PhD/PsyD 2016 APPIC match statistics

[futureapppsy2]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I didn't want to clog up the main thread, so I broke one out here.

Key Phase I stats:
-87% of those submitting rankings matched
-490 applicants who submitted ranks did not match
-There are 263 accredited positions and 302 unaccredited positions remaining
-Overall, 84% of PhD internship applicants and 77.5% of PsyD applicants matched
-87% of matched applicants from accredited programs matched to accredited sites
-94.5% of matched applicants from PhD programs and 71.4% of matched applicants from PsyD programs matched to accredited sites

https://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/MatchStatistics2016PhaseI.aspx

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Hasn't it been ~75% who've matched over the past few years? If so, the increase is heartening. And that's a good number of unfilled spots still; 53% of the folks who didn't match have the potential to grab an accredited position, and of course there are enough positions in all (accredited and not) for all remaining applicants.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Hasn't it been ~75% who've matched over the past few years? If so, the increase is heartening. And that's a good number of unfilled spots still; 53% of the folks who didn't match have the potential to grab an accredited position, and of course there are enough positions in all (accredited and not) for all remaining applicants.

For Phase 1, 82% matched in 2015, 80% in 2014, and 76% in 2013. Keep in mind that these are slightly inflated because they don't account for applicants who withdrew/did not submit rankings.

 

[WisNeuro]

Hasn't it been ~75% who've matched over the past few years? If so, the increase is heartening. And that's a good number of unfilled spots still; 53% of the folks who didn't match have the potential to grab an accredited position, and of course there are enough positions in all (accredited and not) for all remaining applicants.

Well, we've worked on one side of the equation. Maybe we can get APA to crack down on predatory programs churning out unqualified people now.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

For Phase 1, 82% matched in 2015, 80% in 2014, and 76% in 2013. Keep in mind that these are slightly inflated because they don't account for applicants who withdrew/did not submit rankings.

This is a really important bc these data may be more inflated than many people realize. I'd want to know the #'s for CAPIC, as it has (unfortunately) become established as another option for non-acred. (and often unpaid) internship spots.

 

[hamsterpants]

yes, I have no real evidence (just anecdotal) but I feel like some people at un-accred etc programs are withdrawing from or not even applying through APPIC now and attempting to go outside to (sometimes upaid) slots. I hope there has been real progress.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

yes, I have no real evidence (just anecdotal) but I feel like some people at un-accred etc programs are withdrawing from or not even applying through APPIC now and attempting to go outside to (sometimes upaid) slots. I hope there has been real progress.

This may inadvertently or indirectly lead to further penalties against such programs if/when state licensing boards move toward requiring APA accreditation. At least theoretically, this may be easier to do if the match statistics become less unbalanced, and larger proportions of folks (participating in the match) are matching to accredited spots.

Additionally, with implementation of the internship-related reqs, APA may start pulling accreditation from doctoral programs whose students primarily go through non-APPIC routes.

But I agree with the above--the internship supply side of the issue seems to be improving, so now it's time to really start addressing the doctoral program side of the equation (which, at this point, is overdue).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It seems like the spin coming from APPIC the last few years is that they are "improving" the internship imbalance and it is much less of an issue. I think it is still a big issue because of the % of non-acred. sites (anything not CPA or APA-acred) is still quite high. Also, there are 'hidden' applicants who forego APPIC match all together and go after CAPIC and similar spots, though they aren't counted in the APPIC #'s because they never bothered to apply for that route. Thoughts?

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, I've always been of the idea that there never really was a crisis, just a proliferation of terrible for profits driving up the supply side of things, creating an artificial demand. I haven't delved too deep into the new numbers really. What's the net increase in accredited spots in the past several years?

 

[glowstick]

Well, I've always been of the idea that there never really was a crisis, just a proliferation of terrible for profits driving up the supply side of things, creating an artificial demand.

One could, of course, argue that this is itself a crisis of sorts...

 

[longislandgirl2]

It seems like the spin coming from APPIC the last few years is that they are "improving" the internship imbalance and it is much less of an issue. I think it is still a big issue because of the % of non-acred. sites (anything not CPA or APA-acred) is still quite high. Also, there are 'hidden' applicants who forego APPIC match all together and go after CAPIC and similar spots, though they aren't counted in the APPIC #'s because they never bothered to apply for that route. Thoughts?

Besides CAPIC in california do you know of other non-APA internships or a site that has them listed. Doing the match now but trying to prepare a plan B as well

 

[WisNeuro]

That should be like plan Z.

 

[longislandgirl2]

That should be like plan Z.

Well I am in a school psych psyd program so unfortunately the stigma against us is very high. I am looking for alternatives, if you don't know of any OK. I am just looking for sites that are an alternative to schools right now

 

[WisNeuro]

It's not as much of a stigma as much as it is that most of the clinical internships are set up for clinical psychology backgrounds.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

What's the net increase in accredited spots in the past several years?

The 2012 APPIC Match was the point of the worst imbalance between applicants and positions since the Match began in 1999. Only four years later, the 2016 Match was the most closely balanced Match since 1999.

Looks like 10% decrease (436 applicants) and a 19% increase (619 spots) in the past four years. The increase in positions are all accounted by accredited sites.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

btw, how did I miss this thread in February and yet it gets resurrected in November?