APPIC 2024- 2025 Clinical Psychology Internship Interview Thread

[PsychToBe25]

Anyone else getting View Only on the Spreadsheets?

Someone made a copy of the spreadsheet so we can edit it, link here

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MiniskirtEconomics]

Anyone else getting View Only on the Spreadsheets?

I think everyone is :/ I sent a few messages to the owner over the past few days to no avail. I looked it up and the owner may be stuck on viewing the spreadsheet if they are out of google storage, meaning they can't change it. If they are out of google storage they probably also aren't receiving our requests to their inbox.

If the OG creator reads this, I saw a solution online. They said this will randomly happen to large sheets. Simply "Clear Data" of the Sheets app. Settings -> Apps -> Sheets -> Storage -> Clear Data. It won't sign you out or clear the sheet, and your editing permissions will come back!

 

[LeavesFromTheVine]

Hi all - I figured I would ask these questions here, but let me know if it would be more appropriate elsewhere.

I am thinking through my internship rankings, and I have one non-accredited program in the mix. The program applied for accreditation roughly one year ago and has an APA site visit authorized, tentatively scheduled for Spring 2024. Their first two interns are currently completing the program, and they report being very happy with the training and have no major complaints (per the 'candid' intern q&a). I completed an externship at this site, and I have a lot of confidence in the training director. Based on my interviews with the training director, supervising psychologists, and current interns, I believe that the internship would sufficiently differ from my externship experience - new patient populations, different supervisors, more/different assessment opportunities, much more integration in the overall treatment milieu, etc.

I am trying to decide whether I should move forward with ranking this site somewhat high on my list (#4/8), in the hopes that the site visit goes well and it attains accredited on contingency status during my internship year (were I to match there).

My questions:
(1) Am I being overly optimistic about the site's likelihood of being accredited following the site visit? I wonder if there are factors I am not considering that would make it more/less likely to 'pass' the site visit.

(2) How should I weigh the risk of attending a non-accredited internship? I am looking to have particular forensic and inpatient smi training opportunities, which this site offers while other sites I'll be ranking provide to a much lesser degree/not at all.

Thanks in advance for helping me think through my situation.

 

[summerbabe]

Hi all - I figured I would ask these questions here, but let me know if it would be more appropriate elsewhere.

I am thinking through my internship rankings, and I have one non-accredited program in the mix. The program applied for accreditation roughly one year ago and has an APA site visit authorized, tentatively scheduled for Spring 2024. Their first two interns are currently completing the program, and they report being very happy with the training and have no major complaints (per the 'candid' intern q&a). I completed an externship at this site, and I have a lot of confidence in the training director. Based on my interviews with the training director, supervising psychologists, and current interns, I believe that the internship would sufficiently differ from my externship experience - new patient populations, different supervisors, more/different assessment opportunities, much more integration in the overall treatment milieu, etc.

I am trying to decide whether I should move forward with ranking this site somewhat high on my list (#4/8), in the hopes that the site visit goes well and it attains accredited on contingency status during my internship year (were I to match there).

My questions:
(1) Am I being overly optimistic about the site's likelihood of being accredited following the site visit? I wonder if there are factors I am not considering that would make it more/less likely to 'pass' the site visit.

(2) How should I weigh the risk of attending a non-accredited internship? I am looking to have particular forensic and inpatient smi training opportunities, which this site offers while other sites I'll be ranking provide to a much lesser degree/not at all.

Thanks in advance for helping me think through my situation.

Tough situation. A few things that came to mind for me:

- It's hard to bank too much on a future site visit. I don't know how often site visits get postponed (including for reasons beyond the site's control) or if a site could feel well run/provides good current training but maybe they are actually terrible with paperwork and bureaucracy and won't get in all the things they may still need to submit pre or post visit.

- Does your grad program require you to attend an accredited internship? Do they make an exception for contingently accredited? If the answer is 'yes' or you're not sure, definitely consult with your training director before making any decisions. And not ranking them at all would probably be the right choice if graduating is dependent on completing an accredited internship.

- If allowed by your program, worst case scenario of not getting accreditation is that you can still graduate but may have difficulty with certain professional tasks in the future that require or strongly recommend an accredited internship. Some may have exceptions but others may be rigid. This could impact things like licensure or jobs you may want to apply for. Make sure to factor that in before you rank.

- If you rank this site pretty high and they also like and rank you highly, there is a good chance that you will match with them.

- Let's say you rank it #4. That means you're only giving yourself 3 other rank possibilities above it. So if you don't match to #1, 2 or 3 and your site also has not filled all of their spots, the algorithm should now make a match. And there is no need for the algorithm to try to match you to spots 5-8.

- Can you predict how popular this site will be? If it's in a major metro and there are local schools that don't require an accredited internship to graduate, a lot of people might be interested. But if not, it's lack of accreditation status may scare a lot of people away during Phase 1. Do you know how this site matched its spots last time? Phase 1? 2? Clearinghouse? I would suspect the same pattern might hold so if they are expecting all their spots of fill in Phase 2 or after and you rank them anywhere in Phase 1, you’re probably going there for internship (unless you match at a higher ranked site).

- I just saw where you said you’re interested in forensics and SMI. While I don’t work in these areas, I imagine doing a non-accredited internship could be a major hindrance on future career prospects since that would make you stand out in a negative way compared to your peers (like if you’re all applying for the same state hospital job).

 

[LeavesFromTheVine]

Tough situation. A few things that came to mind for me:

- It's hard to bank too much on a future site visit. I don't know how often site visits get postponed (including for reasons beyond the site's control) or if a site could feel well run/provides good current training but maybe they are actually terrible with paperwork and bureaucracy and won't get in all the things they may still need to submit pre or post visit.

- Does your grad program require you to attend an accredited internship? Do they make an exception for contingently accredited? If the answer is 'yes' or you're not sure, definitely consult with your training director before making any decisions. And not ranking them at all would probably be the right choice if graduating is dependent on completing an accredited internship.

- If allowed by your program, worst case scenario of not getting accreditation is that you can still graduate but may have difficulty with certain professional tasks in the future that require or strongly recommend an accredited internship. Some may have exceptions but others may be rigid. This could impact things like licensure or jobs you may want to apply for. Make sure to factor that in before you rank.

- If you rank this site pretty high and they also like and rank you highly, there is a good chance that you will match with them.

- Let's say you rank it #4. That means you're only giving yourself 3 other rank possibilities above it. So if you don't match to #1, 2 or 3 and your site also has not filled all of their spots, the algorithm should now make a match. And there is no need for the algorithm to try to match you to spots 5-8.

- Can you predict how popular this site will be? If it's in a major metro and there are local schools that don't require an accredited internship to graduate, a lot of people might be interested. But if not, it's lack of accreditation status may scare a lot of people away during Phase 1. Do you know how this site matched its spots last time? Phase 1? 2? Clearinghouse? I would suspect the same pattern might hold so if they are expecting all their spots of fill in Phase 2 or after and you rank them anywhere in Phase 1, you’re probably going there for internship (unless you match at a higher ranked site).

- I just saw where you said you’re interested in forensics and SMI. While I don’t work in these areas, I imagine doing a non-accredited internship could be a major hindrance on future career prospects since that would make you stand out in a negative way compared to your peers (like if you’re all applying for the same state hospital job).

Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts. To address some of your questions:

- I am not required by my program to attend an accredited internship.

- I am interested in becoming board-certified, which requires an accredited internship. It’s not an absolute necessity for the work I want to do moving forward, but it looks very good (vs. not board-certified) and is something I’ve always planned on pursuing.

- The site filled one intern position in Phase I last year, and filled the second in Phase II. The site is ~1.5 hours outside of a major metro area and offers specialized training opportunities. For what it’s worth, I am very confident in the training director’s ability to complete all required documentation relating to the pre/post site visit, which was factoring heavily into my risk analysis to this point.

I appreciate you outlining the logistics of the ranking process and highlighting the downsides of doing a non-accredited internship. You’re telling me things I already know but don’t want to hear or accept, and I’m frustrated with myself for still feeling conflicted.

I think it comes down to balancing the risk of not getting the specific type of training I want vs. the risk of doing a non-accredited internship. With the former, I worry about not being competitive for specific post-doc/job opportunities due to not having relevant training experience on internship. With the later, I worry about narrowing my post-doc/job opportunities due to not having completed an accredited internship.

I guess it makes the most sense to treat this site as non-accredited, ignoring where they are at in the accreditation process and the likelihood of them passing/failing the site visit (and the likelihood that it doesn’t get postponed). When I think about it like that, I feel it would be irresponsible for me to rank them at all. I think I was hoping someone would swoop in with inside knowledge about the accreditation process, offering solid reassurances about the site’s likelihood of being accredited/on-contingency prior to the end of the 2024-2025 internship year – silly.

Thanks again, it was really helpful having someone engage with me on this.

 

[summerbabe]

I think it comes down to balancing the risk of not getting the specific type of training I want vs. the risk of doing a non-accredited internship. With the former, I worry about not being competitive for specific post-doc/job opportunities due to not having relevant training experience on internship. With the later, I worry about narrowing my post-doc/job opportunities due to not having completed an accredited internship.

From a pure risk perspective, the latter is much more risky because experience can be found in many ways (practicum, internship, postdoc, early career) but you only have 1 shot at internship.

If you are open to doing a postdoc, unless you are literally completely without experience in something very specific (zero child hours applying to a ped neuro postdoc as an extreme example), you would likely be competitive for many postdocs since they aren't required and some honestly may have very little demand/competition. And when it comes to jobs, availability & being licensed often trumps experience, especially if the job is hard to fill.

If you have any current mentors or past supervisors who might have some insight on ways to navigate specific early career decisions to get you where you want to be, it might not be a bad idea to reach out to them soon.

One final thought: if you're doubting whether your final ranked list has enough programs that will offer you the type of training that you want, you could consider also not ranking others accredited programs that aren't clinical fits.

Now this is risky since you are theoretically reducing your chances of matching in Phase 1 but it seems like during the last 2 years, there have been lots of quality programs in Phase 2. We won't know until after Match if there are more/less applicants or more/less accredited spots and whether there are any imbalances but only ranking places where you would be happy matching should always be considered. Good luck!

 

[LightBright]

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could ask a question about rankings and the importance of reputation.

I have a list of amazing sites, any of which I'd be lucky to be at, but especially was impressed with interviews at UWash, Emory, and UIC.

I've been getting conflicting advice. I was initially planning on ranking UIC at the top because it seemed to have the best of both as UWash and Emory (broad generalist training, and racially/ethnically diverse training faculty), plus a very generous leave policy and a full dedicated research day. My advisor, though, strongly advised against this and seems to think UIC doesn't have as good as a reputation as the other two do. Though I'm a little unsure, as her advice seemed to be based on the reputation of the school's psychology departments, rather than the hospital these sites are actually based in.

Other factors: In terms of fit, all three felt amazing. Though their pros and cons are different at each site, I felt really good about being at each of them after each interview, so I promise I'm not weighting prestige over fit (there were other "prestigious" sites I plan on ranking lower due to fit and culture concerns). UIC I would not want to stay permanently at, though I'd be thrilled to live in Atlanta, at potentially also Seattle if I can tolerate the weather. UWash seemed like it had amazing training and full of people who care about your professional development, but low levels of diversity among training faculty. Emory was much better in this respect, but it did seem at least some of the supervision was psychodynamic, which is not my cup of tea.

Again, I know this is a great problem, and I think I'd be so happy at any of these places, but I'm wondering if ranking UIC highest over UWash/Emory would hurt me professionally when applying for postdocs. I'm wondering if some other perspectives outside my University might be able to give their take on if the reputation difference is accurate, and the impact it might have moving forward. Prior to finishing interviews, I was under the impression UIC was as prestigious as they came, so this was confusing.

 

[summerbabe]

I've been getting conflicting advice. I was initially planning on ranking UIC at the top because it seemed to have the best of both as UWash and Emory (broad generalist training, and racially/ethnically diverse training faculty), plus a very generous leave policy and a full dedicated research day. My advisor, though, strongly advised against this and seems to thing UIC doesn't have as good as a reputation as the other two do. Though I'm a little unsure, as her advice seemed to be based on the reputation of the school's psychology departments, rather than the hospital these sites are actually based in.

Academics are probably best at giving advice/mentoring regarding academic decisions. If you want a research/academic career, your advisor's advice probably holds weight since who you know & where you have been can be super important in hiring, grants, etc.

But if you're planning on a clinical career, think about this: your advisor has likely never worked or even looked for a non-academic job in this field.

As an early career full-time clinician, I tend to put little value in reputation, partly because it's very subjective, partly because the actual function of reputation in making things possible is probably questionable at best, and partly because once you're licensed & start to gain experience, people care less and less about things like where you went to school.

I would probably prioritize a) quality of training (including unique experiences that other sites may not have that could be relevant to your future career); 2) lifestyle/personal factors (can be #1 depending on things like family obligations); 3) future networking/reputation/etc

On the latter, if you plan on living in a specific area, doing internship or postdoc at a local or regional site can be helpful since future employers might think strongly of that internship site/facility or even specific recommenders. And you can potentially take more advantage of local networking opportunities.

As for applying to postdocs (especially clinical ones), many postdocs are way less competitive than internship spots in the same org since postdocs largely aren't required. So the applicant pool is much smaller (generally). If you have a solid CV & have some geographic flexibility, you should be fine in securing something suitable. Good luck!

 

[LM02]

Also, I don't know what your advisor is talking about, because I can name several very successful clinical psych professors who have done their internships at UIC. It's a great department with a stellar academic reputation.

 

[psych.meout]

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could ask a question about rankings and the importance of reputation.

I have a list of amazing sites, any of which I'd be lucky to be at, but especially was impressed with interviews at UWash, Emory, and UIC.

I've been getting conflicting advice. I was initially planning on ranking UIC at the top because it seemed to have the best of both as UWash and Emory (broad generalist training, and racially/ethnically diverse training faculty), plus a very generous leave policy and a full dedicated research day. My advisor, though, strongly advised against this and seems to think UIC doesn't have as good as a reputation as the other two do. Though I'm a little unsure, as her advice seemed to be based on the reputation of the school's psychology departments, rather than the hospital these sites are actually based in.

Other factors: In terms of fit, all three felt amazing. Though their pros and cons are different at each site, I felt really good about being at each of them after each interview, so I promise I'm not weighting prestige over fit (there were other "prestigious" sites I plan on ranking lower due to fit and culture concerns). UIC I would not want to stay permanently at, though I'd be thrilled to live in Atlanta, at potentially also Seattle if I can tolerate the weather. UWash seemed like it had amazing training and full of people who care about your professional development, but low levels of diversity among training faculty. Emory was much better in this respect, but it did seem at least some of the supervision was psychodynamic, which is not my cup of tea.

Again, I know this is a great problem, and I think I'd be so happy at any of these places, but I'm wondering if ranking UIC highest over UWash/Emory would hurt me professionally when applying for postdocs. I'm wondering if some other perspectives outside my University might be able to give their take on if the reputation difference is accurate, and the impact it might have moving forward. Prior to finishing interviews, I was under the impression UIC was as prestigious as they came, so this was confusing.

Unless something changed drastically over the past year since I interviewed there, I'd disagree with this, though I won't go into much detail here.

Also, I don't know what your advisor is talking about, because I can name several very successful clinical psych professors who have done their internships at UIC. It's a great department with a stellar academic reputation.

Yeah, that advisor doesn't know what they're talking about. UIC's doctoral program and internship are great and well-regarded. Maybe they're conflating these with the undergrad reputation? The only negative of the internship of which I'm aware is that it's quite research focused relative to other internships and wouldn't be a great fit for everyone.

 

[LeavesFromTheVine]

From a pure risk perspective, the latter is much more risky because experience can be found in many ways (practicum, internship, postdoc, early career) but you only have 1 shot at internship.

If you are open to doing a postdoc, unless you are literally completely without experience in something very specific (zero child hours applying to a ped neuro postdoc as an extreme example), you would likely be competitive for many postdocs since they aren't required and some honestly may have very little demand/competition. And when it comes to jobs, availability & being licensed often trumps experience, especially if the job is hard to fill.

If you have any current mentors or past supervisors who might have some insight on ways to navigate specific early career decisions to get you where you want to be, it might not be a bad idea to reach out to them soon.

One final thought: if you're doubting whether your final ranked list has enough programs that will offer you the type of training that you want, you could consider also not ranking others accredited programs that aren't clinical fits.

Now this is risky since you are theoretically reducing your chances of matching in Phase 1 but it seems like during the last 2 years, there have been lots of quality programs in Phase 2. We won't know until after Match if there are more/less applicants or more/less accredited spots and whether there are any imbalances but only ranking places where you would be happy matching should always be considered. Good luck!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am now strongly leaning towards not ranking the site at all, though I am still considering possibly ranking it last.

I'm working out how to rank the rest of my sites, and I have a couple more questions for anyone with insight re: a career in forensics.

(1) I am trying to decide on how to rank two sites, which will likely be my #3 and #4 (out of 7-8 total sites). Quick overview of the two sites:

- Site A provides good experience with competency evaluations, though the bulk of that experience occurs during the second half of the year. It includes a mandatory year-long 2day/week rotation that I have very little interest in. Current interns shared mixed feelings about quality of supervision, have to take work home often, and regularly have difficulty scheduling sessions with patients. Little support in terms of post-doc application process and not as much focus on professional development.

- Site B does not provide any experience with competency evaluations. Assessment opportunities would be mainly psychodiagnostic/intellectual/etc. with forensic and civil inpatients, with some opportunities for risk assessment and malingering evaluations. Current interns are very happy with the site - great supervision, lots of autonomy and focus on development of professional skills, opportunities to observe NGRI court proceedings and other aspects of forensic evaluation process, very satisfied with assesssment training/opportunities, feel very supported in post-doc application process.

- I like site B more than site A, and I feel confident I would be happier there. However, I am very interested in receiving training in competency evaluations, and I feel it would help me in my goal of securing a forensic post-doc. I would love to know people's thoughts on how important it is to get specific competency and/or other forensic evaluation experience during internship in order to be competetive for a forensic post-doc, and how to weigh that experience against other factors.

(2) I have one site that does not have any forensic component. I like the site and interns seem happy there, but it doesn't fit well with my goals. I was thinking of leaving it off my list, but I'm reconsidering now that I am most likely not ranking the non-accredited site. This site is a VA (the only one I applied to), and I chose to apply there because it offers good experience with compensation & pension assessments. I don't want to do that work long-term, but I thought it might be a solid stepping stone toward my larger goal of forensic evaluation work. My question - am I right that there is some value of comp & pen assessment experience in the context of my career goals? I'm just trying to figure out if it's worth ranking the site at all at this point.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to share insight or guidance on either of these questions.

 

[LightBright]

Unless something changed drastically over the past year since I interviewed there, I'd disagree with this, though I won't go into much detail here.


Yeah, that advisor doesn't know what they're talking about. UIC's doctoral program and internship are great and well-regarded. Maybe they're conflating these with the undergrad reputation? The only negative of the internship of which I'm aware is that it's quite research focused relative to other internships and wouldn't be a great fit for everyone.

I so appreciate all of your feedback! I felt a little confused by the advice, as I had the same impression thing re: reputation. I am interested in a research-heavy career, so I've weighed that pretty highly in internship selection.

 

[Zazulator]

Does anyone know anything about reaccreditation for internship sites? A site that I am very interested in gained three year accreditation in 2021 and their site visit is coming back up this year prior to the start of internship. Should I be concerned with this or allow it to influence my rankings? I plan to rank them highly....but am worried what happens if they don't get reaccredited (no reason to think they wouldn't). Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[summerbabe]

Does anyone know anything about reaccreditation for internship sites? A site that I am very interested in gained three year accreditation in 2021 and their site visit is coming back up this year prior to the start of internship. Should I be concerned with this or allow it to influence my rankings? I plan to rank them highly....but am worried what happens if they don't get reaccredited (no reason to think they wouldn't). Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Provisional Membership

• Students who are placed at an internship site while the site is a Provisional Member will, upon completion, be deemed as having graduated from an APPIC-member program, even if the internship loses its membership status prior to the student's internship completion date.

• Internship programs may maintain Provisional Membership status for a maximum of three consecutive Match selection cycles (including the APPIC Match and/or PMVS). A site that becomes a Provisional Member after December 1 in any selection cycle will not have that cycle count toward their eligibility. As with all APPIC members, sites that become Provisional Members must use the APPIC Match for recruitment of interns and abide by all relevant policies for Match participation.

My understanding is that the current & past interns are fine.

But if the site doesn't pass the follow-up visit/process and that decision is made prior to the conclusion of this internship cycle, the internship will then lose provisional status so you would be starting an unaccredited internship next Fall (by my understanding, which could be wrong).

If it's at an AMC or VA with lots of institutional backing that takes accreditation very, very seriously, that increases their chances of moving forward as a fully accredited site. If it's in some other type of setting, I might pause a bit.

If your program requires you to graduate from an accredited internship, you're leaving that somewhat up to chance by ranking them (even if you think there shouldn't be any problems), especially if you have lots of other established programs that you can rank ahead of them.

Overall, it might not hurt to talk with your TD before you submit your final ranked list. Good luck!