, not "gotcha!" questions) in class is at their mercy.

Being able to walk away from my program is one reason that I'm not going to do the match process again. Take my tuition for an extra year because you don't like me? Don't answer my email when I ask if there are any alternatives if I don't match again this year? Okay, my fault for expecting better of you. Take my tuition for 2 extra years? Not happening.

(If you're applying to PsyD programs and want to know where this occurred, PM me. Or if you're involved in APA accreditation of graduate programs and would like to know where this occurred, PM me. 😛)

 

[readytobedone]

Last year, Phase I was 8:39AM (EST) and Phase II was 8:35AM (EST). Rejections/nonmatches came in before matches.


This may not always be the case. I know people that matched at their one of their top 3 sites and received the email before 7.20 AM Central time.

So don't panic if your email comes early. It does not mean that it is a rejection.

Does anyone know what the email looks like if you match?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Can anyone point to anything being done by the APA?

I know the petition from last year was heard by multiple people in the upper ranks of APA. We have an effort going on Facebook (mentioned in a thread on here) to continue to push the issue. I'd encourage everyone in this thread to join the group and have your voice heard.

Anyone else obsessing about your rankings? I kept changing my mind up to the wire. Now I feel like I would change a few things, if I could.

It happens every year...so consider it a rite of passage. I overcame it through a rededication to my short game (golf) and increased time in my hammock w. an adult beverage. I recommend this approach to any and all applicants. 😀

 

[RGirl]

Last year, Phase I was 8:39AM (EST) and Phase II was 8:35AM (EST). Rejections/nonmatches came in before matches.


This may not always be the case. I know people that matched at their one of their top 3 sites and received the email before 7.20 AM Central time.

So don't panic if your email comes early. It does not mean that it is a rejection.

Does anyone know what the email looks like if you match?

Subject line: Applicant #####: APPIC Match Result

To: NAME - Applicant Code #####

This message provides you with your Match result for the
APPIC Internship Matching Program for internship positions
beginning in 2011.

Congratulations! You have been matched to:

Training Site: NAME HERE

Program: SPECIFIC ROTATION

Program Code: ######

-------------------------------------------------------------

*** Please do NOT respond to this e-mail. ***

If you receive this message prior to checking the Match web
site for your Match result, there is no need for you to also
check your Match result on the web site, as the information
provided on the web site is the same as in this message.

 

[Milk Milk Milk]

Last year, Phase I was 8:39AM (EST) and Phase II was 8:35AM (EST). Rejections/nonmatches came in before matches.


This may not always be the case. I know people that matched at their one of their top 3 sites and received the email before 7.20 AM Central time.

So don't panic if your email comes early. It does not mean that it is a rejection.

Does anyone know what the email looks like if you match?

What is everyone's plan for opening the email? I can't decided if I want to do it or spouse should and whether or not we will wait until there is a strong beverage in hand.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

So don't panic if your email comes early. It does not mean that it is a rejection.

How about we all agree not to panic in any case?

Life will go on. Your life will go on, regardless of match results.

 

[pinkasaurus]

What is everyone's plan for opening the email? I can't decided if I want to do it or spouse should and whether or not we will wait until there is a strong beverage in hand.

I think I'm going to have my spouse do it. I have been having recurring nightmares about the contents of that email!

 

[KillerDiller]

How about we all agree not to panic in any case?

No deal!

 

[pinkasaurus]

The whole system is an embarrassment to the field- from failure to control the supply side, to passing on the control of the demand side to entities outside of the university /training program. Within the current system, the financial and emotional costs of the way the interview/match process is run is cruel. It's not just that 1 in 4 won't match, it's that 1 in 4 can't match. I'm surprised there is not more organized outrage from DCTs.

EMBARRASSMENT is the exact right word for this whole process! For a field that is supposedly about mental health, they sure know how to screw with people's heads. The imbalance is not a new problem. It has been years since our profession became aware of the issue, yet there is very little progress toward ameliorating it. Every time I think about this process, from the expectation to travel and spends tons of money for interviews to the fact that approximately 25% of people don't get a position, I feel angry and disgusted. Just hearing the stories of people posting on here who have been screwed by their programs and/or this ridiculous internship process upsets me. When is APA going to take this seriously and actually doing something? When are there going to be sanctions on programs that flood the market with too many applicants?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

EMBARRASSMENT is the exact right word for this whole process! For a field that is supposedly about mental health, they sure know how to screw with people's heads. The imbalance is not a new problem. It has been years since our profession became aware of the issue, yet there is very little progress toward ameliorating it. Every time I think about this process, from the expectation to travel and spends tons of money for interviews to the fact that approximately 25% of people don't get a position, I feel angry and disgusted. Just hearing the stories of people posting on here who have been screwed by their programs and/or this ridiculous internship process upsets me. When is APA going to take this seriously and actually doing something? When are there going to be sanctions on programs that flood the market with too many applicants?

Agreed. I have no objections to components of our training being stress-inducing; quite the opposite, actually. However, to require a one particular component be completed before a degree is rewarded, and then not ensure that said component will be available to all those determined by their graduate program to be ready (which, by definition, we all are by that point, having passed thesis defenses, comps, and possibly dissertation proposals/defenses) just doesn't make any sense.

If you're unsure of the quality of the training applicants are receiving at the doctoral level, then address the problem AT THE DOCTORAL LEVEL. Don't let individuals make it all the way through a program before telling them, "oh, sorry, we just don't think everything's up to par."

We can all, at the least, do our part for advocacy by signing the petition listed on SDN in a separate thread once it goes "live," and/or frequently contacting individuals at APA to let them know how we feel.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

No deal!

it's really for your own good! What if we all agree not to panic this time and see how it goes. If you don't like not panicking, you can panic next match day.

 

[psychwanabe]

What is everyone's plan for opening the email? I can't decided if I want to do it or spouse should and whether or not we will wait until there is a strong beverage in hand.

I'm going to do it myself and my spouse is forbidden from the room until I say it's okay. I know I will need a minute either way. 🙄

I'm trying to stay busy and keep my mind off it. The not panicking rule is good but gets harder as the 24th draws closer.

 

[psyunknown]

I will likely open it myself as I don't like people knowing things before me. 🙂 I envision that I will get the email, stare at it for at least 60 seconds, try to breath, open it and cry if I match, and cry if I don't match. Either way I expect crying, this has been a long and stressful 6 months.

 

[Quynh2007]

I will likely open it myself as I don't like people knowing things before me. 🙂 I envision that I will get the email, stare at it for at least 60 seconds, try to breath, open it and cry if I match, and cry if I don't match. Either way I expect crying, this has been a long and stressful 6 months.

I know how I am going to be. The minute it lands in my inbox, it is getting opened. If I matched to my top 2, I will be screaming for joy, calling my boyfriend and posting it on facebook. If I get my #3 and #5, I will smile and jump up and down, call my boyfriend, and post it on facebook. If I get my #4 I will be happy and post it on facebook (will not tell boyfriend!, lol). If I get #6 I will tell my parents, and #7 will still make me happy just a little sad I will have to move so far away.

If I don't match, I will go on here, read who did and did not match, call my boyfriend, and deactivate facebook (j/k). I will then go over the last 2 year's clearinghouse/phase II to get an idea of sites I would need to be looking at for cover letters.

 

[pinkasaurus]

Agreed. I have no objections to components of our training being stress-inducing; quite the opposite, actually. However, to require a one particular component be completed before a degree is rewarded, and then not ensure that said component will be available to all those determined by their graduate program to be ready (which, by definition, we all are by that point, having passed thesis defenses, comps, and possibly dissertation proposals/defenses) just doesn't make any sense.

If you're unsure of the quality of the training applicants are receiving at the doctoral level, then address the problem AT THE DOCTORAL LEVEL. Don't let individuals make it all the way through a program before telling them, "oh, sorry, we just don't think everything's up to par."

We can all, at the least, do our part for advocacy by signing the petition listed on SDN in a separate thread once it goes "live," and/or frequently contacting individuals at APA to let them know how we feel.

Precisely. Stress is an expected part of graduate school. There is hard work to be done, and it should be somewhat stressful. I feel like it is unethical to require people to complete a training activity (internship), and then have very limited opportunities to do so. Don't allow young people to take on so much debt and invest years of their lives, only to basically tell them their training is "not good enough" (which may or may not be true...I know awesome applicants who have not matched) after 4+ years of graduate school!

I also think it is ridiculous to expect students to invest so much time and money in the internship application process for a ONE YEAR POSITION! Our DCT always says we have to put more effort into applying and interviewing for internships than professionals have to for a tenure-track faculty position.

I know I sound like a whiner right now, but I just wish that this process was more fair and less anxiety-provoking for myself and all my fellow internship applicants.

Good luck to everyone as we wait for the next 2 weeks!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Precisely. Stress is an expected part of graduate school. There is hard work to be done, and it should be somewhat stressful. I feel like it is unethical to require people to complete a training activity (internship), and then have very limited opportunities to do so. Don't allow young people to take on so much debt and invest years of their lives, only to basically tell them their training is "not good enough" (which may or may not be true...I know awesome applicants who have not matched) after 4+ years of graduate school!

I also think it is ridiculous to expect students to invest so much time and money in the internship application process for a ONE YEAR POSITION! Our DCT always says we have to put more effort into applying and interviewing for internships than professionals have to for a tenure-track faculty position.

I know I sound like a whiner right now, but I just wish that this process was more fair and less anxiety-provoking for myself and all my fellow internship applicants.

Good luck to everyone as we wait for the next 2 weeks!

Agreed on all counts. If nothing else, take heart in the fact that, at least in my experience, the postdoc application process isn't nearly as stressful. I can't speak to job hunting as of yet, but others in my internship and grad school cohorts who have found--or are in the process of finding--employment haven't been terribly distraught by it, either.

 

[Milk Milk Milk]

I know how I am going to be. The minute it lands in my inbox, it is getting opened. If I matched to my top 2, I will be screaming for joy, calling my boyfriend and posting it on facebook. If I get my #3 and #5, I will smile and jump up and down, call my boyfriend, and post it on facebook. If I get my #4 I will be happy and post it on facebook (will not tell boyfriend!, lol). If I get #6 I will tell my parents, and #7 will still make me happy just a little sad I will have to move so far away.

If I don't match, I will go on here, read who did and did not match, call my boyfriend, and deactivate facebook (j/k). I will then go over the last 2 year's clearinghouse/phase II to get an idea of sites I would need to be looking at for cover letters.

I've decided I want to read the email. I don't think I could handle my spouse giving me the bad news if I don't match. Now I can't decide when I want to read the email -- right away a la the band-aid method or wait until I have had breakfast burrito and bloody mary. Hhhmm. Maybe a combo - right away with bloody mary in hand. 😀

 

[ClinicalABA]

...the fact that approximately 25% of people don't get a position, I feel angry and disgusted

As I highlighted in my post, it's not just that 25% don't get an internship, it's that 25% can't get an internship. If it were simply a matter of not placing because of deficits in the student's training, application skills, etc., that wouldn't be as bad. However, I find it hard to believe that the 25% is comprised of a majority of students who don't have the skills to successfully move on in their training.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Agreed on all counts. If nothing else, take heart in the fact that, at least in my experience, the postdoc application process isn't nearly as stressful. I can't speak to job hunting as of yet, but others in my internship and grad school cohorts who have found--or are in the process of finding--employment haven't been terribly distraught by it, either.

Job hunting can be stressful, but it's nothing like this process. Most employers will let you know soon after the interview if you were hired or not, then you can make an informed decision about continuing to interview. It's kind of crazy to think that you could interview at 5-10 places, incurring huge travel expenses, opportunity costs, etc., all while the first place you interviewed at may be where you end up. You like them, they like you, but you both have to incur significant costs (non-reimbursable for both parties) to continue to interview, "just in case."

To those of you currently going through this process, best of luck. Whatever happens, match or not, it does not have to define you or the rest of your career.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

To those of you currently going through this process, best of luck. Whatever happens, match or not, it does not have to define you or the rest of your career.

Huzzah!

The best part of applying for internship AGAIN was when an interviewer asked, "So how'd you deal with not matching? I ask as someone who didn't match my first time either." And there she was, a successful and licensed clinical psychologist. Life goes on, woohoo! 🙂

 

[terrybug]

My plan is not to check for emails at all, but wait for a phone call from the DoT and get the good news person to person!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My plan is not to check for emails at all, but wait for a phone call from the DoT and get the good news person to person!

If you follow through with this....you will show more self-control than 99% of other applicants.

 

[ClinApp]

My plan is not to check for emails at all, but wait for a phone call from the DoT and get the good news person to person!

Wow, what an unusual plan! I don't think I could demonstrate that much self-control, I suppose because I don't see the call from the training director as equivalent to 2 cookies versus 1. But I congratulate you on your creativity and patience, and I hope your TD is prompt in calling! Good luck!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

If you follow through with this....you will show more self-control than 99% of other applicants.

Haha definitely would've bested me, that's for sure. I think my call came only two or so hours after receiving my match results, and that wait would've killed me.

 

[4410]

I've been lurking a couple of weeks on this forum and it is my understanding that the 25% unmatched figure is somewhat inflated. I applied to 26 programs and had four interviews and my guess is I probably have a slim chance of matching in phase I so I will most likely go to phase II and or have to find my own internship. One of the sites that I interview with decided to not particpate in phase I and emailed me the night of the ranking that if I was still interested in their site that I would have to re apply for phase II. From my perspective the current APPIC Match design is not only frustrating for students but also on program DCT and internship sites. I think there needs to be a system where each graduate program has their own captured internship sites that guarantees internship slots for all of their doctoral candidates. There are a number of doctoral clinical psychology program who have switched to the captured sites rather than particpate in the APPIC Match system and a number of these program are APA accredited. To some extent the VA internship sites are captured sites for APA accredited program and many of the VA sites select interns from the same programs every year. I've heard that APA accredited program are suppose to be the GOLD standard for clinical psychology training but other factors in intern selection beside being in APA or non APA accredited program may need consideration in final selections.

What I don't like about the whole Match process is that it gives preferential treatment to candidates from an APA accredited program when the curriculum for all doctoral level students is very similar with only minimal differences. Some programs focus on CBT and others on psychodynamic regardless of being APA or non APA. Some APA program do not have an emphasis on projectives and other programs emphasize projectives. Therefore, it does not seem fair that APA accredited programs are viewed as having a higher standard than non APA accredited program. Maybe there should be a different process for APA accredited programs versus non APA accredited programs and even have a different process in having two seperate MATCH selections processes based on the type of program the candidate is in, APA or Non APA. The issue of PhD versus PsyD does not seem to factor in as much as many of the APA accredited sites seem to prefer having PsyD candidates and many of the VA interns are from PsyD programs, but there may need to be different MATCH based on type of program APA or Non APA and also based on PhD versus PsyD. In some states such as California or Illnois there are more PsyD psychologist than PhD psychologist. My program is a PsyD Non APA accredited program and every year we all find a site to do our internship without having to re apply for the Match the next year. Although we are non APA accredited there are normally two or three students who match with an APA site and five or six who match with non APA sites and the rest are normally able to find internships locally. Some students decide to get the MA degree and then masters level licensure rather than go on to the doctoral level. Although we are non APA accredited most of the students who complete the doctoral program pass the EPPP and get licensed as clinical psychologist.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I've been lurking a couple of weeks on this forum and it is my understanding that the 25% unmatched figure is somewhat inflated. I applied to 26 programs and had four interviews and my guess is I probably have a slim chance of matching in phase I so I will most likely go to phase II and or have to find my own internship. One of the sites that I interview with decided to not particpate in phase I and emailed me the night of the ranking that if I was still interested in their site that I would have to re apply for phase II. From my perspective the current APPIC Match design is not only frustrating for students but also on program DCT and internship sites. I think there needs to be a system where each graduate program has their own captured internship sites that guarantees internship slots for all of their doctoral candidates. There are a number of doctoral clinical psychology program who have switched to the captured sites rather than particpate in the APPIC Match system and a number of these program are APA accredited. To some extent the VA internship sites are captured sites for APA accredited program and many of the VA sites select interns from the same programs every year. I've heard that APA accredited program are suppose to be the GOLD standard for clinical psychology training but other factors in intern selection beside being in APA or non APA accredited program may need consideration in final selections.

What I don't like about the whole Match process is that it gives preferential treatment to candidates from an APA accredited program when the curriculum for all doctoral level students is very similar with only minimal differences. Some programs focus on CBT and others on psychodynamic regardless of being APA or non APA. Some APA program do not have an emphasis on projectives and other programs emphasize projectives. Therefore, it does not seem fair that APA accredited programs are viewed as having a higher standard than non APA accredited program. Maybe there should be a different process for APA accredited programs versus non APA accredited programs and even have a different process in having two seperate MATCH selections processes based on the type of program the candidate is in, APA or Non APA. The issue of PhD versus PsyD does not seem to factor in as much as many of the APA accredited sites seem to prefer having PsyD candidates and many of the VA interns are from PsyD programs, but there may need to be different MATCH based on type of program APA or Non APA and also based on PhD versus PsyD. In some states such as California or Illnois there are more PsyD psychologist than PhD psychologist. My program is a PsyD Non APA accredited program and every year we all find a site to do our internship without having to re apply for the Match the next year. Although we are non APA accredited there are normally two or three students who match with an APA site and five or six who match with non APA sites and the rest are normally able to find internships locally. Some students decide to get the MA degree and then masters level licensure rather than go on to the doctoral level. Although we are non APA accredited most of the students who complete the doctoral program pass the EPPP and get licensed as clinical psychologist.

I agree with the thoughts that the match is turning into a bad situation all around, but I strongly disagree with the idea that less emphasis should be placed on APA accreditation, or that (even more dangerously) accreditation should be removed entirely. We NEED a national training standard (not a gold standard, but a base standard, which is what APA accreditation was originally intended to provide), and this is what APA accreditation provides. Do some/many non-APA programs provide training equal in many/most/all respects to some APA programs? Certainly. But the problem is, without a national accreditation process, it's up to the schools to "police" their own training standards, and quite frankly, I don't trust all of the schools out there to do this.

Particularly given the nature of our profession and the various at-risk populations with whom we work, consumers need to know that any psychologist they see will have received some basic level of training and competence. Again, APA accreditation, although far from perfect, helps to achieve this. APA accreditation also serves as a form of protection for students, who early on in their training may not know or understand the various areas in which they'll need to be trained to be a competent psychologist. APA accred. thus provides students with a "seal of approval" for a program, essentially letting them know that said program does enough of the right things to allow its students to achieve this competency in training and practice.

I'm may come off sounding like somewhat of a jackass here, but in my opinion, if a doctoral program can't eventually obtain APA accreditation, then I don't think it should be training potential future psychologists.

 

[erg923]

What I don't like about the whole Match process is that it gives preferential treatment to candidates from an APA accredited program when the curriculum for all doctoral level students is very similar with only minimal differences.

Im sure we all agree with the sentiment regarding how unfair and cruel that match is, but I can't agree at all with the statement above. Thats a individual program choice and has nothing to do with the match process or the institutions that run the match. Moreover, my site (a VA) has to toss non- accredited programs because they HAVE to. That is a government policy, set at the national level. Moreover, I dont think any of that has to do with coursework anyway. It demonstrates a minimum bar of quality that the program has met. What motivation would a DCT have to consider people form a program that has not yet demonstrated at least the minimum bar of quality of training in this profession? Very little I would think...

Lastly, I have no idea where you are getting your information because if you were applying to VA program you would know that they participate in the match just like every program. Same rules apply. Trust me. I'm on the other side this year. They are NOT captured for anyone and they dont always take people from the same program. I also dont think there is any evidence that VA internships favor Psy.Ds at all. If I had to venture a guess, without looking at data (as you obvioulsy have done), then i would actually guess the opposite.

 

[MCParent]

EMBARRASSMENT is the exact right word for this whole process! For a field that is supposedly about mental health, they sure know how to screw with people's heads. The imbalance is not a new problem. It has been years since our profession became aware of the issue, yet there is very little progress toward ameliorating it. Every time I think about this process, from the expectation to travel and spends tons of money for interviews to the fact that approximately 25% of people don't get a position, I feel angry and disgusted. Just hearing the stories of people posting on here who have been screwed by their programs and/or this ridiculous internship process upsets me. When is APA going to take this seriously and actually doing something? When are there going to be sanctions on programs that flood the market with too many applicants?

They're not doing anything because they're not being pressured by students. We make up 1/3 of APA membership. It's time to leverage that, and force them to give the imbalance the attention it needs.

Join the facebook group 🙂

http://www.facebook.com/groups/223654767715768/

 

[moneyphd]

They're not doing anything because they're not being pressured by students. We make up 1/3 of APA membership. It's time to leverage that, and force them to give the imbalance the attention it needs.

Join the facebook group 🙂

http://www.facebook.com/groups/223654767715768/

I second that! Please join the group.

It would also be great if students separately emailed APA division leaders, I think. If only to convey how much our membership means and to drive home the dire effect this serious issue is having on student attitudes toward APA.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I've been lurking a couple of weeks on this forum and it is my understanding that the 25% unmatched figure is somewhat inflated.

If anything, that number is an under-estimate. There is a whole sub-group of applicants who circumvent the APPIC process by taking internships outside of the system. While 25% of APPIC applicants don't match, that number would be far worse if all students were forced to go through the APPIC system.

From my perspective the current APPIC Match design is not only frustrating for students but also on program DCT and internship sites. I think there needs to be a system where each graduate program has their own captured internship sites that guarantees internship slots for all of their doctoral candidates. There are a number of doctoral clinical psychology program who have switched to the captured sites rather than particpate in the APPIC Match system and a number of these program are APA accredited.

Good idea, but there needs to be a cap of how many total spots a program gets between their captive site and in the APPIC Match.

To some extent the VA internship sites are captured sites for APA accredited program and many of the VA sites select interns from the same programs every year. I've heard that APA accredited program are suppose to be the GOLD standard for clinical psychology training but other factors in intern selection beside being in APA or non APA accredited program may need consideration in final selections.

There are definitely sites that may match with students from certain programs more than others, but it could also be due to other factors like location and understanding the patient population. I completed my internship in the Midwest, and the "local" program happened to be one of the top programs in the country. They only had a handful of students apply for internship each year, but most would apply to this site so they could stay local. 'Fit' is such an important aspect to most internship sites, I think locals probably have an advantages in some places.

What I don't like about the whole Match process is that it gives preferential treatment to candidates from an APA accredited program when the curriculum for all doctoral level students is very similar with only minimal differences.

Why? That is the standard that is accepted by the field. APA-acred. was originally established to be the minimum set of requirements for doctoral-level training. It is far from 'the gold standard', which I would argue is ABPP boarding...though that is a professional credential, not one that is included in the standard training requirements.

We NEED a national training standard (not a gold standard, but a base standard, which is what APA accreditation was originally intended to provide), and this is what APA accreditation provides.

Absolutely. We need our own Flexnor Report, or our field is going to continue to suffer because of declining standards and training.

 

[4410]

Basically my intended point is that despite having APA , non APA, PhD or PsyD programs and the differences "real" or "imagined" between these factors, most individuals who finish up the doctorate degree in clinical psychology eventually pass the EPPP and become licensed. It may take two or three administrations to pass the EPPP but most eventually gain licensure. Some graduates of APA accredited program with completion of an APA accredited internship site may not pass the EPPP and not gain licensure as well as some graduates from non APA accredited programs who completed a non APA or APPIC internship pass the EPPP on the first administraton and become licensed.

Probability wise, it is hard to predict who makes it to the finish line and who does not make it to the finish line since individual differences are involved. However, as others have implied on this blog, once a student reaches the point of their training with all of the challenges of comps, practicum evaluations, dissertations, etc.... there needs to be some mechanism to ensure that the last five to six years of training may be finalized in a successful internship experience without further delay.

Not to suggest that the curriculum of clinical psychology doctoral programs do not provide adequate training but there needs to be more quidelines than APA accreditation to determing program quality. There is a great deal of variability among APA accredited and also among non APA accredited programs. Some programs start practicum rotations during the first year and have their comp the second year whereas others wait until the third year to begin practicum rotations and have their comp in the third year. Some programs emphasize research and other program minmimize research and emphasize clinical experiences. There are PhD programs that focus more on clinical experiences and training and there are PsyD programs that emphasize research. There does not seem to be a clearcut distinction between what exactly is the curriculum of PhD versus PsyD programs. The Vail Conference back in the 70's was based on a outcry by clinical psychologist to have more clinical experiences and training as they did not even begin learning clinical skills until it was time for internship or post doctoral training. Most of ther clinical skills were learned in the internship. Now some 40 years later there does not really seem to be a clear cut distinction between PhD and PsyD programs.

The whole debate of doctoral training standards versus master's level training standards is also an area of controversy, as it seems that there are MA level professionals serving a clinical diretors of some mental health centers or hospital type of programs. I was really surprised to discover in several of my internship interviews that the clinical director of the whole agency was a LCSW or LPCS but they had a number of doctoral level clinical psychologist who were responsible for the doctoral level internship supervision and training. Not to imply that the LCSW or LPCS are not qualified to be the clinical director, but it definitely seems somewhat awkward that social workers and professional counselors are able to advance to the top position for these agencies when there are psychologists who have worked at the agency as long or longer then the LCSW or LPCS. This seems analogous to an MD or DO being supervised by an RN or ANP in a medical setting.

Politics has some influences and it seems that society at large or agencies that employ psychologists often do not see the generalization of skill level of psychologists as being different that LCSW or LPC's.

 

[erg923]

Not to suggest that the curriculum of clinical psychology doctoral programs do not provide adequate training but there needs to be more quidelines than APA accreditation to determing program quality. There is a great deal of variability among APA accredited and also among non APA accredited programs. Some programs start practicum rotations during the first year and have their comp the second year whereas others wait until the third year to begin practicum rotations and have their comp in the third year. Some programs emphasize research and other program minmimize research and emphasize clinical experiences. There are PhD programs that focus more on clinical experiences and training and there are PsyD programs that emphasize research. There does not seem to be a clearcut distinction between what exactly is the curriculum of PhD versus PsyD programs. The Vail Conference back in the 70's was based on a outcry by clinical psychologist to have more clinical experiences and training as they did not even begin learning clinical skills until it was time for internship or post doctoral training. Most of ther clinical skills were learned in the internship. Now some 40 years later there does not really seem to be a clear cut distinction between PhD and PsyD programs.

The whole debate of doctoral training standards versus master's level training standards is also an area of controversy, as it seems that there are MA level professionals serving a clinical diretors of some mental health centers or hospital type of programs. I was really surprised to discover in several of my internship interviews that the clinical director of the whole agency was a LCSW or LPCS but they had a number of doctoral level clinical psychologist who were responsible for the doctoral level internship supervision and training. Not to imply that the LCSW or LPCS are not qualified to be the clinical director, but it definitely seems somewhat awkward that social workers and professional counselors are able to advance to the top position for these agencies when there are psychologists who have worked at the agency as long or longer then the LCSW or LPCS. This seems analogous to an MD or DO being supervised by an RN or ANP in a medical setting.

Politics has some influences and it seems that society at large or agencies that employ psychologists often do not see the generalization of skill level of psychologists as being different that LCSW or LPC's.

Um ok. Fair enough, but I don't see how this has anything to do with the match or how accreditation does or does not play into it.

 

[4410]

Just looking at the Big Picture or Grand Scheme of the mental health field regarding competition. We have APA and Non APA accredited programs and PhD and PsyD programs in the clinical psychology field. The APPIC Match is a ranking system based on a number of variables with applicants and internship sites searching for best FIT criteria. Estimates that 25% of applicants do not find a FIT in the Match Process and students from clinical psychology programs that are APA accredited have a greater chance of matching than do students from non APA accredited programs. Despite clinical psychology doctoral students having intensive training at the doctoral level with predoctoral and postdoctoral training before being eligible for full licensure, LCSW and LPC may actually have substantially greater employment opportunities and reach a higher level of responsibility and/or salary than licensed clinical psychologists. The political mindset goes much deeper than clinical psychology students in either APA or non APA accredited programs when you look at the broad based political picture of MA level licensure qualifications. In the medical field, ANP have taken over most of the family practice and institutional medical coverage to the point where MD and DO may specialize in a hospital based practice or consultation based practice. In community mental health centers where I live, MSW and LPC are thriving and for large agencies there may be only one or two licensed psychologist but 10-15 LPC or MSW at the agency. I believe all of this factors into the MATCH as there would be many more sites for psychologist if LPC and MSW were not doing their internships at these agencies where they normally receive a full salary during their internship years rather than a $18,000 to $24,000 stipend.

From reading through parts of this thread...it is way too long to read from beginning to ending. It seems that there is a theme of the reason that there is a shortage of sites for the APPIC Match is due to professional schools in a private for profit business approach are to blame or at fault for the problems with the APPIC Match shortage. I understand that I have bias coming from a non APA PsyD program concerning this matter and I recognize that my opinion is not necessarily a favorable opinion with students or faculty from APA accredited programs or licensed psychologists from these programs. My perspective, however, is that the Match shortage is much more broader than just due to the PsyD programs that are not APA accredited. I know that I will somehow find an internship in the next year and successfully complete the internship in the next year, but under the current system it will not be in the VA and most probably won't be an APA accredited internship. Not to be long winded as you probably have noticed from my five prior post, but I just believe it is more of a political mindset above just APA and non APA or PhD and PsyD programs and you have to consider the massive amounts of LMSW and LPC that we are competing with for mental health and hospital setting jobs. I believe the VA now has a large number of social workers and professional counselors working in jobs that had previously been held by psychologist and they are making $60,000 to $80,000 or more a year.

 

[neuropsyc]

I really don't think any of us need to be worried about being replaced by social workers. Apples and oranges. The VA classifies these as separate job series. Yes, they earn between 57K and 80K. However, if you do a quick job search for psychology jobs on the VA website, you may be comforted to see that clinical psychologists earn between 80K and 100K++. Let's go back to thinking about internship!

 

[erg923]

I really don't think any of us need to be worried about being replaced by social workers. Apples and oranges. The VA classifies these as separate job series. Yes, they earn between 57K and 80K. However, if you do a quick job search for psychology jobs on the VA website, you may be comforted to see that clinical psychologists earn between 80K and 100K++. Let's go back to thinking about internship!

This IS the internship thread I know, but I think alot of us would disagree that we don't need to be concerned about the encroachment of master level clinicians. Particularly those who are, or will be going into private practices or community mental health settings. Every job announced i see with comp care in my home state says "licensed mental health clinician" wanted (LCSW, MFT, Ph.D./Psy.D.). So, "synonymous," "replace," whats the difference, right? And, do you know what ACOs are? 😀

 

[futurepsydoc]

We need our own Flexnor Report, or our field is going to continue to suffer because of declining standards and training.

I could not agree more with you T4C. I think we need a similar report in the field of psychology. I think the results would be extremely enlightening and prompt significant change in the structure of doctoral education within our field.

Many posters on this forum have argued that Free Standing Professional Schools (FSPS) are responsible, in large part, for the current internship crisis. The most frequent evidence cited is large class sizes and poor match rates. Predatory lending practices are frequently mentioned as well, with their being viewed as the underlying problem driving these concerns. At best, many paint the educational practices of these institutions as irresponsible. At worst, some paint these practices as immoral. Regardless of how you come down on this issue, I think we can all agree that the people who suffer are the same - current students (e.g., debt, problems matching) and recent graduates.

To address these concerns, many have advocated for the use of legal tactics. Yet, the roadblocks that have been encountered seem to make this course of action quite futile. Consequently, a "Flexnor Report" of some kind seems to make the most sense. The results would promote quality control, raise educational standards, and protect consumers.

While many assume that these findings would attack FSPS schools and result in their downfall, I am not so sure if this will be the case. Personally, I have not worked with current students from FSPS programs or been supervised by psychologists that are graduates from said programs. Even if I had, the evidence would be anecdotal. As an empiricist, I am hesitant to jump to conclusions about the training that is offered, the quality of the students, the quality of the of the faculty, and the quality of the program.

If anything, the findings of a "Flexnor Report" have the potential to 1) validate the training at these institutions or 2) call them into question. Further still, this will also lead to careful of scrutiny of other programs, perhaps uncovering significant flaws in what many perceive to be "quality" or "top-notch" institutions. Either way, the results would promote quality control, raise educational standards, and protect consumers. The latter holds true for both students (i.e., consumers of education/training) and clients (i.e., consumers of psychotherapy). I think this course of action is most responsible and should be conducted, with people holding off on their judgements until the findings are disseminated.

 

[terrybug]

From what I've read in other threads on here, the imbalance isn't going to change any time soon because:

1. There are sooo many people who feel convinced that they simply can't achieve their life goals unless they have a PhD or PsyD after their names. It seems like there's a new thread on here daily by someone talking about his/her poor grades/GRE scores, making a FSPS the ONLY choice for them, and so the system persists.

2. There's always going to be some loophole in whatever system we currently have... and people will take advantage of these opportunities for personal gain. Again, there seems to be a new thread on here daily where someone describes some shortcut their program (or some program they applied to) has taken.

3. The profession as a whole can't seem to agree on much, so how can we expect anyone to agree on this issue? Seriously. Think about all the stuff being proposed for the DSM-V that makes you annoyed. The match situation is just a symptom of a larger disease that won't change until the underlying issue is confronted.

Thank you and good night!

 

[4410]

I really don't think any of us need to be worried about being replaced by social workers. Apples and oranges. The VA classifies these as separate job series. Yes, they earn between 57K and 80K. However, if you do a quick job search for psychology jobs on the VA website, you may be comforted to see that clinical psychologists earn between 80K and 100K++. Let's go back to thinking about internship!

If you go through the VA job search site, I would estimate based on a quick preview that there are substantially greater number of Social Work jobs listed then Psychologist jobs listed. This is a prime example of how many psychologist jobs are being downgraded to MS level qualification jobs. The irony from my perspective supports hypocrisy and political influences in the VA. On one hand the VA indicates that you must be from an APA accredited program to qualify for a VA predoctoral internship or work as a VA psychologist; yet on the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to hire MSW's with only a MS degree in remarkable similar positions and nearly the same salary. I would say that there are roughly 7 MSW positions advertised for every 3 psychologist positions with the VA on their job search site.

My thought is that the VA would get a substantial greater bang for their buck if they hired psychologist for these MSW opening regardless of whether or not the psychologist was from an APA or non APA accredited program. Also, the VA has internships for MSW and LPC and my perpective again is that these are internships that would be better served as predoctoral internships to uphold the highest quality of professional standards rather than having MS degree qualification use up these internships. Frankly the MSW salary for the VA is higher than most licensed psychlogist make in the public sector unless they have a profitable and thriving private practice.

 

[erg923]

If you go through the VA job search site, I would estimate based on a quick preview that there are substantially greater number of Social Work jobs listed then Psychologist jobs listed. This is a prime example of how many psychologist jobs are being downgraded to MS level qualification jobs. The irony from my perspective supports hypocrisy and political influences in the VA. On one hand the VA indicates that you must be from an APA accredited program to qualify for a VA predoctoral internship or work as a VA psychologist; yet on the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to hire MSW's with only a MS degree in remarkable similar positions and nearly the same salary. I would say that there are roughly 7 MSW positions advertised for every 3 psychologist positions with the VA on their job search site.


My thought is that the VA would get a substantial greater bang for their buck if they hired psychologist for these MSW opening regardless of whether or not the psychologist was from an APA or non APA accredited program. Also, the VA has internships for MSW and LPC and my perpective again is that these are internships that would be better served as predoctoral internships to uphold the highest quality of professional standards rather than having MS degree qualification use up these internships. Frankly the MSW salary for the VA is higher than most licensed psychlogist make in the public sector unless they have a profitable and thriving private practice.

I think you're making alot of assumptions, and I dont think you have a very good understanding of what LCSWs do and how they function in the VA. They don't do the same job we do. Yes, they do do some therapy, but they really do have profoundly different roles and responsibilities than I do, at least in the VA. To be honest, you just sound angry that you are not able to get into the VA system because you chose to attended an unaccredited program. I'm not sure why you would expect an agency to all the sudden do away with its hiring standards. You need to ask yourself what incentive the VA has to consider applicants from non accredited programs? What benefit does it provide to them?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I think you're making alot of assumptions, and I dont think you have a very good understanding of what LCSWs do and how they function in the VA. They don't do the same job we do. Yes, they do do some therapy, but they really do have profoundly different roles and responsibilities than I do, at least in the VA. To be honest, you just sound angry that you are not able to get into the VA system because you chose to attended an unaccredited program. I'm not sure why you would expect an agency to all the sudden do away with its hiring standards. You need to ask yourself what incentive the VA has to consider applicants from non accredited programs? What benefit does it provide to them?

In addition to the above, Keep in mind that reason there might be more positions for social workers because there are more social workers to begin with. And they're generally paid less than I psychologists, so the va can afford to hire more of them.

And, as erg said, they're usually doing much different work than psychologists

 

[4410]

I think you're making alot of assumptions, and I dont think you have a very good understanding of what LCSWs do and how they function in the VA. They don't do the same job we do. Yes, they do do some therapy, but they really do have profoundly different roles and responsibilities than I do, at least in the VA. To be honest, you just sound angry that you are not able to get into the VA system because you chose to attended an unaccredited program. I'm not sure why you would expect an agency to all the sudden do away with its hiring standards. You need to ask yourself what incentive the VA has to consider applicants from non accredited programs? What benefit does it provide to them?

More frustrated than angry. My focus is child/adolescent and family focused and I have no interest in working or applying for a VA internship or job. All of the sites that I applied to have a pediatric focus or pediatric rehabilitation or neuropsychology focus and I don't believe many VA sites have a pediatric focus unless they are somehow part of a consortium. I just have anxiety about waiting for the news or February 24th, 2012 at 8:30 am EST and just discovered this website or forum several weeks ago. Wish I had discovered it several years ago.

I realize you went through this last year and you are now completing your internship, so any pointers or suggestions would be readily appreciated. Really is there a vast amount of differences between APA accredited and non APA accredited students where us non APA accredited students are not welcome to post our feelings or opinions on this forum. Certainly as clinical psychology students or clinical psychologist you have some interest in the mindset or experiences of students who have attended non APA accredited programs. There is a extreme need for such programs to fullfill the gaps for students who may not have the highest GPA, GRE, or educational requirements or perhaps may have differences in diversity, cultural, or economic backgrounds, but with training and experiences may be competent psychologist serving program or populations not necessarily covered by licensed psychologist from APA accredited programs.

It would certainly be a sad state of affairs if every psychologist was trained in an APA accredited program or APA accredited internship and then only worked in similar types of programs or work sites. There are not enought slots or sites for everyone to work in the VA and my guess is this would eliminate needed services to other programs that provide services to the indigent or underserved populations.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It would certainly be a sad state of affairs if every psychologist was trained in an APA accredited program or APA accredited internship and then only worked in similar types of programs or work sites. There are not enought slots or sites for everyone to work in the VA and my guess is this would eliminate needed services to other programs that provide services to the indigent or underserved populations.

These are two separate issues.

I think it would be a good thing if psychologists were only able to come from APA-acred. and APA-acred. internship because this would represent the minimum standard of training that was originally set for the field. Would this limit access to care...maybe, but probably not. I'd argue that mid-level providers are already encroaching into many areas of traditional practice for psychologists, so limiting psychologists would in effect accept the encroachment, but also allow for the focus on select areas in which to strongly protect.

As for the VA...as it stands, only APA-acred. programs & internship site folks can apply now, so there would be no difference. There is no shortage of applicants for spots, as many get a plethora of spots. There are admittedly some rural/less desirable positions that may go unfilled, but that would still be the case if there were more psychologists. This happens with psychiatry, nursing, and related health fields too.