2012 APPIC Internship Application Thread

[MCParent]

---

Members don't see this ad.

He'd probably write another piece titled "Why I don't go to Internet Forums". Meehl, Dawes, and their ilk should be required reading for all psych grad students. Humbling, yet educational, stuff.

What do you think Meehl would say about programs that market themselves toward "research is math and math is icky" people?

 

[ClinicalABA]

What do you think Meehl would say about programs that market themselves toward "research is math and math is icky" people?

He'd likely say that all that happens between getting accepted to and graduating from such programs is a hypothetical construct rather than an intervening variable.

 

[Dewe]

It is a problem though that the important decision making criteria are judged in a subjective manner and evaluated by interviews, where any number of factors could negatively impact the raters' judgement (maybe you had six hours of flying across the country the night before, became ill, and then had to interview- faculty at internship site rated your interview poorly because they thought you were not eager about the placement or unqualified, when in reality that might have been mostly due to illness)

Unfortunately this is the way that life works. When you go for a job interview in any field, they are interested in your experience as well as your personality. You may be ill and that may affect your interview, but you could ask to reschedule. I know some individuals who did reschedule their internship interviews because they fell ill, and the sites were accommodating. If you come across as not eager about a job, the employer should absolutely think twice before considering you as strongly. And it SHOULD be a subjective process. When I interview prospective graduate students to be joining my lab, I am largely looking for whether I could get along with them and whether they would fit well into the social dynamics of the lab. That cannot be measured with 100% accuracy by any personality test that the APPI may require.

As for 4410, as erg said, there has been consistently incorrect information and some of the comments are very concerning to me, and frankly astonishing. No, we should not pay for our internships because that is what LPCs do. That will not fix anything, except cause all psychology students to be in debt including those in strong programs who have worked hard to obtain good salaries while in graduate school. I also do not believe that everyone is qualified for internship regardless of their program. Non-APA-accredited programs may (although not in all cases) have much lower standards than APA-accredited programs, and their students may not be qualified. APA-accreditation is also only a minimum standard, so of course some individuals may be better qualified and have had more rigorous training than others. Also, 4410 mentioned that a faculty member in his program had not ranked a competitive New York site as highly because he/she did not think that the site would rank him/her that highly. That goes against everything that APPIC and NatMatch have said including what is printed in the FAQs, and it is just plain wrong when it comes to how the algorithm is calculated. There seems to be a significant problem with misinformation across the board in that program, and I am concerned for its graduate students.

 

[erg923]

edit

 

[4410]

Unfortunately this is the way that life works. When you go for a job interview in any field, they are interested in your experience as well as your personality. You may be ill and that may affect your interview, but you could ask to reschedule. I know some individuals who did reschedule their internship interviews because they fell ill, and the sites were accommodating. If you come across as not eager about a job, the employer should absolutely think twice before considering you as strongly. And it SHOULD be a subjective process. When I interview prospective graduate students to be joining my lab, I am largely looking for whether I could get along with them and whether they would fit well into the social dynamics of the lab. That cannot be measured with 100% accuracy by any personality test that the APPI may require.

As for 4410, as erg said, there has been consistently incorrect information and some of the comments are very concerning to me, and frankly astonishing. No, we should not pay for our internships because that is what LPCs do. That will not fix anything, except cause all psychology students to be in debt including those in strong programs who have worked hard to obtain good salaries while in graduate school. I also do not believe that everyone is qualified for internship regardless of their program. Non-APA-accredited programs may (although not in all cases) have much lower standards than APA-accredited programs, and their students may not be qualified. APA-accreditation is also only a minimum standard, so of course some individuals may be better qualified and have had more rigorous training than others. Also, 4410 mentioned that a faculty member in his program had not ranked a competitive New York site as highly because he/she did not think that the site would rank him/her that highly. That goes against everything that APPIC and NatMatch have said including what is printed in the FAQs, and it is just plain wrong when it comes to how the algorithm is calculated. There seems to be a significant problem with misinformation across the board in that program, and I am concerned for its graduate students.

Uh...she went through her program five years ago before there was a shortage and she has been licensed for five years now. I was just saying that she was absolutely shocked that she got an internship at this site, so she ranked other programs ahead of this program. This was in the old days when everything was done on paper and things were much more complicated.

I don't know about nationally but in the program I am in we all get internships either through the match or by finding our own internship.

Sadly to say, I just believe everyone is magnifying the issue, and my guess is the field of psychology, or psychologist are greedy and want to limit the amount of psychologist, so this is one factor why a number of internships do not participate with APPIC or even have internship anymore.

 

[erg923]

As for 4410, as erg said, there has been consistently incorrect information and some of the comments are very concerning to me, and frankly astonishing. No, we should not pay for our internships because that is what LPCs do. That will not fix anything, except cause all psychology students to be in debt including those in strong programs who have worked hard to obtain good salaries while in graduate school. I also do not believe that everyone is qualified for internship regardless of their program. Non-APA-accredited programs may (although not in all cases) have much lower standards than APA-accredited programs, and their students may not be qualified. APA-accreditation is also only a minimum standard, so of course some individuals may be better qualified and have had more rigorous training than others. Also, 4410 mentioned that a faculty member in his program had not ranked a competitive New York site as highly because he/she did not think that the site would rank him/her that highly. That goes against everything that APPIC and NatMatch have said including what is printed in the FAQs, and it is just plain wrong when it comes to how the algorithm is calculated. There seems to be a significant problem with misinformation across the board in that program, and I am concerned for its graduate students.

I really dont think that person is an actual graduate student. Regardless, I have concerns about his posts here because he presents alot of off-the-wall speculations as facts. Multiple posters have had to clean up after him so folks arent given patently false data or ideas. Moderators, can a poster be banned for posting consistently false information? It does effect the integrity of this board afterall?

 

[APPICSucks]

Unfortunately this is the way that life works.

I reject this as a argument. This process CAN change and SHOULD change.

And it SHOULD be a subjective process. When I interview prospective graduate students to be joining my lab, I am largely looking for whether I could get along with them and whether they would fit well into the social dynamics of the lab. That cannot be measured with 100% accuracy by any personality test that the APPI may require.

I don't care what kind of errors you may or may not be making in your subjective lab dynamics evaluation, but I do greatly care about the accuracy of decisions that internship selection committees make about me. To place so much of the decision in the unreliable and fallible subjective ratings of individuals is a problem that could be changed, and APPIC could help.

 

[erg923]

To place so much of the decision in the unreliable and fallible subjective ratings of individuals is a problem that could be changed, and APPIC could help.

Although I have never understood this incessant focus on "fit with the site" (Its ONE freaking year, and its morphed in treating it like we are coming in for lifelong partnership or something!), to take personality factors out of the equation (the kind you get when you just interact casually in an interview) is impossible and not at reflective of how human beings actually function and make decisions. What are you proposing here, exactly?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Sadly to say, I just believe everyone is magnifying the issue, and my guess is the field of psychology, or psychologist are greedy and want to limit the amount of psychologist, so this is one factor why a number of internships do not participate with APPIC or even have internship anymore.

:troll:

 

[moneyphd]

I really dont think that person is an actual graduate student. Regardless, I have concerns about his posts here because he presents alot of off-the-wall speculations as facts. Multiple posters have had to clean up after him so folks arent given patently false data or ideas. Moderators, can a poster be banned for posting consistently false information? It does effect the integrity of this board afterall?

I completely agree that this person is probably not a graduate student, and the bizarre nature of the posts is concerning. In fact, this person received lots of feedback from other posters weeks ago and said he/she would be leaving the post, and then returned. So odd.

 

[APPICSucks]

I'm not saying that personality factors should be taken out of the equation at all. What I'm saying is that they just shouldn't be judged by impressions gleaned during an interview. Part of what would be ideal is some sort of structured interview. I noticed a couple things when I went on interviews: 1) interviewers often asked the same questions and 2) the interviews often tried to cover certain "domains" of questions. I'm guess most try to use some sort if Likert style rating to make evaluations seem like they're not so biased.

Here's an idea that I just thought of. The entire process should be reversed. Applicants should provide information about themselves available to all sites, sites should review said information, then interview applicants based on those criteria. This might in part help to relieve attempts on the part of applicants to tell sites what they think they want to hear. Furthermore, each site could be able to choose questions that it thinks are valuable, or choose response options to questions that are tailored to it's site. We shouldn't have to pay money to send out applications. There should be one core set of questions that are broad in their ability to assess applicants. SITES (not applicants) should then pay to obtain additional information from applicants.

Currently, matching to an internship is more like some sort of crazy video poker or lottery game, whereas it should be more like those online dating sites (okay, that was a pretty bad analogy). Actually, it should be exactly like online dating sites. In round one, both parties create profiles and provide information about themselves and what they are looking for. The first phase of matching is connecting potential matches with each other. Then, additional, standardized site and applicant information gathering would occur prior to rank order list certification. The matching with the rank order lists would continue as it is currently.
Here's an entertaining good example of what the match could be like: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-best-questions-for-first-dates/

Instead of flamethrowers (okcupid) we've got the equivalent of rubbing sticks together to create sparks.

 

[PsychMode]

Hi everyone! I could really use some advice. In my haste to get my applications submitted for phase 2 (yes I know the sites can't even look at them until March 1 but I have a crazy week with classes, tests, and clients) as I was just reviewing my cover letter I realized that there is a small typo. Instead of treatment is says treatent. While I know that's stupid, and I did look over the application preview I just missed it. I know it's a small mistake but do people think I should send an email apologize and acknowledging the typo with the corrected cover letter attached or is calling it out worse? Again, I know it seems silly but as competitive as phase 2 is I'd hate if something so stupid got me automatically rejected from a site. Thank you so much for any feedback!!!!

If tech support can't help, I would leave it alone. I had a minor glitch in two of my essays that were caused by the AAPI online portal when I submitted apps last fall. I considered emailing the sites, too. One of my supervisors made it a point to tell me not to worry about. He was right, and I got good interviews. Based on my experience, my bias is against emailing them over such a minor error. (But, if tech support can help, go that route instead.)

 

[Dewe]

Sadly to say, I just believe everyone is magnifying the issue, and my guess is the field of psychology, or psychologist are greedy and want to limit the amount of psychologist, so this is one factor why a number of internships do not participate with APPIC or even have internship anymore.

I really would love to see what empirical (no, not another anecdotal story) evidence you have that demonstrates that internship programs have decided to no longer offer an internship or participate with APPIC because they are greedy and want the total number of psychologists to be limited.

Also, I would suggest you proofread your posts.

 

[DrivenDoctoress]

The dating profiles example is an entertaining thought, but it's not a process that I would prefer over the current one. Can you imagine if all employment opportunities happened in that fashion? Where you can't apply to places, they have to pick you out of pool first? I think that takes some power away from applicants, which is the opposite of what we want to do. It would be an amusing thing to sit back and watch though... but still a feeding frenzy I think.

I would have to agree with Dewe in some regard, that the process should be subjective in ways... it should have both subjective and objective elements. If I am an employer (a site) I think it's perfectly fair to make selective judgments based on my personal/casual/professional interactions and conversations with the applicants, how they present themselves, how they interact with peers and colleagues, etc. All of that is "subjective" information, but it is valuable information and it is only a piece of the puzzle. And as you mentioned, much of these interviews/interactions DO actually have a bit of standardization as most of us could recite the questioning script they all give in our sleep after those interviews.

I agree that there is a problem, but I don't agree that it's a problem of intern selection on the back end of the process (interviewing, ranking, etc.). And I can't imagine you're going to find too many who believe that that is the real problem in all of this. I believe if the problem truly was that the way sites select interns is poor, then that would mean that the interns that sites DO match with are frequently not good fits, or are not happy there, etc. And I don't think that's the case. I think that most sites are happy with their interns and most interns are happy with their sites, and that means that the selection process was a success for those individuals.

 

[Dewe]

I'm not saying that personality factors should be taken out of the equation at all. What I'm saying is that they just shouldn't be judged by impressions gleaned during an interview. Part of what would be ideal is some sort of structured interview. I noticed a couple things when I went on interviews: 1) interviewers often asked the same questions and 2) the interviews often tried to cover certain "domains" of questions. I'm guess most try to use some sort if Likert style rating to make evaluations seem like they're not so biased.

Here's an idea that I just thought of. The entire process should be reversed. Applicants should provide information about themselves available to all sites, sites should review said information, then interview applicants based on those criteria. This might in part help to relieve attempts on the part of applicants to tell sites what they think they want to hear. Furthermore, each site could be able to choose questions that it thinks are valuable, or choose response options to questions that are tailored to it's site. We shouldn't have to pay money to send out applications. There should be one core set of questions that are broad in their ability to assess applicants. SITES (not applicants) should then pay to obtain additional information from applicants.

Currently, matching to an internship is more like some sort of crazy video poker or lottery game, whereas it should be more like those online dating sites (okay, that was a pretty bad analogy). Actually, it should be exactly like online dating sites. In round one, both parties create profiles and provide information about themselves and what they are looking for. The first phase of matching is connecting potential matches with each other. Then, additional, standardized site and applicant information gathering would occur prior to rank order list certification. The matching with the rank order lists would continue as it is currently.
Here's an entertaining good example of what the match could be like: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-best-questions-for-first-dates/

Instead of flamethrowers (okcupid) we've got the equivalent of rubbing sticks together to create sparks.

So your interviewers are basically using a semi-structured interview. Do you think that the interview process should be purely structured, with multiple choice options? Once you introduce any unstructured components, subjectivity will then be a factor, so the only way for it to be purely objective is for the process to be entirely structured. Then what? There may be 20 people who answer your set of questions exactly the way you want them to. How are you going to decide between those 20? Subjective components of an interview are very important, especially since you are talking about clinical psychology here. I wouldn't want someone working with me who can't string a sentence together, who can't show some amount of empathy for a patient, who perhaps makes disrespectful comments, or someone who I simply find annoying. Subjectivity is an important part of this process.

 

[Dewe]

I agree that there is a problem, but I don't agree that it's a problem of intern selection on the back end of the process (interviewing, ranking, etc.). And I can't imagine you're going to find too many who believe that that is the real problem in all of this. I believe if the problem truly was that the way sites select interns is poor, then that would mean that the interns that sites DO match with are frequently not good fits, or are not happy there, etc. And I don't think that's the case. I think that most sites are happy with their interns and most interns are happy with their sites, and that means that the selection process was a success for those individuals.

👍

 

[niknok]

Here's an idea that I just thought of. The entire process should be reversed. Applicants should provide information about themselves available to all sites, sites should review said information, then interview applicants based on those criteria. This might in part help to relieve attempts on the part of applicants to tell sites what they think they want to hear. Furthermore, each site could be able to choose questions that it thinks are valuable, or choose response options to questions that are tailored to it's site. We shouldn't have to pay money to send out applications. There should be one core set of questions that are broad in their ability to assess applicants. SITES (not applicants) should then pay to obtain more information.

good for you for trying to think outside the box. Although I'm all for out of the box ideas I just don't think its feasible. I don't think sites would like to surf through hundreds, thousands of applicants just to find their match. It's too time consuming and I'm guessing that this whole process is already costing them money.

I agree that this process even take away more power out of the students and I find myself most frustrated about this process by the lack of control where I would end up or not end up. (although ultimately they say we have the power to rank or not rank a site so in a way we do have power, I digress).

Unfortunately the supply and demand situation is against us right now. And if I'm a site, why would I want to pay to get students I'll be paying, training and devote my time to just to apply with me when I have so many to choose from?

 

[4410]

I really dont think that person is an actual graduate student. Regardless, I have concerns about his posts here because he presents alot of off-the-wall speculations as facts. Multiple posters have had to clean up after him so folks arent given patently false data or ideas. Moderators, can a poster be banned for posting consistently false information? It does effect the integrity of this board afterall?

I am a PsyD clinical psychology student and beginning a predoctoral internship in July of 2012. For some reason or another your post seem to reflect that only what you post is "fact" and my perspective is that there are no simple solutions to the current shortage of internships. It is rather naive to believe that APA is the problems when you have to consider the many factors outside of APA.

I am against a protest or a petition as it draws additional negativism to the profession of psychology. I've known many psychologist who moan and groan about the field and do not agree with most of the training standards, especially the year of postdoctoral training before being fully licensed.

I will stop posting as I certainly mean no harm and never intended on causing additional negativism, but as with any issues there are numerous sides to the story. Pluralism is a positive thing as is competition in the field of psychology. It is wonderful that many students are going into the field of psychology as there is a dire need for more psychologists with adequate training and compassion for individuals having mental health needs requiring effective treatment using empirically validated methods.

 

[APPICSucks]

So your interviewers are basically using a semi-structured interview. Do you think that the interview process should be purely structured, with multiple choice options?

Structured or semi-structured interviews should absolutely a part of the process but would by necessity need to come after an initial screening/matching phase as each site will need to craft a pool of structured interview questions to address their specific needs.

Once you introduce any unstructured components, subjectivity will then be a factor, so the only way for it to be purely objective is for the process to be entirely structured. Then what? There may be 20 people who answer your set of questions exactly the way you want them to. How are you going to decide between those 20? Subjective components of an interview are very important, especially since you are talking about clinical psychology here. I wouldn't want someone working with me who can't string a sentence together, who can't show some amount of empathy for a patient, who perhaps makes disrespectful comments, or someone who I simply find annoying. Subjectivity is an important part of this process.

This is where more information is needed, and why more objective data is needed. Ever wonder why sites often take applicants from nearby programs? My guess is that one reason is that having that extra bit of information about an applicant gives a greater degree of confidence in ranking them higher. Similar to the findings that clinicians who are "specialists" in a given diagnosis or area are more likely to diagnose clients with that diagnosis - I'm thinking in particular about those clinics that specialize in treating DID where the prevalence rate of DID diagnosis are umpteen times higher than what it should be according to epidemiology studies. I'm sure situations like this happen all the time and then what do you think they do? Evaluate by memories? Ask the secretary what she thought of those 20 people?

 

[O Gurl]

I am a PsyD clinical psychology student and beginning a predoctoral internship in July of 2012. For some reason or another your post seem to reflect that only what you post is "fact" and my perspective is that there are no simple solutions to the current shortage of internships. It is rather naive to believe that APA is the problems when you have to consider many factors outside of APA.

I am against a protest or a petition as it draws additional negatism to the profession of psychology. I know many psychologist who moan and groan about the field and do not agree with most of the training standards, especially the year of postdoctoral training before being fully licensed.

I will stop posting as I certainly mean no harm and never intended on causing negativism, but as with any issues there are numerous sides to the story. Pluralism is a positive thing as is competition in the field of psychology. It is wonderful that many students are going into the field of psychology as there is a dire need for more psychologist with adequate training and compassion for individuals having mental health needs requiring effective treatment using empirically validated methods.

Oh, for Pete's Sake. Just GO. If you are a doctoral trainee on your way to internship, then I am disgusted. Seriously. A future psychologist who apparently doesn't know the plural of the word? One who continuously makes up words (and facts) such as "negatism"? One who apparently lives in blind fear of the First Amendment and attends a program that would expel a student for protesting at a conference but allows one to apply for internship who cannot form a coherent argument? If all of these bizarre facts are true (big IF) then you and your program are exactly what is wrong with the outsourcing of our training to profit-driven businesses. The mere thought that you and I could someday enter the same room and both be introduced as Dr. X, licensed clinical psychologist, makes me vomit a bit in my mouth.

Goodbye.

 

[O Gurl]

Structured or semi-structured interviews should absolutely a part of the process but would by necessity need to come after an initial screening/matching phase as each site will need to craft a pool of structured interview questions to address their specific needs.


This is where more information is needed, and why more objective data is needed. Ever wonder why sites often take applicants from nearby programs? My guess is that one reason is that having that extra bit of information about an applicant gives a greater degree of confidence in ranking them higher. Similar to the findings that clinicians who are "specialists" in a given diagnosis or area are more likely to diagnose clients with that diagnosis - I'm thinking in particular about those clinics that specialize in treating DID where the prevalence rate of DID diagnosis are umpteen times higher than what it should be according to epidemiology studies. I'm sure situations like this happen all the time and then what do you think they do? Evaluate by memories? Ask the secretary what she thought of those 20 people?

While I can understand your frustration, I also think you are focusing your ire in the wrong direction. Training programs, like employers, have every right to make subjective decisions. In fact, I'd say they have more of a right given the fact that interns will operate under their (site supervisor's) licenses and will to some extent represent that program for the remainder of their careers. If a person has a problematic or poorly fit personality, it matters. The imbalance is a major problem for even the most competent trainees. Obviously, when only half of registered applicants have a numerical chance of matching to an accredited site, that is a problem. However, at the risk of getting my head bitten off, every failure to match is not a horrendous injustice. Not all who fail to match fell through the cracks. In hindsight, many will cite factors such as geographic restriction, limited clinical experience due to being overly research oriented, limited research productivity (I was SHOCKED by the number of applicants with 0 publications in refereed journals) and applying to sites for which they were simply not a fit (again, I was shocked by the number of applicants to our VA site received who never worked in a VA or medical center, were from school psych programs, had very few <5 integrated reports, received the majority of their clinical training in child/adolescent practicum sites, had NO exposure to EBTs, etc) as possible contributing factors. Keeping mind that imbalance IS real and has to be addressed, the challenge to reach the top half of the pool (even the most rocks tar applicants can only match to one spot) does not exactly present insurmountable odds or evidence that the selection process itself is flawed.

 

[APPICSucks]

I don't think sites would like to surf through hundreds, thousands of applicants

I think this is the current situation (okay, maybe not thousands), but sites are forced to make rough cuts based on clinical hours and other objective data because those are the easiest, most sure way to narrow the pool of applicants down to those that they are legitimately interested. As it is now, there's nothing stopping a Counseling Ph.D. student from applying to a site that is searching for Clinical Psy.D's. I think sites would actually appreciate being able to identify who is most eligible to meet their needs.

this process even take away more power out of the students

I think most students take too much comfort in the illusion of choice offered in applying for internships. Why spend hours tailoring an application to a site that will never look at it? The fact is some students have absolutely no chance at some sites, but have the "power" to apply to them anyway. Am I the only one that finds this problematic?

Unfortunately the supply and demand situation is against us right now.

These selection problems are separate from the imbalance and will exist if the imbalance is corrected.

And if I'm a site, why would I want to pay to get students I'll be paying, training and devote my time to just to apply with me when I have so many to choose from?

Well, if I was paying someone to go through a stack of applications I would want them to do it as fast and as accurately as possible. The current system is neither. I think we need to face the fact that the sensitivity and specificity of the current evaluation methods are poor.

 

[O Gurl]

Well, if I was paying someone to go through a stack of applications I would want them to do it as fast and as accurately as possible. The current system is neither. I think we need to face the fact that the sensitivity and specificity of the current evaluation methods are poor.

What is your evidence for this statement?

 

[APPICSucks]

While I can understand your frustration, I also think you are focusing your ire in the wrong direction. Training programs, like employers, have every right to make subjective decisions. In fact, I'd say they have more of a right given the fact that interns will operate under their (site supervisor's) licenses and will to some extent represent that program for the remainder of their careers. If a person has a problematic or poorly fit personality, it matters. The imbalance is a major problem for even the most competent trainees. Obviously, when only half of registered applicants have a numerical chance of matching to an accredited site, that is a problem. However, at the risk of getting my head bitten off, every failure to match is not a horrendous injustice. Not all who fail to match fell through the cracks. In hindsight, many will cite factors such as geographic restriction, limited clinical experience due to being overly research oriented, limited research productivity (I was SHOCKED by the number of applicants with 0 publications in refereed journals) and applying to sites for which they were simply not a fit (again, I was shocked by the number of applicants to our VA site received who never worked in a VA or medical center, were from school psych programs, had very few <5 integrated reports, received the majority of their clinical training in child/adolescent practicum sites, had NO exposure to EBTs, etc). Keeping mind that imbalance IS real and has to be addressed, the challenge to reach the top half of the pool (even the most rocks tar applicants can only match to one spot) are not insurmountable odds or evidence that the selection process itself is flawed.

I agree, a site has the right to make a subjective decision about applicants but I don't think most internship sites want to choose just anyone for their positions. I agree that is really does matter if someone fits poorly in an internship (or grad program for that matter). Look at your response to 4410 above. You seem shocked that this individual was able to acquire an internship based upon their forum behavior, yet you don't think there is any problem with the evaluation of internship applicants? If you were a training director, wouldn't you want to be able to identify applicants like 4410 and not consider them for you spots?

This is just my guess, but I think that the current application and evaluation methods probably perform most poorly in differentiating "average" applicants.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm all for increasing the efficiency and potential effectiveness of the pre-screening process, and I know that there are at least some internship sites that do this already via their own algorithms based on a variety of factors. I also wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a semi-structured interview component. Perhaps these are the types of things that could be accomplished via the APPI and over the phone, thereby reducing the number of individuals invited for on-site interviews.

However, I do feel that to some extent, an unstructured interaction adds to the process, especially with those applicants in the "top tier," and for whom the site is most interested in obtaining a "feel." After all, we don't reduce our clients/patients to MMPI scores and SCID responses; we shouldn't do that to intern applicants, either.

 

[psychRA]

I think most students take too much comfort in the illusion of choice offered in applying for internships. Why spend hours tailoring an application to a site that will never look at it? The fact is some students have absolutely no chance at some sites, but have the "power" to apply to them anyway. Am I the only one that finds this problematic?

I don't see how this is any different from the rest of life. We've all probably applied for jobs that (whether we knew it or not) we had no chance of getting, grad programs where we just didn't end up making the cut, etc. I'd much rather have the power to decide for myself to apply to a site that might be out of my reach, than have someone else tell me where I can and cannot apply.

On the flip side, it makes no sense to me to have sites reviewing applications from individuals who may or may not have any interest in their program. I applied to a decent number of places, but I still had very specific criteria that I used to select those places. Even if every site had had access to my application, it would not have benefited me in the slightest had a site that wasn't on my list expressed interest in interviewing me, because I wouldn't have been interested in them. It sucks to have to spend time applying, but still seems more reasonable than making every single site waste a ton of time on uninterested applicants.

 

[APPICSucks]

What is your evidence for this statement?

Thank you for asking me to clarify this thought because it was hasty. Some aspects are only separately efficient. It may be very easy for sites to lop of 20% of the applications they receive because they are from Psy.D. applicants and the site is looking for only Ph.D. applicants. For those Psy.D. applicants in this example their time could have been more effectively used to apply to other sites where they are in demand.

I am not aware of any empirical support for this argument.

 

[O Gurl]

I agree, a site has the right to make a subjective decision about applicants but I don't think most internship sites want to choose just anyone for their positions. I agree that is really does matter if someone fits poorly in an internship (or grad program for that matter). Look at your response to 4410 above. You seem shocked that this individual was able to acquire an internship based upon their forum behavior, yet you don't think there is any problem with the evaluation of internship applicants? If you were a training director, wouldn't you want to be able to identify applicants like 4410 and not consider them for you spots?

This is just my guess, but I think that the current application and evaluation methods probably perform most poorly in differentiating "average" applicants.

I hear you, but I don't believe a word of what 4410 has said. This is the internet. I could claim to have traveled to the moon twice if I felt like it. But for the sake of argument, IF he (or she for all I know) did match to an internship site, his "flair" was obvious through his packet and/or upon interview. I guarantee it. There is no way his grammar and logic displayed here was magically eradicated and he wrote clear, consistent, logical essays. There is no way he answered interview questions thoughtfully. IF he matched, it is to a site that you would never, ever, ever want to spend a year at (cheap labor model; shady operation with a shingle hung out front, etc.).

I think that you would like to operationalize and evaluate a process that is its own proof of "effectiveness." If an internship site was NOT getting what they wanted out of their selected trainees, they would simply tweak their algorithm or approach.

 

[APPICSucks]

I don't see how this is any different from the rest of life. We've all probably applied for jobs that (whether we knew it or not) we had no chance of getting, grad programs where we just didn't end up making the cut, etc. I'd much rather have the power to decide for myself to apply to a site that might be out of my reach, than have someone else tell me where I can and cannot apply.

On the flip side, it makes no sense to me to have sites reviewing applications from individuals who may or may not have any interest in their program. I applied to a decent number of places, but I still had very specific criteria that I used to select those places. Even if every site had had access to my application, it would not have benefited me in the slightest had a site that wasn't on my list expressed interest in interviewing me, because I wouldn't have been interested in them. It sucks to have to spend time applying, but still seems more reasonable than making every single site waste a ton of time on uninterested applicants.

My thoughts about how to resolve these problems are not as clear. I am merely trying to raise awareness about them.

But to go back to one potential solution, to make a sortable list of applicants on characteristics would not be too unlike any online store website or online dating site. Now these are examples of using technology to maximally meet their desired aims - maybe there's not enough profit incentive in psychology internships, but I digress - I think match.com or maybe eharmony.com or one of those types of sites matches people on mutual interests. So if two people say they want to meet someone within 50 miles of where they live, they are only shown those people. Narrowing the pool of applicants could continue until it is more or less specified on these broad categories. Applicants and sites could then answer supplemental questions - for example "Do you often stay late in the office" or "Do you arrive and leave work at scheduled time?" Some sites may want people who are willing to stay late and work extra hours, others may not want someone so driven and opt in stead for a more balanced individual. Here, you could start to get not just a measure of dichotomous fit, but rather a "percentage of fit." Sites could then further screen people to say, only show those applicants who match the characteristics of the internship +80%. This percentage could be supplemented with additional questions as needed until optimal fit is achieved for sites and applicants alike. Also, much of this could be automated and would not require any/little personnel effort.

 

[Quynh2007]

My thoughts about how to resolve these problems are not as clear. I am merely trying to raise awareness about them.

But to go back to one potential solution, to make a sortable list of applicants on characteristics would not be too unlike any online store website or online dating site. Now these are examples of using technology to maximally meet their desired aims - maybe there's not enough profit incentive in psychology internships, but I digress - I think match.com or maybe eharmony.com or one of those types of sites matches people on mutual interests. So if two people say they want to meet someone within 50 miles of where they live, they are only shown those people. Narrowing the pool of applicants could continue until it is more or less specified on these broad categories. Applicants and sites could then answer supplemental questions - for example "Do you often stay late in the office" or "Do you arrive and leave work at scheduled time?" Some sites may want people who are willing to stay late and work extra hours, others may not want someone so driven and opt in stead for a more balanced individual. Here, you could start to get not just a measure of dichotomous fit, but rather a "percentage of fit." Sites could then further screen people to say, only show those applicants who match the characteristics of the internship +80%. This percentage could be supplemented with additional questions as needed until optimal fit is achieved for sites and applicants alike. Also, much of this could be automated and would not require any/little personnel effort.

I think that wouldn't work. If you know former interns, you can tailor your supplemental question to make yourself a more desirable candidate.

 

[APPICSucks]

I think that you would like to operationalize and evaluate a process that is its own proof of "effectiveness." If an internship site was NOT getting what they wanted out of their selected trainees, they would simply tweak their algorithm or approach.

This is an interesting idea. I wonder how often this happens, and what the effects are. I'm think if a site had a negative experience with an applicant from a program, would that then negatively valence all future applicants from that program?

 

[APPICSucks]

I think that wouldn't work. If you know former interns, you can tailor your supplemental question to make yourself a more desirable candidate.

Maybe the site had a negative experience with the former intern you know and dismiss your application because you responded in the way you thought they wanted? Shouldn't this be about being yourself, not trying to be someone else?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

This is an interesting idea. I wonder how often this happens, and what the effects are. I'm think if a site had a negative experience with an applicant from a program, would that then negatively valence all future applicants from that program?

In general, this seems to be the case, yes. I've heard stories from TDs and interns who've said that programs have been "blacklisted" based on negative experiences with prior trainees.

Heck, there are even instances in which sites won't seriously consider applicants from a particular advisor based on negative past experiences/interactions (or so I've heard).

 

[Quynh2007]

Maybe the site had a negative experience with the former intern you know and dismiss your application because you responded in the way you thought they wanted? Shouldn't this be about being yourself, not trying to be someone else?

well, that's up to you as the applicant to decide wouldn't it. But, given the current climate, I don't think anyone would forgo an opportunity to present themselves as better fits if possible, especially those who are geographically limited.

 

[O Gurl]

This is an interesting idea. I wonder how often this happens, and what the effects are. I'm think if a site had a negative experience with an applicant from a program, would that then negatively valence all future applicants from that program?

YES.

Edit: I said too much.

 

[Dewe]

A future psychologist who apparently doesn't know the plural of the word? One who continuously makes up words (and facts) such as "negatism"? One who apparently lives in blind fear of the First Amendment and attends a program that would expel a student for protesting at a conference but allows one to apply for internship who cannot form a coherent argument? If all of these bizarre facts are true (big IF) then you and your program are exactly what is wrong with the outsourcing of our training to profit-driven businesses. The mere thought that you and I could someday enter the same room and both be introduced as Dr. X, licensed clinical psychologist, makes me vomit a bit in my mouth.

Thank you. I could not agree more.

And the consistent use of "psychologist" instead of "psychologists" was also driving me a bit batty

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

again, i think it's natural to try to single out what may have gone wrong in each case or what's lacking in any particular applicant's cache of skills. i believe it is more of a crapshoot than any of us would like to accept.

No, no, I totally accept the crapshoot concept wholeheartedly. 😀

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Look, we all know that the system is broken. I have plenty of support (including ALL our faculty who are outraged that I didn't match), and good options for next year. I also have strong opinions about the imbalance, but none of that is going to change the Phase I match results for me this year.

I contributed to my own result. I take responsibility for being 1) geographically restricted, and 2) unwilling to apply to certain sites because they don't fit my training needs. Not that it doesn't frustrate me that my excellent (by ALL accounts) qualifications were not enough within this system. I also don't think it's fair that not wanting to uproot my life in order to complete my Ph.D. worked against me. I suppose I'm just taking a radical acceptance stance.

I think we're in the same boat (I don't know that I missed by one spot on the list, though, that has to sting) except that you have the faculty's support (and it's my 2nd time around) and that is a major part that's missing for me. I feel like the people who were supposed to be responsible for teaching me skills and information acted like they taught me that stuff and then totally backed out. So my coping involves ways to get myself out of this sucky situation (career options, people!).

But, speaking from experience, the year is what you make of it. 🙂 Good luck to everyone in Phase II!

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Also, as DrivenDoctoress brought up a little while ago, does anyone think limiting the number of applications that an applicant is allowed to submit is a good idea?

I brought this up a few months ago, based on my experiences the first time around. Short story: I was interviewing with people from Hawaii for community mental health positions in the Northeast. I just wondered if they really wanted the position or if they were applying to all the potential "good fits" in the country to be on the safe side. That made me wonder how many local applicants hadn't gotten interviews because the people who weren't super invested in the site had gotten the interview instead. My conclusion: if everyone were limited to 10 applications (arbitrary lowish number), applicants would have a better chance at getting interviews at these sites and sites would have fewer applications to review (so they could/would give each application more time, in theory, rather than just sorting a spreadsheet by number of hours in X setting with X population, as can/does happen based on the current system). When the perceived cost is a year of life (and living costs), $35 per application doesn't seem prohibitive (and that's at the n>20 application level).

 

[Int PsyD]

I personally would like to wish everyone on Phase II the best of luck. My heart goes out to you all!!!

I have been blessed to have matched to one of my top choices, which is an APA site. Most of my cohort did great too but a few of the truly amazing and great students did not get matched. All I think about is that APA has to do something about it, and we have to stick together for our profession rather than argue or discourage each other.

I hope you all get a great placement on Phase II.

 

[psyman]

I don't know about nationally but in the program I am in we all get internships either through the match or by finding our own internship.

Sadly to say, I just believe everyone is magnifying the issue, and my guess is the field of psychology, or psychologist are greedy and want to limit the amount of psychologist, so this is one factor why a number of internships do not participate with APPIC or even have internship anymore.

Those from APA programs cannot find their own internship and must go through the match. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my program's policy.

Your posts make my head hurt.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Also, as DrivenDoctoress brought up a little while ago, does anyone think limiting the number of applications that an applicant is allowed to submit is a good idea?

I brought this up a few months ago, based on my experiences the first time around. Short story: I was interviewing with people from Hawaii for community mental health positions in the Northeast. I just wondered if they really wanted the position or if they were applying to all the potential "good fits" in the country to be on the safe side. That made me wonder how many local applicants hadn't gotten interviews because the people who weren't super invested in the site had gotten the interview instead. My conclusion: if everyone were limited to 10 applications (arbitrary lowish number), applicants would have a better chance at getting interviews at these sites and sites would have fewer applications to review (so they could/would give each application more time, in theory, rather than just sorting a spreadsheet by number of hours in X setting with X population, as can/does happen based on the current system). When the perceived cost is a year of life (and living costs), $35 per application doesn't seem prohibitive (and that's at the n>20 application level).

A few of us mentioned this same idea last year, yep (i.e., limiting the number of applications per applicant to something like 15). I don't know that it's feasible in the current internship climate, but honestly, I'd consider supporting it. If nothing else, it'd reduce the workload on sites, and would cause applicants to have to choose only those sites to which they truly desired to match.

Seems like such a far cry from even what was going on when I began my grad program. At that time, owing perhaps to much/all of the process still being paper-based, I heard stories that our DCT would strongly discourage anyone from applying to more than 10 sites. Oh, how things have changed.

 

[RoseRed2]

A few of us mentioned this same idea last year, yep (i.e., limiting the number of applications per applicant to something like 15). I don't know that it's feasible in the current internship climate, but honestly, I'd consider supporting it. If nothing else, it'd reduce the workload on sites, and would cause applicants to have to choose only those sites to which they truly desired to match.

Seems like such a far cry from even what was going on when I began my grad program. At that time, owing perhaps to much/all of the process still being paper-based, I heard stories that our DCT would strongly discourage anyone from applying to more than 10 sites. Oh, how things have changed.

I will be curious to see what the average number of applications that were submitted by each applicant was this year when the data for this cycle comes out in a few months. A lot of the folks I talked to at interviews discussed applying to 17-18 sites each. Seems like a lot of folks on here were applying to ~20 sites each.

 

[APPICSucks]

Good morning colleagues!

A few of us mentioned this same idea last year, yep (i.e., limiting the number of applications per applicant to something like 15). I don't know that it's feasible in the current internship climate, but honestly, I'd consider supporting it. If nothing else, it'd reduce the workload on sites, and would cause applicants to have to choose only those sites to which they truly desired to match.

Seems like such a far cry from even what was going on when I began my grad program. At that time, owing perhaps to much/all of the process still being paper-based, I heard stories that our DCT would strongly discourage anyone from applying to more than 10 sites. Oh, how things have changed.

YES! There should be caps on both end of the system - applicants and internships alike. I don't see why it is wrong for sites to be able to choose who can or cannot be considered for their positions; above someone mentioned Ed.D. students applying to a VA internship for which they were absolutely not wanted. Why not prohibit this?

The situation is like an economy where there is a good in short supply and there is a surplus of commodities to be exchange for acquisition of this good. Some people holding the goods want dollars for their good, and others want cheeseburgers for their good. We've got people trying to give over their cheeseburgers to sites that want dollars and the sites just keep taking those cheeseburgers even though it does nobody any good.

 

[erg923]

Good morning colleagues!


YES! There should be caps on both end of the system - applicants and internships alike. I don't see why it is wrong for sites to be able to choose who can or cannot be considered for their positions; above someone mentioned Ed.D. students applying to a VA internship for which they were absolutely not wanted. Why not prohibit this?

The situation is like an economy where there is a good in short supply and there is a surplus of commodities to be exchange for acquisition of this good. Some people holding the goods want dollars for their good, and others want cheeseburgers for their good. We've got people trying to give over their cheeseburgers to sites that want dollars and the sites just keep taking those cheeseburgers even though it does nobody any good.

This post makes me hungry

 

[APPICSucks]

I will be curious to see what the average number of applications that were submitted by each applicant was this year when the data for this cycle comes out in a few months. A lot of the folks I talked to at interviews discussed applying to 17-18 sites each. Seems like a lot of folks on here were applying to ~20 sites each.

I'm curious to see the data for this cycle also. Students for next year's match should be urged to apply to more sites than what is suggested, which I'm sure will be much to the dismay of selection committees. I can't find it now, but I remember seeing some data about the number of sites applicants applied to in 2011 or 2010 and match percentages for applicants who applied to that number of sites. Anyone know where I can find that?

 

[APPICSucks]

This post makes me hungry

Hamburglar stole my internship!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm curious to see the data for this cycle also. Students for next year's match should be urged to apply to more sites than what is suggested, which I'm sure will be much to the dismay of selection committees. I can't find it now, but I remember seeing some data about the number of sites applicants applied to in 2011 or 2010 and match percentages for applicants who applied to that number of sites. Anyone know where I can find that?

It's on the APPIC site under match statistics, I believe. I know that back in maybe 2009, the numbers up to that point showed diminishing returns after 15 applications for the most part, hence APPIC's decision to charge more per app after 15.

Although as another poster mentioned, the extra fee doesn't seem to be dissuading many people. During my interview trail last year, I consistently heard from people who applied (or were actually told by their programs to apply) to upwards of 25-30 programs.

I think the average for my year might've been maybe 17 applications, which I'm pretty sure was an increase over the previous year. Wouldn't at all be surprised to see that it's increased again.

 

[4410]

Those from APA programs cannot find their own internship and must go through the match. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my program's policy.

Your posts make my head hurt.

Everyone in my program has to go thought the APPIC Match as well. However, the advantage is that if we don't Match then students are able to find their own site or even develop their own site. Some students who are not able to move due to family reasons are actually relieved when they do not Match as they are able to find their own local internship. This is in a major metropolitan city and very large State that has more than 2000 licensed psychologist. The APA or APPIC approved internships in this State are mostly filled by students from APA accredited programs from other States, so being a non APA accredited program our chances of Matching within our State is limited. Most all of us who Match is in other States. Some students did their internships in New York, Washington, Kansas, Missouri, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, California, Oregon, etc... and these all required relocation during their internship year of training.

Although we are not APA accredited, one student completed a VA internship and two students completed a Federal Prison internship. Every year we have three or four students who are Matched to APA accredited internship and the remaining students complete non APA accredited internships or APPIC approved internships. I believe the problem for many students in APA accredited programs is the requirement of completing an APA accredited internship. The student's program requires this, not APA, so APA is not at fault of the internship shortage for these students. I believe the petition or the protest should be directed to each of the student's programs for requiring APA accredited internships as neither APA or most State licensure law require an APA accredited internship.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Everyone in my program has to go thought the APPIC Match as well. However, the advantage is that if we don't Match then students are able to find their own site or even develop their own site. Some students who are not able to move due to family reasons are actually relieved when they do not Match as they are able to find their own local internship. This is in a major metropolitan city and very large State that has more than 2000 licensed psychologist. The APA or APPIC approved internships in this State are mostly filled by students from APA accredited programs from other States, so being a non APA accredited program our chances of Matching within our State is limited. Most all of us who Match is in other States. Some students did their internships in New York, Washington, Kansas, Missouri, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, California, Oregon, etc... and these all required relocation during their internship year of training.

Although we are not APA accredited, one student completed a VA internship and two students completed a Federal Prison internship. Every year we have three or four students who are Matched to APA accredited internship and the remaining students complete non APA accredited internships or APPIC approved internships. I believe the problem for many students in APA accredited programs is the requirement of completing an APA accredited internship. The student's program requires this, not APA, so APA is not at fault of the internship shortage for these students. I believe the petition or the protest should be directed to each of the student's programs for requiring APA accredited internships as neither APA or most State licensure law require an APA accredited internship.

You're of course welcome to your opinion, but I vehemently disagree. I believe that APA accreditation should be seen as it was originally intended--a minimum training standard to which ALL internships should be required to adhere. Thus, I feel that once the numbers come into better alignment, ALL programs should require APA-accredited (or the equivalent) internships. The reason I latch on to APA accred specifically is simply because it's the most well- and widely-established accreditation standard, and its requirements in general are sound (even if the implementation of evaluating those credentials is less-than-ideal).

When individuals "create their own" internship and circumvent this accreditation, there's absolutely no way to objectively vouch for the quality of training they're receiving. Additionally, there's no centralized way to protect these interns from being taken advantage of and/or facilitate response to grievances. Essentially, there's no enforced accountability on the part of the internship.

I can completely empathize with the very real existence of, and reasons for, geographical restrictions. However, I don't feel that such restrictions should lead to a degradation of training standards in the field, which I would argue is almost certain to occur if interns and programs are continually allowed to develop their own internships without being held to some common standard.