2020-2021 APPIC Match

[deleted1003601]

That’s the highest number of reports written by a single person accepted in that year’s cohort dude

Holy crap I am screwed. I have 38 reports. Well...this sucks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psyche27]

Holy crap I am screwed. I have 38 reports. Well...this sucks.

It’s an outlier.

 

[deleted1003601]

It’s an outlier.

I kind of figured that, but wasn't 100% sure...but it's reassuring to have someone else say it too!

 

[psychlife19]

I kind of figured that, but wasn't 100% sure...but it's reassuring to have someone else say it too!

Don’t sweat it!! I’ve seen 163, 112, etc. thats like if you wrote MORE than one report every single month of practicum/pre-internship....i don’t buy it lol maybe they wrote up the section on a BASC-3 or a Vineland and counted it as a “full report written”.

 

[deleted1003601]

Don’t sweat it!! I’ve seen 163, 112, etc. thats like if you wrote MORE than one report every single month of practicum/pre-internship....i don’t buy it lol maybe they wrote up the section on a BASC-3 or a Vineland and counted it as a “full report written”.

I see. All of my reports are those that I administered the test, conducted the interview, and wrote each section including diagnosis, interpretation/integration, and recommendations.

 

[ExecutiveDysfunction]

There’s unfortunately a bunch of applicants that like to portray a BDI + BAI + interview or something slightly more inclusive (but not really) as a full integrated report. If I had to guess, I’d say 10-30 are average for non-assessment-heavy applicants, maybe a little more for assessment heavy ones. 100+ are outliers and (not in all cases, but many) a little suspicious.

 

[psychlife19]

There’s unfortunately a bunch of applicants that like to portray a BDI + BAI + interview or something slightly more inclusive (but not really) as a full integrated report. If I had to guess, I’d say 10-30 are average for non-assessment-heavy applicants, maybe a little more for assessment heavy ones. 100+ are outliers and (not in all cases, but many) a little suspicious.

Very proud of my 13
Or when people say they gave 100 assessments but it’s all BDI or BASC-3 or something

 

[sg1645]

I'm so annoyed. I just realized one of my sites wanted a redacted psych evaluation as part of their application process, but this was listed within the brochure and not in the correct section in the APPIC directory Now I guess my application is considered incomplete. Why would they not include that on their APPIC information page???

Before I submitted my applications I even rechecked the APPIC page to make sure the site did not require supplemental material. Guess I should've looked in the brochure as I assumed all the needed info would be on APPIC :/

 

[deleted1003601]

I'm so annoyed. I just realized one of my sites wanted a redacted psych evaluation as part of their application process, but this was listed within the brochure and not in the correct section in the APPIC directory Now I guess my application is considered incomplete. Why would they not include that on their APPIC information page???

Before I submitted my applications I even rechecked the APPIC page to make sure the site did not require supplemental material. Guess I should've looked in the brochure as I assumed all the needed info would be on APPIC :/

That sucks man. Rule of thumb, go to each site's brochure, download it and save it on your computer. I created individual folders and downloaded each brochure. Some programs don't have them, so you have look at their site. There were only two sites that did not clearly indicate whether or not they wanted supplemental documents, in those cases, I emailed them and they responded the same day. I would email that program's TD and see if they would be open to you emailing that report. It's worth a try. Also, the most important information will always be in those brochures. NEVER count on the APPIC page telling you what you need. For example, some programs I applied to had contradicting deadline dates.

 

[sg1645]

That sucks man. Rule of thumb, go to each site's brochure, download it and save it on your computer. I created individual folders and downloaded each brochure. Some programs don't have them, so you have look at their site. There were only two sites that did not clearly indicate whether or not they wanted supplemental documents, in those cases, I emailed them and they responded the same day. I would email that program's TD and see if they would be open to you emailing that report. It's worth a try. Also, the most important information will always be in those brochures. NEVER count on the APPIC page telling you what you need. For example, some programs I applied to had contradicting deadline dates.

I went back and looked at the program brochures for the applications I completed and thankfully I only missed the one. The other sites I have applied to already did not mention wanting any supplemental materials.

But for my future applications, lesson learned! Always check the brochure lol

Edit: It also wasn't one of my top sites so I am not devastated, just annoyed because I am usually better organized and generally make sure to "cross my Ts and dot my Is"

 

[psyche27]

Is it acceptable to send an updated cv to training sites if you have a pub get accepted?

You should email the TD and ask them what they’d prefer.

 

[psychlife19]

I went back and looked at the program brochures for the applications I completed and thankfully I only missed the one. The other sites I have applied to already did not mention wanting any supplemental materials.

But for my future applications, lesson learned! Always check the brochure lol

Edit: It also wasn't one of my top sites so I am not devastated, just annoyed because I am usually better organized and generally make sure to "cross my Ts and dot my Is"

I made this mistake, realized 2 sec after I clicked submit, emailed the training director if I can email them my report and she replied the very next day! I even got a confirmation once she received my report.
I only hope the report gets paired up with my application. Sites get a ton of applicants!

 

[EffectSize]

I went back and looked at the program brochures for the applications I completed and thankfully I only missed the one. The other sites I have applied to already did not mention wanting any supplemental materials.

But for my future applications, lesson learned! Always check the brochure lol

Edit: It also wasn't one of my top sites so I am not devastated, just annoyed because I am usually better organized and generally make sure to "cross my Ts and dot my Is"

I totally feel this! If they expect our applications to be consistent, it would help if the websites were also consistent

 

[EffectSize]

Maybe title it something like "Dissertation Information" or something along those lines. Almost looks like you did it on purpose and it wasn't a mistake! lol

Also, judging by your username, it seems you are most likely in Neuro or at least in a PhD or PsyD program with a research heavy background. I'm sure you have a fairly competitive application if that is true.

Thank you so much for your help!!! I’m from a clinical program, but I’ve taken some extra stats scores over the years. I wish you well through this journey!

 

[psyche27]

I only hope the report gets paired up with my application. Sites get a ton of applicants!

When I get emailed extra info or things that didn’t submit correctly through the portal, I either include the correct info on our rating sheet or I print off the document and attach it to the rating sheet.

 

[PsychStudent100percent]

You should email the TD and ask them what they’d prefer.

Thank you!

 

[sg1645]

One of my sites requests a copy of our masters degree, do I just upload a scanned copy in the supplemental section? It says on my transcripts all the info on my masters degree so I find it interesting the site wants an actual copy of my MS.

 

[deleted1003601]

This is a friendly public reminder: police your social media. I have my own opinions on the matter (church and state themed)...but I digress. I know many programs will look you up, or they may have current interns or postdocs who might otherwise report back to a site you've applied to that may or may not be favorable to you. Either way...change your names, make sure your privacy is as tightly controlled as Trump's taxes, or any other thing you can do to limit blow back.

 

[GradStudent2020]

This is a friendly public reminder: police your social media. I have my own opinions on the matter (church and state themed)...but I digress. I know many programs will look you up, or they may have current interns or postdocs who might otherwise report back to a site you've applied to that may or may not be favorable to you. Either way...change your names, make sure your privacy is as tightly controlled as Trump's taxes, or any other thing you can do to limit blow back.

This is solid advice. I know of TD’s that look up Facebook profiles. I changed my name and deleted every political post just in case. Some people delete their accounts entirely.

 

[deleted1003601]

This is solid advice. I know of TD’s that look up Facebook profiles. I changed my name and deleted every political post just in case. Some people delete their accounts entirely.

I changed my name on my Facebook and re-checked the security parameters. For Twitter and LinkedIn, I keep those professional, so I am not worried. Instagram I had deleted 6 months ago but then re-opened it about 2 months ago. Nothing bad, but it has pictures of all my family, friends, etc. I keep my Instagram private tho. I also don't use the same screen names across platforms, nor the same emails in case someone likes to get super creepy and try to skip trace my email address and usernames.

 

[Ryan2468]

This is a friendly public reminder: police your social media. I have my own opinions on the matter (church and state themed)...but I digress. I know many programs will look you up, or they may have current interns or postdocs who might otherwise report back to a site you've applied to that may or may not be favorable to you. Either way...change your names, make sure your privacy is as tightly controlled as Trump's taxes, or any other thing you can do to limit blow back.

There's a new feature where you can retroactively make all content on your page view able to only friends (in case some were set to public). Remember that your profile pictures, cover photo, and "featured photos" are all public, so you can also change those to be more "professional".

I have a few friends that are at sites I applied to, and I've just accepted that if my activist and multicultural oriented posts get back to TDs and they are seen as "red flags", then I don't want to be there.

 

[deleted1003601]

There's a new feature where you can retroactively make all content on your page view able to only friends (in case some were set to public). Remember that your profile pictures, cover photo, and "featured photos" are all public, so you can also change those to be more "professional".

Very true. I think I checked that but I will double-check. I'm not worried about my pictures.

 

[Ryan2468]

Very true. I think I checked that but I will double-check. I'm not worried about my pictures.

I sent out a tutorial for all of those applying in my program to make sure folks have their stuff locked down, not that many of us post wildly inappropriate things, but it's always safe.

 

[deleted1003601]

I sent out a tutorial for all of those applying in my program to make sure folks have their stuff locked down, not that many of us post wildly inappropriate things, but it's always safe.

Well...let's just say I probably wouldn't want some TD snooping around my Facebook wall and viewing my content. I will leave it at that.

 

[sg1645]

Once you set all your privacy information on Facebook, there is an option to see how your profile looks like to the public. On my phone the "view as" button is right under my profile picture, not sure if it is the same on the computer.

I just viewed my profile and it literally only shows my profile picture, cover photo, and my name. No featured pictures, no posts whatsoever, no friends list. I have all my settings set to "friends only" and I limited my past posts to "friends only" as well. I also have my profile set to not show up in search engine searches (google, yahoo, etc.)

 

[CallmeDoc2]

This was certainly one of the most arduous tasks in my graduate school career and I am extremely happy all application materials have been submitted. I applied to 21 sites, though everyone in my cohort did not apply to more than 15. APPIC says you get diminishing returns after 15, but hey, I had trouble narrowing my site list. Hopefully, everyone is enjoying a bit of a well-deserved post reinforcement pause.

 

[deleted1003601]

This was certainly one of the most arduous tasks in my graduate school career and I am extremely happy all application materials have been submitted. I applied to 21 sites, though everyone in my cohort did not apply to more than 15. APPIC says you get diminishing returns after 15, but hey, I had trouble narrowing my site list. Hopefully, everyone is enjoying a bit of a well-deserved post reinforcement pause.

That is a fallacy. In my first year, our program director also fed us the same BS. There's actually a good thread on here that challenges this assumption. I applied to 30 sites. These sites don't know I applied to one another. Besides, with neuro, there's like 1 spot...with other tracks, you have 2-6 spots. For example, Jackson Memorial has 4 spots for general, 1 spot for neuro, 1 spot for rehab, 1 spot for behavioral health, 2 spots for child. Law of numbers. Thus, every program I applied to had a neuro track or a rehab track, and if I could apply to both, I did. Otherwise, I have 30 opportunities to be selected for a spot.

 

[bcliff]

This is probably a stupid question, but when I visited the APPIC website again to look at a site, in the section Range of integrated assessment reports: highest number of reports written I looked at the numbers and saw for one internship cohort 177 reports. Is that number an aggregate of all accepted interns, or, is this a single person's amount of reports they have written?

FWIW, during externship, I averaged ~1-2 neuropsych reports/week while completing outpatient rotations and probably averaged ~3-5 reports/week while completing inpatient rotations, so I can see how someone could accrue close to 200 integrated reports by the time they applied to internship.

 

[deleted1003601]

FWIW, I averaged ~1-2 outpatient neuropsych reports/week while completing certain externship rotations and probably averaged ~3-5 briefer reports while completing inpatient rotations, so I can see how someone could get close to 200 integrated reports by the time they applied to internship.

Congrats

 

[Ryan2468]

That is a fallacy. In my first year, our program director also fed us the same BS. There's actually a good thread on here that challenges this assumption. I applied to 30 sites. These sites don't know I applied to one another. Besides, with neuro, there's like 1 spot...with other tracks, you have 2-6 spots. For example, Jackson Memorial has 4 spots for general, 1 spot for neuro, 1 spot for rehab, 1 spot for behavioral health, 2 spots for child. Law of numbers. Thus, every program I applied to had a neuro track or a rehab track, and if I could apply to both, I did. Otherwise, I have 30 opportunities to be selected for a spot.

I couldn't afford that many, nor could I ever afford that many interviews. Had to literally cash out my retirement from previous employment to pay for this process, so that's cute. Good luck, I'm sure you will kill it!

 

[deleted656923]

FWIW, during externship, I averaged ~1-2 neuropsych reports/week while completing outpatient rotations and probably averaged ~3-5 reports/week while completing inpatient rotations, so I can see how someone could accrue close to 200 integrated reports by the time they applied to internship.

I bet you beat out a lot of your competition here with that number >;-)

 

[Ryan2468]

Well...the good news is my husband earned a ton of airline miles ($1123 worth of fees). I am projecting that I will be rejected from at least 7-10 sites perhaps.

That's great! It makes me sick to think how much money we are about to spend...BUT we are almost done!

 

[bcliff]

This was certainly one of the most arduous tasks in my graduate school career and I am extremely happy all application materials have been submitted. I applied to 21 sites, though everyone in my cohort did not apply to more than 15. APPIC says you get diminishing returns after 15, but hey, I had trouble narrowing my site list. Hopefully, everyone is enjoying a bit of a well-deserved post reinforcement pause.

That is a fallacy. In my first year, our program director also fed us the same BS. There's actually a good thread on here that challenges this assumption. I applied to 30 sites. These sites don't know I applied to one another. Besides, with neuro, there's like 1 spot...with other tracks, you have 2-6 spots. For example, Jackson Memorial has 4 spots for general, 1 spot for neuro, 1 spot for rehab, 1 spot for behavioral health, 2 spots for child. Law of numbers. Thus, every program I applied to had a neuro track or a rehab track, and if I could apply to both, I did. Otherwise, I have 30 opportunities to be selected for a spot.

Someone told me once that there was a negative correlation between applicant competitiveness and number of sites applied to, which they claimed partially explained this trend -- Not sure if that's something that's been empirically examined or just a hypothesis that's been passed around.

 

[WisNeuro]

Someone told me once that there was a negative correlation between applicant competitiveness and number of sites applied to, which they claimed partially explained this trend -- Not sure if that's something that's been empirically examined or just a hypothesis that's been passed around.

Some of the diploma mill sites encourage their students to send out applications VERY widely. There is definitely a correlation there.

 

[deleted1003601]

Our program encourages 15-20 with 20 being the very max. Our DCT said that 16 is the "sweet spot." Everyone has an opinion I suppose.

 

[NeuroJaguar]

That is a fallacy. In my first year, our program director also fed us the same BS. There's actually a good thread on here that challenges this assumption. I applied to 30 sites. These sites don't know I applied to one another. Besides, with neuro, there's like 1 spot...with other tracks, you have 2-6 spots. For example, Jackson Memorial has 4 spots for general, 1 spot for neuro, 1 spot for rehab, 1 spot for behavioral health, 2 spots for child. Law of numbers. Thus, every program I applied to had a neuro track or a rehab track, and if I could apply to both, I did. Otherwise, I have 30 opportunities to be selected for a spot.

Could you explain how the match statistics are a fallacy?

From the 2016 Appic applicant survey:

13. Number of applications submitted:

1 to 5 applications Match rate = 68% n = 114
6 to 10 applications Match rate = 76% n = 176
11 to 15 applications Match rate = 89% n = 843
16 to 20 applications Match rate = 92% n = 880
21 to 25 applications Match rate = 93% n = 322
26 to 30 applications Match rate = 95% n = 85
31 or more applications Match rate = 89% n = 28

(Applicant Survey - 2016 - Part 2)

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd have to imagine the incremental additive value has further decreased in the past two years as the ratio of offered spots to potential applicants has further changed to favor applicants.

 

[NeuroJaguar]

I'd have to imagine the incremental additive value has further decreased in the past two years as the ratio of offered spots to potential applicants has further changed to favor applicants.

I absolutely agree.

 

[deleted1003601]

I was trying to see if they had released part 2 results for 2019 or 2018 and they haven't. I think it would be important to look at the difference in match rates between 2016 up until 2019 due to the fact that over the most recent couple of years, available spaces for internships have increased. There was a table I saw about a month ago that showed not much of a difference between those who applied to 15-20 vs. those that applied to 21+ in terms of those who were granted interviews vs. those who matched. Let me try to find it again.

 

[WisNeuro]

I was trying to see if they had released part 2 results for 2019 or 2018 and they haven't. I think it would be important to look at the difference in match rates between 2016 up until 2019 due to the fact that over the most recent couple of years, available spaces for internships have increased. There was a table I saw about a month ago that showed not much of a difference between those who applied to 15-20 vs. those that applied to 21+ in terms of those who were granted interviews vs. those who matched. Let me try to find it again.

Isn't this saying pretty much what you said was not true?

 

[deleted1003601]

Could you explain how the match statistics are a fallacy?

From the 2016 Appic applicant survey:

13. Number of applications submitted:

1 to 5 applications Match rate = 68% n = 114
6 to 10 applications Match rate = 76% n = 176
11 to 15 applications Match rate = 89% n = 843
16 to 20 applications Match rate = 92% n = 880
21 to 25 applications Match rate = 93% n = 322
26 to 30 applications Match rate = 95% n = 85
31 or more applications Match rate = 89% n = 28

(Applicant Survey - 2016 - Part 2)

From what I can see, I applied to 30 sites. This table shows that those who applied to 26-30 had a 95% match rate. Conversely, those who applied to 11 to 15 sites had an 89% match rate. 95>89?

 

[NeuroJaguar]

From what I am reading. For example, I applied to 30 sites. This table shows that those who applied to 26-30 had a 95% match rate. Conversely, those who applied to 11 to 15 sites had a 89% match rate. 95>89?

Well... yes, but it's more about diminishing returns per application submitted (time + money) and meaningful effect size/practical significance. Especially in light of the improved ratio of spots offered vs number of applicants since 2016 when these data were collected.

 

[deleted1003601]

Isn't this saying pretty much what you said was not true?

Not sure if I follow. What I was saying was that there was a table I had seen that compared those who were granted interviews vs. those who ended up matching. I want to say those who applied to more didn't vary as much compared to those who didn't apply to over 21 sites. However, the match rate was higher for those who had applied to more. I could be wrong...it was a while back when I saw that table.

 

[deleted1003601]

Well... yes, but it's more about diminishing returns per application submitted (time + money) and meaningful effect size/practical significance. Especially in light of the improved ratio of spots offered vs number of applicants since 2016 when these data were collected.

I think those are more qualitative, especially since those variables are not included in the APPIC stats. There are probably a plethora of variables that likely make it seem like diminishing returns. But from the cold hard data we see above, as the number of applications increase, so does the likelihood of one being matched. That to me seems like the antithesis of diminishing returns.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not sure if I follow. What I was saying was that there was a table I had seen that compared those who were granted interviews vs. those who ended up matching. I want to say those who applied to more didn't vary as much compared to those who didn't apply to over 21 sites. However, the match rate was higher for those who had applied to more. I could be wrong...it was a while back when I saw that table.

The argument you called BS was that at the group level, at a certain number of apps, each subsequent application adds little additive value to matching. But, the data shows just that. The extra 3-6% is fairly negligible.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think those are more qualitative, especially since those variables are not included in the APPIC stats. There are probably a plethora of variables that likely make it seem like diminishing returns. But from the cold hard data we see above, as the number of applications increase, so does the likelihood of one being matched. That to me seems like the antithesis of diminishing returns.

It actually seems like the definition of diminishing returns. They get smaller as # of apps increase. ?

 

[deleted1003601]

The argument you called BS was that at the group level, at a certain number of apps, each subsequent application adds little additive value to matching. But, the data shows just that. The extra 3-6% is fairly negligible.

Not sure if we are in both agreement or not. To be clear, my stance on this is, if you increase the number of applications, you will likely increase your probability of being matched. The data above supports that. While it might not be a huge difference, it's still a difference.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I think those are more qualitative, especially since those variables are not included in the APPIC stats. There are probably a plethora of variables that likely make it seem like diminishing returns. But from the cold hard data we see above, as the number of applications increase, so does the likelihood of one being matched. That to me seems like the antithesis of diminishing returns.

If you have the resources to apply to more sites, and all those feel like a potential good fit, then who cares? Data (like above) can show general trends but obviously doesn’t tell anyone if applying to more or less sites is the right move for any individual applicant.

I know you are excited about the sites you applied to! Don’t let people discourage you. Best of luck this cycle!

 

[WisNeuro]

Not sure if we are in both agreement or not. To be clear, my stance on this is, if you increase the number of applications, you will likely increase your probability of being matched. The data above supports that. While it might not be a huge difference, it's still a difference.

Yes, it is a difference, but it is a difference of a diminishing significance as number of apps increase. Hence, diminishing returns.

 

[deleted1003601]

It actually seems like the definition of diminishing returns. They get smaller as # of apps increase. ?

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, and point out where I am missing it by all means.

1 to 5 applications Match rate = 68% n = 114
6 to 10 applications Match rate = 76% n = 176
11 to 15 applications Match rate = 89% n = 843
16 to 20 applications Match rate = 92% n = 880
21 to 25 applications Match rate = 93% n = 322
26 to 30 applications Match rate = 95% n = 85
31 or more applications Match rate = 89% n = 28

To me, as you increase in applications, you go from 68, 76, 89, 92, 93, 95%. The percentage is increasing. Not by a statistically significant rate, but still shows a relative linear correlation.