Given that this system is so broken, I really believe that APPIC has a duty to gain a more comprehensive directory listing for each of the sites with legitimate statistics that show the names of programs that applicants have come from, who has been accepted from where, whether or not they really mean that "acceptable" is really "acceptable" etc etc etc. I think that sites should have to share how they give points to each application, i.e. how many publications = this many points, etc. Wouldn't it be more fair if we were given a rubric to understand their formulas? Wouldn't it save us A LOT of time and MONEY, and wouldn't it save them the trouble of having to sift through applications that they know will never make it? I'd love to know whether or not an initial assessment even includes reading of cover letters and essays. And, if not, then we should not have to submit those for the first round of their consideration. If we are still being considered after they see what they want from the general application, then we should be required to spend our time constructing cover letters and sharing essays. Last minute, I almost changed my dissertation to wanting to survey all of the training directors about this process. It probably would have been a great study. And it should still be done. This is not just a broken system because there are more students than slots. There are MANY reasons this continues to be broken and because we all continue to engage, it perpetuates itself. But, what choice does it feel like we have? None… right?
Sigh.
