Anyone else afraid of not matching?

[Ms.PhD.Eventually]

I am sure it’s an irrational fear, but APPIC’s matching process makes me so nervous.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Psych-ops]

Yes! I’m sure every applicant feels that way until receiving confirmation of placement on match day.


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile

 

[WisNeuro]

It's a common-ish feeling. But, just look on the bright side, yours, and recent cohorts, have statistically the best chance of matching in decades. The number of spots is high compared to applicants. Also, as a result of so many more spots, Phase II generally has much higher quality unfilled spots than it used to.

 

[psydstudent2020]

Very much so. I always worry that I look more competitive on paper than I truly am, or that I won't know how to answer interview questions.

 

[Ms.PhD.Eventually]

Very much so. I always worry that I look more competitive on paper than I truly am, or that I won't know how to answer interview questions.

Yes!!! I relate so much to this. But WisNeuro’s comment above makes me hopeful

 

[mypointlesspov]

It's been the subject of my nightmares for about two months now.

 

[laughingasong]

I've never viewed myself as a particularly competitive applicant...so very very yes.

 

[onwardsandup]

I just wanted to chime in. As someone who didn’t match last year and is in the cycle again this year, life does go on, no matter what happens. That said, I have the same fears of not matching, just like I did last year, if anything, more so. It’s a stressful time and it makes sense that we think about all these scenarios that could happen. But since interviews have yet to happen, we can try to channel that nervous energy into prepping for interviews. And never forget that thing we always talk about with patients, self-care!

 

[Psych-ops]

I just wanted to chime in. As someone who didn’t match last year and is in the cycle again this year, life does go on, no matter what happens. That said, I have the same fears of not matching, just like I did last year, if anything, more so. It’s a stressful time and it makes sense that we think about all these scenarios that could happen. But since interviews have yet to happen, we can try to channel that nervous energy into prepping for interviews. And never forget that thing we always talk about with patients, self-care!

Thanks for the insight. Looking back, would you have done anything differently (i.e. advice on choosing sites, interviewing, or ranking)?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[onwardsandup]

Thanks for the insight. Looking back, would you have done anything differently (i.e. advice on choosing sites, interviewing, or ranking)?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Choosing sites: I got feedback that I had applied to sites that were too competitive and didn’t have enough “safety sites.” (I put this in quotations because this whole process is so competitive that I hesitate to think that there are “safety sites”). While I looked at interview and acceptance rates last year, I looked more into the ratio of total applicants to number of slots, and was able to take some sites off my list from those numbers.

Interviews: (From self-reflection and feedback from sites). Demonstrate lots of excitement about each site. I think that anxious energy can make some people talk too much, and for some people, not enough - for me, I’m the latter because I just want to stop talking and sort of “get it over with.” So going into this round, I’ll try to elaborate more on my responses.

Ranking: I wouldn’t say I have too much insight into this just because this wasnt a particular issue I had (since I didn’t get many interviews to begin with). I’ve spoken to friends who didn’t rank places they interviewed at, and I did the same. I don’t regret how that played out because I really don’t think I would have enjoyed these sites if I had matched there, and likewise I’m sure the sites felt a lack of fit as well. It’s this balance of oscillating between thinking, “it’s JUST a year” and “it’s a WHOLE year.”

I’ve known many people who didn’t match to their favorite site and the training wasn’t particularly what they wanted either (e.g., their interests were in peds but they ended up in a UCC), BUT they ended up with exactly what they wanted for post-doc. So remember that if we don’t get exactly what we want during match, that for post-doc, it’s all about how we sell our experience and I think it’s possible to find roundabout ways to get back into the areas that we really want.

 

[Ms.PhD.Eventually]

Choosing sites: I got feedback that I had applied to sites that were too competitive and didn’t have enough “safety sites.” (I put this in quotations because this whole process is so competitive that I hesitate to think that there are “safety sites”). While I looked at interview and acceptance rates last year, I looked more into the ratio of total applicants to number of slots, and was able to take some sites off my list from those numbers.

Interviews: (From self-reflection and feedback from sites). Demonstrate lots of excitement about each site. I think that anxious energy can make some people talk too much, and for some people, not enough - for me, I’m the latter because I just want to stop talking and sort of “get it over with.” So going into this round, I’ll try to elaborate more on my responses.

Ranking: I wouldn’t say I have too much insight into this just because this wasnt a particular issue I had (since I didn’t get many interviews to begin with). I’ve spoken to friends who didn’t rank places they interviewed at, and I did the same. I don’t regret how that played out because I really don’t think I would have enjoyed these sites if I had matched there, and likewise I’m sure the sites felt a lack of fit as well. It’s this balance of oscillating between thinking, “it’s JUST a year” and “it’s a WHOLE year.”

I’ve known many people who didn’t match to their favorite site and the training wasn’t particularly what they wanted either (e.g., their interests were in peds but they ended up in a UCC), BUT they ended up with exactly what they wanted for post-doc. So remember that if we don’t get exactly what we want during match, that for post-doc, it’s all about how we sell our experience and I think it’s possible to find roundabout ways to get back into the areas that we really want.

I have never understood how to decide if a site is a “safety site.” Almost every site I looked at had at least 90-120 people applying the past few years for only a few slots. Is that pretty common?

 

[EmotRegulation]

There are no safety sites, not at all. BUT there are sites which are more competitive....90 applicants for 3 slots is different than 400 applicants for 3 slots (as you often see in big cities). In addition, FIT matters....so look at the frequencies of where people are at who did that internship. If 80% are in research positions or faculty positions, and you don't have a kickass research CV, that's not a good site for you (and vice versa, if it's a site where 70% of people are in private practice or working at a community mental health center and you are more research-focused in your career goals, also not a good site for you.)

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I have never understood how to decide if a site is a “safety site.” Almost every site I looked at had at least 90-120 people applying the past few years for only a few slots. Is that pretty common?

You don’t need to be ranked #1 or #2 for all sites, but you likely need to be in the top handful for a few sites to give yourself the best chance of matching. Some sites match way down on their rank list, but others rarely fall past the top few.

FWIW....I didn’t match my first year, but I pulled it together and got back on the horse. It sucked watching all of my cohort leave and me get stuck after securing a bunch of interviews, but I had to accept it and plan for my next year.

Much like @onwardsandup, I sought feedback on my app, feedback from DCTs, spoke with multiple faculty about my approach, etc. I realized I was too aggressive in my apps. I “only” applied to 10-12 sites, all of which were highly competitive neuro sites (Boston Consortium, Brown, OU Health Services, etc). I got 7-8 interviews, which I thought would be fine, but I got squeezed. This was at the height of the internship imbalance, so the overall match rate was 75% and some of that 25% unmatched got squeezed like me.

I contacted every DCT at sites I visited and about 5-6 got back to me. I realized my app was fine and I was competitive, I just wasn’t ranked I the top 1-3. I found out that the sites I applied to routinely secured interns in their first few picks, so my margin of error was very small. During the next application cycle I had more of a range of sites and matched fine. It felt super serious at the time, but it wasn’t nearly the setback I felt it was while I went through the process.

Don’t worry about matching to your #1/dream site. Most people don’t get their top site and they still end up fine. I didn’t get my top choice, but I honestly had a great experience at my site and i’m thankful I matched there. Just match to an APA-acred site, get your hours, and focus on post-doc. For most specialties your post-doc matters more than your internship year anyway.

 

[eeor1006]

I got this from a seminar I attended. So basically, calculate the ratio between the number of applicants to one spot. For example, if a site receives 300 applications for 6 spots, each application has 2% chance of getting matched to the site. It is recommended that no more than half of your sites should fall under the highly competitive category.
This obviously does not apply to everyone. For me, none of my sites are "low." I did find some sites that are "low" but I don't think they are a great fit for my training goals.

 

[areyoubusy]

YES. Terrified.
What if I ruin my program's long-standing 100% match rate?

 

[Justanothergrad]

I got this from a seminar I attended. So basically, calculate the ratio between the number of applicants to one spot. For example, if a site receives 300 applications for 6 spots, each application has 2% chance of getting matched to the site. It is recommended that no more than half of your sites should fall under the highly competitive category.
This obviously does not apply to everyone. For me, none of my sites are "low." I did find some sites that are "low" but I don't think they are a great fit for my training goals.

I would encourage people to avoid trying to calculate some exact formula for which sites/how many of what type to apply too. That makes a lot of assumptions about equality quality fit, experiences, and research across applicants. That is an unsupported assumption in my experience. Unless there is guidance from APPIC based on analysis from actual match rates to support those numbers (which I haven't seen), I don't think they offer a great deal of utility.

 

[PsyDr]

Then you get to be terrified of not passing internship
Then you get to be terrified of not finding a post doc
Then you get to be terrified of not passing the EPPP
Then you get to be terrified of not passing your state licensing board
Then you get to be terrified of not finding a job
Then you get to be terrified of passing boards or whatever specialty you choose
Then you get to be terrified of making enough money to support yourself
Then you get to be terrified of not having enough money for retirement

 

[Psych-ops]

I have never understood how to decide if a site is a “safety site.” Almost every site I looked at had at least 90-120 people applying the past few years for only a few slots. Is that pretty common?

IMO: a “safety site” is one that has 60 or fewer applicants. I only chose a few competitive sites that I thought matched my training goals the rest were safety sites. I submitted 17 applications.


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile

 

[areyoubusy]

Then you get to be terrified of not passing internship
Then you get to be terrified of not finding a post doc
Then you get to be terrified of not passing the EPPP
Then you get to be terrified of not passing your state licensing board
Then you get to be terrified of not finding a job
Then you get to be terrified of passing boards or whatever specialty you choose
Then you get to be terrified of making enough money to support yourself
Then you get to be terrified of not having enough money for retirement

This is the most terrifying set of sentences I've ever read.

 

[SchoolSyke]

YES. Terrified.
What if I ruin my program's long-standing 100% match rate?

This is my fear as well!

 

[kibbles_n_bits]

Oh goodness, yes!

I posted this on the internship thread before seeing this one which is probably more appropriate: is it possible to see the list of programs that participated in Phase II in previous years? I know I can look through the threads from previous years, but I was hoping I could see the full list of participating programs.

 

[onwardsandup]

Oh goodness, yes!

I posted this on the internship thread before seeing this one which is probably more appropriate: is it possible to see the list of programs that participated in Phase II in previous years? I know I can look through the threads from previous years, but I was hoping I could see the full list of participating programs.

I got you.

 

[Psych-ops]

YES. Terrified.
What if I ruin my program's long-standing 100% match rate?

Wow! What University has a 100% match rate? You can PM if you don’t want to answer in open forum. Just super curious...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[areyoubusy]

Wow! What University has a 100% match rate? You can PM if you don’t want to answer in open forum. Just super curious...

The 100% match rate is for the past 10 years, but still.
And If I can figure out how to respond privately, I will...

 

[areyoubusy]

I got you.

Wow! A lot of great sites on there. I guess in my mind, all the "top" sites would be 100% taken at that point.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

I got you.

Oh my god, you are an angel of the highest order! THANK YOU!!

 

[Seven_Costanza]

Wow! A lot of great sites on there. I guess in my mind, all the "top" sites would be 100% taken at that point.

For real! One of my top choices has 4 spots open for the track I'm interested in!

 

[Ms.PhD.Eventually]

I guess I just don’t understand how the match math works out. Let’s say I get 6 interviews and each site has 40 applicants total interviewing. I rank my 6 sites and all 6 sites rank me as #10 or lower and there’s only 2-6 slots per site, that means I wouldn’t get matched?

But I am hopeful that Phase II last year had really great sites!

 

[WisNeuro]

Wow! What University has a 100% match rate? You can PM if you don’t want to answer in open forum. Just super curious...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

There's a bunch, maybe 15 or so with 100% in the past published 6-7 years, even more with 95%+ that missed one or two student matches in the time period. Those numbers will grow with the increase of spots up for grabs.

 

[WisNeuro]

I guess I just don’t understand how the match math works out. Let’s say I get 6 interviews and each site has 40 applicants total interviewing. I rank my 6 sites and all 6 sites rank me as #10 or lower and there’s only 2-6 slots per site, that means I wouldn’t get matched?

But I am hopeful that Phase II last year had really great sites!

Nope, you have to take into account how the people ranked 1-10 matched. Some sites go beyond their top 10 rankings all the time. This is happening more often in the past couple years due to the imbalance being on the side of more spots than applicants.

 

[kibbles_n_bits]

Nope, you have to take into account how the people ranked 1-10 matched. Some sites go beyond their top 10 rankings all the time. This is happening more often in the past couple years due to the imbalance being on the side of more spots than applicants.

Thanks, WisNeuro!

Given this video you shared, I can't wrap my mind around how your ranking of sites doesn't affect your chances of matching, yet the APPIC site has this on their FAQ page. Do you have any insight?

QUESTION: I wasn't matched at all, and now I'm wondering if the order in which I ranked my programs had something to do with my not being matched. Is this possible?

ANSWER: No, the order in which you ranked your programs did not result in your being unmatched. If you did not match, you would have been unmatched regardless of the order in which you submitted your rankings. Changing the order of the programs on your Rank Order List only affects where you will be matched, not whether or not you will be matched.

 

[WisNeuro]

Thanks, WisNeuro!
Given this video you shared, I can't wrap my mind around how your ranking of sites doesn't affect your chances of matching, yet the APPIC site has this on their FAQ page. Do you have any insight?

In essence, it prioritizes applicants ratings, in a way. For example, a site can rank someone #1, but if that applicant ranks the site #8, the algorithm will first see if it can match the applicant to sites 1-7, in sequential order first. It will move on down the list depending on site rankings and applicant wishes. So, if a site ranks you as their #1, and you rank them #8, if you do not match at your sites 1-7, you will match at your #8 site.

 

[attitudelikeasunrise]

I completely understand the fear, but as someone who didn't match last year, I want to assure people that it is definitely not the end of the road and quite possibly can be used to your advantage. Just a little bit about my experience for those who are interested in what it actually looks like when you don't match:

The Negatives - Reasons why I think I didn't match (or get many interviews):

1. I didn't have enough intervention hours

I am neuro-focused so I was heavily skewed in my assessment to intervention hours ratio. I was hoping that since I was applying for neuro tracks it wouldn't matter, but it absolutely did and I have a feeling my application got thrown out just based on training hours alone before it was even reviewed by most sites.

2. All my essays and cover letters were completely oriented towards specializing in neuropsychology

I have since been told by my DCT and many other faculty members that this was a huge mistake. When internship sites emphasize that they are there primarily for generalist training, they are not lying. I imagine that my materials came across as very inflexible and unwanting to pursue any other training outside of neuropsychology, which while this might be true in an ideal-world kind of way, this is simply not the reality of what an internship is for.

3. My site list was WAY too competitive

Although I was competitive in my own program, I don't come from a top tier University and therefore underestimated the overall competitiveness of ALL applicants. Also, while this isn't a possibility for everyone, my school keeps track of all internship match/interview data for our school specifically and instead of comparing myself just to neuropsych applicants from MY school, I made my site list based on overall match rates for everyone by looking at the numbers listed in the APPIC directory. This was NOT helpful because first of all, there are some sites that actually have never even given interviews to past applicants from my school (even though their technical match rate is pretty good) and second of all, those numbers are for all applicants and therefore do not give a strong indication of what the breakdown of specialty tracks (i.e. neuropsych) looks like.

The Positives - Reasons why not matching turned out to be a good thing:

1. I am a WAY more competitive applicant now

I was able to accrue a ton of intervention hours over the past year at an excellent VA and now my training hours are great. I have already received more invitation offers this year (when it's still early) than I did last year in total, including getting invitations to sites I applied to last year and didn't get interviews at initially. And this will likely allow me to get a better internship overall.

2. I was able to complete and successfully defend my dissertation

Talk about a huge relief going into internship interviews! This is something that would have been impossible had I matched last year and had to have started an internship over the summer.

3. I have a much more realistic site list + way stronger application materials (i.e. essays, cover letters, letters of rec)

I have a much better understanding now about where I fit in the whole scheme of things so I feel much more confident going into interviews and knowing exactly what I want out of a site and what to tell them to indicate that I would be a good match for them as well.

Parting Words:

- The first 3 months after not matching SUCKED, watching my friends all go off to internship while I stayed back SUCKED, and tbh I'm sure it's going to SUCK when I have to watch most of my cohort graduate without me. I don't want to sugarcoat this process and say that you just completely get over it and feel great about everything, but the world didn't stop either and 5 years from now I'm sure it won't really matter at all

- There is NO way to make logical sense out of who matches and who does not and it is by no means indicative of overall skills or merit. There were underwhelming applicants from my school who matched and some of the most competitive applicants that didn't. There were people who got more than 5 interviews who didn't match and some who only got 1 or 2 that did. You will drive yourself crazy if you try to figure out something that is inherently random

- The internship application process is way easier when you are doing it the second time around

 

[kibbles_n_bits]

You will drive yourself crazy if you try to figure out something that is inherently random

Get out of my head!

Thanks so much for sharing your experience - it really does help to know that it will all work out either way.

 

[PSYCHO-therapist]

IMO: a “safety site” is one that has 60 or fewer applicants. I only chose a few competitive sites that I thought matched my training goals the rest were safety sites. I submitted 17 applications.

I disagree about your definition of safety sites. If you look at application rates in the last 3 years, sites that had 60 or less applicants will be hit with a wave the following year (based on your logic that it is a "safety site"). And even if a site has fewer than 60 applicants, 50 applicants is still a lot for a site with only 4 positions if you are not a good match.

I have been fairly successful with a method my advisor recommended to me. Our school publishes a deidentified excel spreadsheet of where every (reporting) phd student in the last 7-10 years reports where they applied, where they interviewed, and where they matched. To calculate safety sites, I looked at approximately how many students from my program applied and were interviewed in the last 3 years. Any site that was over 66% interview rate I deemed a safety site (friends who completed match previously told me my 66% was high and used 50% interview rate as a safety site). Many schools have this information available. In interview offers, my schema was fairly successful, I received the majority of my interviews from safety sites and most of my rejections were from reach sites. I applied to 16 sites and a little less than half were safety sites.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Remember I had a few sites I applied to thinking for sure of them as safety, but none of them totally fit me; ended up getting a good amount of interviews @ the sites that fit and were generally seen as competitive sites. Nil interviews @ the ones I saw as "safety." just food for thought. Fit. matters. most.