2013 APPIC Internship Application Thread

[wagwise]

What is the full name of this internship site? location? Just so i know in case some of my supervisees want to apply in the future.

Site: Allendale Association
Accreditation: YES (APA)
APPIC Member: YES (Member # 1278)
APPIC Directory Listing: Click here
Website: http://www.allendale4kids.org
TD Name and Contact Info: Sandra Clavelli, Psy.D.; [email protected]; 847-245-6469

i dont know anything about this site, just wanted to be helpful and answer ur question

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

Just to piggyback on that comment, a few of my cohorts had to be pulled out from their practicum at Allendale just because of they were treated unethically.

Wow. I hate that sites are able to get away with bad behavior because students are desperate to get positions.

 

[coloradocutter]

Regarding the 4,481 students who registered for the Match:

2,506 (56%) matched to an accredited position
820 (18%) matched to a non-accredited position
1,155 (26%) did not match to a position (includes unmatched and withdrawn applicants)

For the past 5 years at least (I believe longer), we have only been able to provide accredited positions for about half of doctoral students, even after Phase II. Wow, I can't imagine any other profession tolerating such an outcome.

...and when you add this to the post-doc requirement of most states that require you to have completed an accredited internship, and then a year supervised to even sit for a $600 exam that you have to then pass, it is absolutely ridiculous. you should be at least provisionally licensed after internship and able to work. (btw - i do have tips on licensure re a state that allows licensure imm. after predoc)

before attending grad school, i was a lawyer. part of my job was to lobby for the state AMA. just so you know, prohibitive licensing requirements for other mental health professionals has been a top priority of the AMA for a long time.

i don't regret this choice, but i do have moments where i am like - was it worth it. and i already had a career, a house, and a family at a younger age. i also matched in phase 1. my heart goes out to everyone who is in this boat. putting your life on hold and fightinf for a career you believe in . i am so hoping that something works out in post match or that the next year allows you time for self-discovery and reorientation that is helpful and beneficial.

a beloved professor always tells me - the cup that holds our joy is carved by our struggle. i hope. i hope.

the APA needs to grow a backbone and do something about all of this.

 

[PsychScience]

Wow. I hate that sites are able to get away with bad behavior because students are desperate to get positions.

Agreed. I think the vast majority of sites value the training process, respect their trainees, and really do aim to provide a high quality training experience. There are, unfortunately, a few exceptions to this, and very little repercussions because of the degree of imbalance in the sites favor.

The site in question will almost certainly find someone to take the position- it is APA accredited and located north of Chicago- one of the more saturated markets for psychology trainees.

 

[KeepingFaith13]

So... next year will be my THIRD time applying. I have finished my classes, defended my dissertation, and just sitting around twirling my freaking thumbs because I cannot seem to match. My loans are already at 200K.. this has got to change.

 

[KeepingFaith13]

This was my third year applying..had a few amazing interviews and still got the dreaded no match email. At what point do I say enough is enough? I was supposed to graduate two years ago!

Absolutely unacceptable. We will be graduating with people we don't even know!!! I've had thoughts of not even wanting to walk to stage once I'm done.. that's probably bad, but how to do you keep going through this without becoming bitter??

 

[Resaroman]

Absolutely unacceptable. We will be graduating with people we don't even know!!! I've had thoughts of not even wanting to walk to stage once I'm done.. that's probably bad, but how to do you keep going through this without becoming bitter??

It will be my fourth year IF my school allows me to continue extending my leave of absence. I've been working my butt off to extend my CV without racking up more loans but it seems like it's not enough

 

[KeepingFaith13]

It will be my fourth year IF my school allows me to continue extending my leave of absence. I've been working my butt off to extend my CV without racking up more loans but it seems like it's not enough

That's exactly what I've felt the urgency to do/continue doing..!! Unreal. Absolutely unacceptable. And unrealistic for us to do such things when people are matching who have "less". That's not to minimize anyone's hard work on here, however reading some of these statements we all have different experiences and when you don't match you're only left confused because of all you HAVE accomplished..

 

[Resaroman]

Exactly---I interviewed at a child site and the current intern had zero child experience and interests in children going into her internship. I just don't know what they are looking for!

 

[KeepingFaith13]

Exactly---I interviewed at a child site and the current intern had zero child experience and interests in children going into her internship. I just don't know what they are looking for!

I know that feels like a slap in the face..

 

[HumptyPsyc]

I know that feels like a slap in the face..

Not to threadcrap or anything, but in my experience in interviewing for practicum, I have found that people who are excellent in interviews are also talkers, a lot of them are sometimes all talk, and show no consistency in the sense that they may start off as very motivated and eager, but lose the stamina as the training goes on...

Unfortunately, these are also the people who typically gets picked over those who may not do as well in interviews, but are great do-ers.

 

[CACPstudent]

Not to threadcrap or anything, but in my experience in interviewing for practicum, I have found that people who are excellent in interviews are also talkers, a lot of them are sometimes all talk, and show no consistency in the sense that they may start off as very motivated and eager, but lose the stamina as the training goes on...

Unfortunately, these are also the people who typically gets picked over those who may not do as well in interviews, but are great do-ers.

I was thinking the same thing. Some people just have excellent interview skills and get ranked higher because of that and that alone.

 

[KeepingFaith13]

Not to threadcrap or anything, but in my experience in interviewing for practicum, I have found that people who are excellent in interviews are also talkers, a lot of them are sometimes all talk, and show no consistency in the sense that they may start off as very motivated and eager, but lose the stamina as the training goes on...

Unfortunately, these are also the people who typically gets picked over those who may not do as well in interviews, but are great do-ers.

I've had the same thought.. that is about the more "verbal" people.. still sucks though

 

[Zoe2014]

Not to threadcrap or anything, but in my experience in interviewing for practicum, I have found that people who are excellent in interviews are also talkers, a lot of them are sometimes all talk, and show no consistency in the sense that they may start off as very motivated and eager, but lose the stamina as the training goes on...

Unfortunately, these are also the people who typically gets picked over those who may not do as well in interviews, but are great do-ers.

It sounds like you are trying to find a way to make yourself feel better by putting down others who were successful. Maybe look at it this way, the sites were looking for something and other candidates better fit their needs. It is a very difficult process for both candidates and sites. I wish each of you luck in the pursuit of your PhD but slamming others in the process is unbecoming.

 

[Always at home]

It sounds like you are trying to find a way to make yourself feel better by putting down others who were successful. Maybe look at it this way, the sites were looking for something and other candidates better fit their needs. It is a very difficult process for both candidates and sites. I wish each of you luck in the pursuit of your PhD but slamming others in the process is unbecoming.

I actually took their response in a totally different manner.

It seems like they are frustrated because they put such a huge emphasis on interviewing skills. For example, take two candidates. Candidate 1 is an okay fit, but has great interviewing skills, and candidate 2 is a great fit, but does not interview that welll. Who would they take? It seems like they are frustrated because sites may place more emphasis on one day (interview day), as opposed to looking at the the "whole" candidate. The fact of the matter is that some people do not interview as good as others, but does that mean they would not be a good fit or do a good job? Do you rank someone higher purely based on the one interview day?

Obviously, this does not mean that because you interview well, you will not do a good job. There are A LOT of people who interview well who would do a great job. And there are A LOT of people who do not interview well that would do a great job.

That is how I interpreted their statement.

 

[HumptyPsyc]

It sounds like you are trying to find a way to make yourself feel better by putting down others who were successful. Maybe look at it this way, the sites were looking for something and other candidates better fit their needs. It is a very difficult process for both candidates and sites. I wish each of you luck in the pursuit of your PhD but slamming others in the process is unbecoming.

Zoe2014- Glad you said "it sounds like, instead of "you are," because if so, it'll sound too assuming. Anyway, I am speaking from my own experience, for what it's worth. And I did get matched to an APA site locally. I have found in my previous group interview experience that some students have excellent interviewing skills and when they get hired on, they show inconsistency. That's it. I feel good about the match so there is nothing there to put people down to bring myself up or whatever, but I am just pointing out what I have seen through the years. It may or may not be the experience of others, but clearly two people ahead of your post have concurred.

 

[erg923]

Not to threadcrap or anything, but in my experience in interviewing for practicum, I have found that people who are excellent in interviews are also talkers, a lot of them are sometimes all talk, and show no consistency in the sense that they may start off as very motivated and eager, but lose the stamina as the training goes on...

Unfortunately, these are also the people who typically gets picked over those who may not do as well in interviews, but are great do-ers.

Interviewing is an imperfect process, but a necessary one that should be obvious enough at this point, so I wont go into it. However, what is the alternative? I pick the person who is LESS engaging, demonstrates LESS knowledge, enthusiasm? Moreover, do you have any evidence other than your anecdotal experiences to assert any of those rather bold assertions?

 

[LETSGONYR]

I actually took their response in a totally different manner.

It seems like they are frustrated because they put such a huge emphasis on interviewing skills. For example, take two candidates. Candidate 1 is an okay fit, but has great interviewing skills, and candidate 2 is a great fit, but does not interview that welll. Who would they take? It seems like they are frustrated because sites may place more emphasis on one day (interview day), as opposed to looking at the the "whole" candidate. The fact of the matter is that some people do not interview as good as others, but does that mean they would not be a good fit or do a good job?

That is how I interpreted their statement.

Agreed, but keep in mind that the candidates that make it to the interview stage are already great candidates. The sites look at the applications and decide who to interview... so the "okay fit" candidate likely wouldn't even get to the interview stage and be able to show off their superb interviewing skills. The problem is that there are many "great fits" and "great applicants" and that something has to set them apart... and sites emphasize personal interaction, since they'll be personally interacting with this person for a full year.

I know it's frustrating and it's really hard not to take the imbalance personally, even when I'm sure you know it's not (At least, that was my experience being unmatched after phase one).

 

[ClinNeuroNerd]

Not to threadcrap or anything, but in my experience in interviewing for practicum, I have found that people who are excellent in interviews are also talkers, a lot of them are sometimes all talk, and show no consistency in the sense that they may start off as very motivated and eager, but lose the stamina as the training goes on...

Unfortunately, these are also the people who typically gets picked over those who may not do as well in interviews, but are great do-ers.

I have to add that politics also unfortunately play a role... have a feeling that's at least partly what happened with my top site

 

[ClinNeuroNerd]

I actually took their response in a totally different manner.

It seems like they are frustrated because they put such a huge emphasis on interviewing skills. For example, take two candidates. Candidate 1 is an okay fit, but has great interviewing skills, and candidate 2 is a great fit, but does not interview that welll. Who would they take? It seems like they are frustrated because sites may place more emphasis on one day (interview day), as opposed to looking at the the "whole" candidate. The fact of the matter is that some people do not interview as good as others, but does that mean they would not be a good fit or do a good job? Do you rank someone higher purely based on the one interview day?

Obviously, this does not mean that because you interview well, you will not do a good job. There are A LOT of people who interview well who would do a great job. And there are A LOT of people who do not interview well that would do a great job.

That is how I interpreted their statement.

well said, totally agree

 

[cara susanna]

I'm so sorry to hear of your situations, KeepingFaith13 and Resaroman. The thought that someone could not match after two or three times is truly terrifying.

 

[HumptyPsyc]

Agreed, but keep in mind that the candidates that make it to the interview stage are already great candidates. The sites look at the applications and decide who to interview... so the "okay fit" candidate likely wouldn't even get to the interview stage and be able to show off their superb interviewing skills. The problem is that there are many "great fits" and "great applicants" and that something has to set them apart... and sites emphasize personal interaction, since they'll be personally interacting with this person for a full year.

I know it's frustrating and it's really hard not to take the imbalance personally, even when I'm sure you know it's not (At least, that was my experience being unmatched after phase one).

I think what you guys said is right. I liked how you analyze and went into it with scenarios too. I was referring to two seemingly qualified candidates and one got picked over the other because of the person's better interviewing skills. But when the person start out he or she may show a little less consistency and lack of stamina compared to the unselected candidate. So in this case, it's really not about qualification as the earlier poster would say, the applicants have been weeded out, so anyone that makes it to the interview must be highly qualified; it's more of a work ethics or personality, for lack of a better word, matter.

 

[HumptyPsyc]

I have to add that politics also unfortunately play a role... have a feeling that's at least partly what happened with my top site [/QUOTE

Mind elaborating what kinds of "politics" are you referring to?

 

[HumptyPsyc]

Interviewing is an imperfect process, but a necessary one that should be obvious enough at this point, so I wont go into it. However, what is the alternative? I pick the person who is LESS engaging, demonstrates LESS knowledge, enthusiasm? Moreover, do you have any evidence other than your anecdotal experiences to assert any of those rather bold assertions?

Nope erg923, no evidence. But you raised a good clinical research question; how can we empirically test that hypothesis?

 

[PurplePants80]

I admit, I don't interview well. I didn't match last year (with 7 interviews), and matched to my top site this year (with 9 interviews), and the only biggest difference is working on my interviewing skills.

I have a tendency to ramble when I'm nervous, have a nervous laugh to fill in space, and can blank out (even on the title of dissertation, that happened once at an interview, terribly embarrassing). I can just come across as very awkward even though all the supervisors/advisors/professors I know and wrote me LOR's say I have great interpersonal skills, very self-motivated, always seeking feedback/criticism, etc etc. It is just with interviews, I freeze up, so I spent a lot of time working on that. I wish I didn't have to as my time could have been better spent doing other things, but it's an important enough skill that I had to prepare for. Doesn't mean I'm a superstar interviewee now, but, maybe just not putting up any red flags for my interviewers so that my application will still be under strong consideration.

 

[Always at home]

I think what you guys said is right. I liked how you analyze and went into it with scenarios too. I was referring to two seemingly qualified candidates and one got picked over the other because of the person's better interviewing skills. But when the person start out he or she may show a little less consistency and lack of stamina compared to the unselected candidate. So in this case, it's really not about qualification as the earlier poster would say, the applicants have been weeded out, so anyone that makes it to the interview must be highly qualified; it's more of a work ethics or personality, for lack of a better word, matter.

Well, it would be impossible to know who has the better work ethic or who would fade out based on one interview. All internships take a chance when offering spots to any intern. Some fade, some will not.

 

[Always at home]

Agreed, but keep in mind that the candidates that make it to the interview stage are already great candidates. The sites look at the applications and decide who to interview... so the "okay fit" candidate likely wouldn't even get to the interview stage and be able to show off their superb interviewing skills. The problem is that there are many "great fits" and "great applicants" and that something has to set them apart... and sites emphasize personal interaction, since they'll be personally interacting with this person for a full year.

I know it's frustrating and it's really hard not to take the imbalance personally, even when I'm sure you know it's not (At least, that was my experience being unmatched after phase one).

Good point. It really is impossible to know. Interviews are tricky.

I went on some interviews that were extremely academic/intellectual. That is, they asked a lot of questions about clients, cases, etc. Other interviews, they were more concerned about who I was as a person. That is, they asked more questions about my likes, hobbies/interests, who I am as a person. I think I interviewed fairly well in both cases. However, I felt I made a better connection when we discussed who I was as a person, my personal background, etc.

Luckily, I landed an APA internship (first choice). I would love to be on the other side (part of the application process in terms of being an interviewer).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Well, it would be impossible to know who has the better work ethic or who would fade out based on one interview. All internships take a chance when offering spots to any intern. Some fade, some will not.

Pretty much this. At least in my experience, interviewers seem to use an applicant's ability to speak articulately and intelligently about various topics (e.g., past training experience, prior and future research interests) as a proxy of sorts for the quality of those past experiences. Just because someone has externed at X hospital, Y psychological clinical, and Z academic medical center doesn't necessarily tell you much about the actual type and quality of training received. It also doesn't tell you whether the person has been able to take those experiences, learn from them, and integrate them into their professional identity.

Thus, just like people can "talk fluff" during interviews, people certainly can (and do) also "write fluff" when it comes to CVs and hours totals. I've never seen an interview actually affect an applicant's standing to a greater degree than the summation of the "paper" side of things (i.e., application, essays, and letters of rec). However, I've certainly seen interviews separate similarly-qualified individuals. I've also seen weak interview performances cause interviewers to doubt the quality of prior training/veracity of an applicant's true interest in an area, as well as seen strong interview performances cause interviewers to downplay a reduced quantity in training in an area due to perceived increases in quality of training. This latter case in particular could lead to situations in which the seemingly "less qualified" candidate is chosen over the "more qualified" one.

 

[KeepingFaith13]

I actually took their response in a totally different manner.

It seems like they are frustrated because they put such a huge emphasis on interviewing skills. For example, take two candidates. Candidate 1 is an okay fit, but has great interviewing skills, and candidate 2 is a great fit, but does not interview that welll. Who would they take? It seems like they are frustrated because sites may place more emphasis on one day (interview day), as opposed to looking at the the "whole" candidate. The fact of the matter is that some people do not interview as good as others, but does that mean they would not be a good fit or do a good job? Do you rank someone higher purely based on the one interview day?

Obviously, this does not mean that because you interview well, you will not do a good job. There are A LOT of people who interview well who would do a great job. And there are A LOT of people who do not interview well that would do a great job.

That is how I interpreted their statement.

I agree; it was harmless.

 

[Resaroman]

I have excellent interviewing skills and a TD this year actually commented on how great my interview skills were and said I was a great fit for the site but then I still went unmatched. So although interview skills are very important, it's definitely not all that goes into play. A person in my cohort commented on how she did horribly at her interview and still matched. I just think there are so many variables going into play here and not much consistency, but you're right, there's no sense in trying to make sense of it,

 

[Always at home]

I have excellent interviewing skills and a TD this year actually commented on how great my interview skills were and said I was a great fit for the site but then I still went unmatched. So although interview skills are very important, it's definitely not all that goes into play. A person in my cohort commented on how she did horribly at her interview and still matched. I just think there are so many variables going into play here and not much consistency, but you're right, there's no sense in trying to make sense of it,

This is true. Unless you one day become part of the process (run an internship program or a staff member in a clinic that offers an internship) you will never know exactly why certain people get interviews and why certain people get matched.

I am sure there are so many variables that come into play. I am pretty much a perfect fit with the site I matched with. Its like a lock-and-key. And luckily I did well on the interview, so I assume it was a combination of both.

To be honest, and this is purely speculation, but I believe the sites ask themselves (figuratively), "is this someone I will like to work with for 1 whole year." I think, above all else, this may weigh heavy into their decision making. Though, I am probably way off lol.

 

[PhDInsanity]

Hard to believe this process is over for the year! Congrats to all who matched-I hope the prep to start internship is going smoothly for you all. I wish those who unfortunately didn't match all the best in finding an alternate plan.

 

[LMK]

Hard to believe this process is over for the year! Congrats to all who matched-I hope the prep to start internship is going smoothly for you all. I wish those who unfortunately didn't match all the best in finding an alternate plan.

The process is not over for many of the 1000+ still trying to find an internship, and it's more stressful than ever.

 

[cara susanna]

The only ones left are non-APA though, right?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The only ones left are non-APA though, right?

None of those currently listed in the post-match vacancy service are accredited, no. However, it's always possible that accredited spots may open up at some point over the next couple of months, which is why they recommend subscribing to the listserve and/or for email updates.

 

[LMK]

None of those currently listed in the post-match vacancy service are accredited, no. However, it's always possible that accredited spots may open up at some point over the next couple of months, which is why they recommend subscribing to the listserve and/or for email updates.

Yes, and people may opt for APPIC sites. The percentage of APA sites available, period, is pathetic with the imbalance.

 

[cara susanna]

I'm just wondering since I'll be applying next year and the thought of continuing this process so long is not very appealing. Non-APA isn't an option for me, unfortunately.

 

[LETSGONYR]

The process is not over for many of the 1000+ still trying to find an internship, and it's more stressful than ever.

Although I agree, I do not think the poster was implying that the process is "OVER," just merely over for this round of applications. I know a few people who remain unmatched, and they are not looking at the post-match vacancy service... instead, they are working on improving their applications through completing their dissertations, completing another externship to increase hours/clinical experience, etc. If I remained unmatched after phase two, this is the route I would be taking as well... I was only interested in APA-accredited positions, and I was unwilling to sacrifice my career goals simply to graduate a year earlier. I have put too much time, money, and energy into this degree to scrap it all now by taking an unaccredited internship position unrelated to my desired path.

 

[Undaunted]

Mine is finished and I didn't match. Phase two, either.

Hey...I didn't match either. I'd be interested in hearing from you and others what your never student career and professional moves might be. I'm seeking job local work opportunities because I want to remain competitive for internship next year..

But there's no solid guarantee we will match next year either! Even though I have completed all other degree requirements.

Something is rotten in the APA. This system really is broken.

 

[Undaunted]

Hey, CS...I feel your pain. I'm also trying to wait until next year for an APA accredited internship which I need for the Ph.D. I am really wanting to connect with other unmatched folks not just for support but ongoing guidance and help for the most success possible for us next year. Please consider joining my blog if you would: UnmatchedButUndaunted.worpress.com.

Hope to connect more with you.

 

[Undaunted]

Hey, LMK...I am really wanting to connect with other unmatched souls for a variety of reasons. I am unmatched and it can feel lonely and frustrating. If you'd like to talk more and exchange ideas I hop you will visit me at UnmatchedButUndaunted.worpress.com.

Hope to see you there. This is a blog I just made. I think it's important for us to work together with this broken system. I would also like to explore how to introduce effective change into the APA's misbegotten shortfall of internships.

 

[graduatingsoon]

Hey, LMK...I am really wanting to connect with other unmatched souls for a variety of reasons. I am unmatched and it can feel lonely and frustrating. If you'd like to talk more and exchange ideas I hop you will visit me at UnmatchedButUndaunted.worpress.com.

Hope to see you there. This is a blog I just made. I think it's important for us to work together with this broken system. I would also like to explore how to introduce effective change into the APA's misbegotten shortfall of internships.

I couldn't get to your blog. Is it up yet?

Anyhow, I think it's would be great to generate more press on the internship crisis. Videos with student's experiences would be really powerful. The imbalance has really devastating and life altering consequences for many students.

 

[Wiccat]

I didn't match this year, so I'm trying my luck with the post-match vacancy service. Feeling pretty discouraged though. Would a site prefer leaving an internship slot vacant over taking in someone they originally discarded?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I didn't match this year, so I'm trying my luck with the post-match vacancy service. Feeling pretty discouraged though. Would a site prefer leaving an internship slot vacant over taking in someone they originally discarded?

My gut instinct would say no, with the reason being that in the currently tenuous funding climate, I could see how an unfilled spot might lead to questions, and how said questions might then lead to the spot being pulled/closed.

However, a big caveat would be the reason for the original "discarding" of the application. If it were a matter of questionable fit, I could certainly see a program wavering a bit and giving an applicant the benefit of the doubt. Covnersely, if it were more a matter of questionable competency and worries that the intern may get booted due to poor training/performance, then I'd imagine the site would probably risk leaving the spot unfilled.

 

[LETSGONYR]

Not sure if anyone still checks this, but I figured it wasn't worth starting a separate thread...

Have people gotten info from their internship sites? I matched in Phase II, and I got the phone calls that day and an agreement for me to sign and return, but I haven't heard anything else. I know it's still early, but I'm curious about who else is in my cohort and about specifics regarding starting! When I sent back the initial form I asked about additional information, and while they confirmed that they got my agreement, they didn't reply to the rest of my email. I decided not to follow up, since it's still so early, but I'm curious if other sites are sending out info.

 

[LETSGONYR]

Congrats on your match!

I received an email and a phone call from the training director about 1 month ago, asking us to touch base briefly. He said he will contact us again as we get closer to the deadline.

Thanks! I'm really excited. Still in shock a bit, was not expecting it. .

I know I'll get more information closer to the start date, I'm just curious about my cohort and about specifics. If I don't hear anything for another month, maybe I'll shoot the TD an email. .

 

[PhDMiss2014]

I matched in Phase I and have received 3 emails to date from the TD. One of them included all the email addresses of my fellow interns. Some of us have already connected on Facebook and are sharing apartment hunting and moving strategies. So I'm already feeling connected. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to send an email to the TD with any specific questions you might have.

 

[Always at home]

Not sure if anyone still checks this, but I figured it wasn't worth starting a separate thread...

Have people gotten info from their internship sites? I matched in Phase II, and I got the phone calls that day and an agreement for me to sign and return, but I haven't heard anything else. I know it's still early, but I'm curious about who else is in my cohort and about specifics regarding starting! When I sent back the initial form I asked about additional information, and while they confirmed that they got my agreement, they didn't reply to the rest of my email. I decided not to follow up, since it's still so early, but I'm curious if other sites are sending out info.

On the day I matched, I received a telephone call from the TD. A week later I received an official acceptance letter through email. A few days letter that same acceptance letter came in the mail (USPS) telling me to contact the supervisor of human resources to get started with my background check and TB test. I contacted her, and I have not heard back from them in about 4 weeks. I am also waiting on a contract of some sort. I will wait a little longer. The last thing I want to do is come off as annoying. But I must add that my internship does not start until September 10th.

As for knowing who is in my cohort, I do not have a clue yet. My internship takes 10 interns, and there were 2 open slots during phase 2, which got filled. So I am assuming they had a late start on letting people know who were in there cohort.

Im still psyched I matched

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Not sure if anyone still checks this, but I figured it wasn't worth starting a separate thread...

Have people gotten info from their internship sites? I matched in Phase II, and I got the phone calls that day and an agreement for me to sign and return, but I haven't heard anything else. I know it's still early, but I'm curious about who else is in my cohort and about specifics regarding starting! When I sent back the initial form I asked about additional information, and while they confirmed that they got my agreement, they didn't reply to the rest of my email. I decided not to follow up, since it's still so early, but I'm curious if other sites are sending out info.

Post-Match can often be a time when those involved take a break, as there was a lot of extra time/effort spent to get them through the Match. I'd give it at least a week and then follow up about your questions. Congrats!

 

[BorntoRun]

I remember seeing some data about match results based on number of applications submitted (and maybe number of hours listed on the APPI?) I can't seem to find that information now (either on SDN or the APPIC website). Does anyone else remember (and perhaps have a link they could share)? Thanks!