2012 Internship Match Discussion

[Duck Duck Goose]

After the match, I heard that internship programs have some capacity to either specify the number of applicants that come from a certain doctoral program or that they have identified some way to enact this through how they rank. I was surprised at this, although reviewing past match results suggests that internship sites have been able to limit the number of applicants from certain programs to 1. This seems to differ from my understanding of how the match ranking system is supposed to work. However, I realize that I might be confused and/or misinformed about the process (could also add naive to that list). I wanted to check in with other people on this forum to see if this seems familiar and transparent.

Yup, that's something I found out this year, too. People on the other side can better address this but I imagine it's something like a checkbox option.

If you're an internship and you have two positions: if your
number 1 applicant is from program Z and your
number 2 applicant is from program Y and your
number 3 applicant is from program Z and your
number 4 applicant is from program Y,
you can choose the "allow only 1 student from this program [maybe it's all programs]" box to make sure that you won't get both students from program Y, even if the Z students didn't like your site and ranked you low or not at all. It is one way for sites to ensure one kind of diversity in the intern cohort.

If your number 2 applicant ranked you highly and didn't match to sites that s/he ranked higher, you get applicant number 2 and skip applicant 4 in your list. If number 2 matches elsewhere, you give number 4 a shot and if s/he matches to your site by ranking you higher than other sites that ranked her/him highly, you get number 4 and your list "ignores" any other applicants on the list from program Y. Does that make sense?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Powerball]

Yup, that's something I found out this year, too. People on the other side can better address this but I imagine it's something like a checkbox option.

If you're an internship and you have two positions: if your
number 1 applicant is from program Z and your
number 2 applicant is from program Y and your
number 3 applicant is from program Z and your
number 4 applicant is from program Y,
you can choose the "allow only 1 student from this program [maybe it's all programs]" box to make sure that you won't get both students from program Y, even if the Z students didn't like your site and ranked you low or not at all. It is one way for sites to ensure one kind of diversity in the intern cohort.

If your number 2 applicant ranked you highly and didn't match to sites that s/he ranked higher, you get applicant number 2 and skip applicant 4 in your list. If number 2 matches elsewhere, you give number 4 a shot and if s/he matches to your site by ranking you higher than other sites that ranked her/him highly, you get number 4 and your list "ignores" any other applicants on the list from program Y. Does that make sense?

I don't disagree with the desire for diversity, but I haven't come across anything that makes this aspect of the rankings transparent. Maybe I'm missing something so I don't want to jump ahead. However, indulging such a leap, if this is a true but hidden aspect of the match, I think that's a serious ethical issue.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

I don't disagree with the desire for diversity, but I haven't come across anything that makes this aspect of the rankings transparent. Maybe I'm missing something so I don't want to jump ahead. However, indulging such a leap, if this is a true but hidden aspect of the match, I think that's a serious ethical issue.

Which part of the rankings isn't transparent enough? Each site has their own criteria and rank according to it. They can submit multiple rank lists if they want. No one knows who or how they ranked but they know where the people that they rank match (or if they don't). The "one intern from each program" aspect of it has gotten publicity recently - you and I both found out about it - but I don't know that it was deliberately hidden from applicants before. TDs don't know how to get proper spacing in essays or if you enter payment information before designating sites or the other way around. There are parts on each side that aren't deliberately obscured but that people on the other side don't care about until it seems to have an impact on them (like TDs getting essays that have giant spacing or applicants finding out that they didn't match but someone else from their program with similar experiences did). Nothing about it is fully transparent or completely opaque. Grey area stinks.

I suspect that this option is part of why I didn't match last year or this year but I can't be sure. I don't see how it's unethical, though.

PS - Posting your thoughts in the APPIC internship thread might get more attention/responses.

 

[Powerball]

I'm not positive if it's unethical either, which is why I'm trying to find out more information. But from what I've read about the match, I have not encountered anything that says internship sites have the the capacity to put a cap on the # of applicants from certain programs. Basically all it says is that the match works "up" their ranks. However, if what we've heard is true, then that description of the match is incorrect. And that strikes me as unethical grey area.

 

[NotTheHoff]

I know sites that state they will only consider applicants from accredited programs but will occasionally grant exceptions to students from newer non-accredited programs. These programs are willing to take a single non-accredited applicant under some circumstances but would naturally be less inclined to have multiple non-accredited interns in a given year. This is another important reason sites would want to submit multiple match lists.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

I'm not positive if it's unethical either, which is why I'm trying to find out more information. But from what I've read about the match, I have not encountered anything that says internship sites have the the capacity to put a cap on the # of applicants from certain programs. Basically all it says is that the match works "up" their ranks. However, if what we've heard is true, then that description of the match is incorrect. And that strikes me as unethical grey area.

http://www.appic.org/Match/FAQs/Training-Directors/Rank-Order-Lists

2. What special ranking options are available to internship programs during each Phase of the APPIC Match?

During Phase I of the Match, internship programs have a number of special ranking options available to them:

Use of Multiple Rank Order Lists: Submitting more than one Rank Order List for a program can allow a program to meet certain requirements that might not be possible by using only one Rank Order List. For example, it is possible within the matching process to attempt to recruit a particular distribution of applicants for a program based on specific applicant characteristics.

Reverting Unfilled Positions from One Rank Order List to Another: This option allows a program to move a position from one Rank Order List to another List if that position cannot be filled from the original List.

Limiting the Number of Matches from any One University or School: This option allows a program to impose an upper limit on the number of applicants from any one university/school who are matched on a single program Rank Order List.
Due to the accelerated timeline for Phase II of the Match, the use of multiple Rank Order Lists and reversion of positions are NOT permitted in Phase II. However, in Phase II, programs may still use the option to limit the number of matches from any one university or school.

More information on each of these options can be found in the instructions for participating in the Match provided by NMS in December to each internship site that is registered for the Match. Information on these options is also available on the National Matching Services web site by the end of December each year.

That has been up, I'm pretty sure, since before applications were due. So it's not hidden but no one looks at it from the other side (TDs/sites or applicants) until after they get screwed by the match process.

 

[Powerball]

I know sites that state they will only consider applicants from accredited programs but will occasionally grant exceptions to students from newer non-accredited programs. These programs are willing to take a single non-accredited applicant under some circumstances but would naturally be less inclined to have multiple non-accredited interns in a given year. This is another important reason sites would want to submit multiple match lists.

I guess I understand how one could put a cap on a program via creating multiple lists (i.e. could make one doctoral program have its own category).

http://www.natmatch.com/psychint/apcmultr.htm

 

[APPICSucks]

I'm wondering where you got that first part. ABPP requires an APA accredited grad program but doesn't require an APA internship generically (across specialties). Are there specialties that require APA and won't let an alternative APPIC member internship suffice? In my quick/limited look, both child/adolescent psych, clinical psych, and forensic allow APA/CPA accredited internships, internships that were listed in the APPIC directory during the year of completion, or whatever internship given that "the applicant is listed in the NRHSPP or CRHSPP Directory or holds the CPQ."



This part is pretty common and I bet the National Register people deal with it all the time, given how the Match numbers have been for years.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. It is not in the generic ABPP requirements but is for the clinical psychology specialty specific requirements.

I'm not positive if it's unethical either, which is why I'm trying to find out more information. But from what I've read about the match, I have not encountered anything that says internship sites have the the capacity to put a cap on the # of applicants from certain programs. Basically all it says is that the match works "up" their ranks. However, if what we've heard is true, then that description of the match is incorrect. And that strikes me as unethical grey area.

I think this "opaqueness" is an example of an area in which the matching process favors sites. I think it's potentially unethical to say otherwise, like they do here.

 

[Powerball]

Appreciate the helpful links, Duck Duck Goose and APPICsucks. These special options definitely give the training programs more flexibility and control than I previously was aware. Would say that definitely tilts the match process in their favor.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. It is not in the generic ABPP requirements but is for the clinical psychology specialty specific requirements.

That link includes this description of internship requirements, which is exactly as I said before:

A one year full-time or two year half-time internship program is required. The internship requirement is met if:

• Accredited by the APA or CPA
• Listed in the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) Directory for the year the internship was completed
• The applicant is listed in the NRHSPP or CRHSPP Directory or holds the CPQ

So, again, an APPIC member internship site is fine for the ABPP for clinical psych.

I think this "opaqueness" is an example of an area in which the matching process favors sites. I think it's potentially unethical to say otherwise, like they do here.

They say otherwise (and the message is consistent to applicants and to TDs/sites) because they weight applicants' ranks more than sites. If a site puts an applicant as #1, that applicant might not match to that site if they like another site more. Either way, it seems like it'd be pretty close but this way does give a little more to applicants when it comes to rank list matching. (The interview selection process gives too much power to sites, in my opinion... Limiting the number of applications each person can submit would actually empower applicants in this regard, as sites would be forced to choose among extremely interested applicants, rather than those who are looking for a particular type of site.)

The information is available to each side but few people take the time to look at it just for kicks and by the time they realize that it matters, it's too late to do anything about it.

I'm also curious about which part of the ethics code a lack of transparency would violate. (Maybe it's in there and just not coming to my mind right now.)

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Appreciate the helpful links, Duck Duck Goose and APPICsucks. These special options definitely give the training programs more flexibility and control than I previously was aware. Would say that definitely tilts the match process in their favor.

Haha, the NUMBERS tilt it in their favor, regardless of the policies. 4435 people for 3190 spots. Spots get to choose.

 

[APPICSucks]

That link includes this description of internship requirements, which is exactly as I said before:



So, again, an APPIC member internship site is fine for the ABPP for clinical psych.

You are correct, I misread that as APA AND APPIC member (which any APA accred internships would be), not APA OR APPIC member.

They say otherwise (and the message is consistent to applicants and to TDs/sites) because they weight applicants' ranks more than sites. If a site puts an applicant as #1, that applicant might not match to that site if they like another site more. Either way, it seems like it'd be pretty close but this way does give a little more to applicants when it comes to rank list matching. (The interview selection process gives too much power to sites, in my opinion... Limiting the number of applications each person can submit would actually empower applicants in this regard, as sites would be forced to choose among extremely interested applicants, rather than those who are looking for a particular type of site.)

The information is available to each side but few people take the time to look at it just for kicks and by the time they realize that it matters, it's too late to do anything about it.

I'm also curious about which part of the ethics code a lack of transparency would violate. (Maybe it's in there and just not coming to my mind right now.)

My understanding of this is that unless you are ranked #1, applicants who are ranked highly can be passed over for lower ranked applicants if these other considerations are not met. Seems that even if you are actually ranked highly by a program, effectively your rank can be lowered by these extra considerations. This in itself is not wrong, in my view, but it should be honestly and openly be described in the instructions to applicants that there can arise situations where the matching process favors either party, and this can result in either positions going unfilled or applicants going unmatched. The imbalance between applicants and positions just happens to favor sites right now. I think Principle C (and possibly D) of the APA code apply here.

 

[nyprincess]

well, actually, from what I've found out you can work at the VA after 5 years of being licensed.

I also haven't been able to find anything that says the INTERNSHIP has to be accredited. the phD from the accredited school, yes.

Forensic work as in being an expert witness?

Where did you find this information? I'm interested!

 

[erg923]

Where did you find this information? I'm interested!

Read the rest of the thread. That not correct information.

 

[ChicagoTherapis]

First time posting to this site. In Illinois, neither the process for licensure nor insurance panels required more documentation for non-APA internship. Wasn't even asked about.

 

[Phipps]

I was just browsing through APPIC sites and was not sure whether "Minimum Number of Years of Grad Training Required" means years of training, i.e., of face-to-face interaction OR years at my grad program -- we don't start to see clients before the second year, so can anybody enlighten me??

Greatly appreciated.
Thx!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I was just browsing through APPIC sites and was not sure whether "Minimum Number of Years of Grad Training Required" means years of training, i.e., of face-to-face interaction OR years at my grad program -- we don't start to see clients before the second year, so can anybody enlighten me??

Greatly appreciated.
Thx!

I've always taken it to mean the latter (i.e., years in your grad program, regardless of when you started seeing clients).

 

[Phipps]

Thanks!

 

[psyman]

It's even more difficult for initial accreditation because a lot of what APA sends out in its documentation is unclear and so sites have to do a lot of guesswork to figure out how their program fits into the G&P. The reasoning that we've been told behind the vagueness is to allow each program to fit their program into the G&P in the ways that work best for them, except in reality what fits best for the program may not be what exactly APA wants. A lot of time/resources would be saved if APA would be more clear about what they want and how they want it.

Having people who are dedicated to walking sites through this process and explaining what APA wants would help to streamline the process and make it a lot more likely that more sites would spend the thousands of dollars that accreditation takes. Right now it's similar to how in grad school students ask other students for advice about how to best succeed on various hoops and sometimes the advice is good and sometimes the advices is so far out into left field as to be laughable.

I'm so fed up with this field...and I'm only beginning internship.

APA in general is a joke. (as an entity, not simply for accrediting internships.)

 

[cara susanna]

I'm debating not renewing my affiliation with them this year. I know, I know, the best way is to change it is from within, but I also don't want to give them my money.