APPIC Interview Invitation Thread (2021)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
psychicago said:
As we're winding down the interview process, I'm curious. What has been the most unexpected experience you've had during this process?
Click to expand...
I'm struck by how vastly different each site is approaching virtual interviews. This ranges from schedules (e.g., sending individual links, full schedules, schedules including every applicant so you have to decipher what your schedule is), to platforms, to length (ranging from one 45 minute interview to 7 hours! on zoom), to the information provided/clarified in the interview, to warmth/lack of warmth during the interviews, etc.

I also do not care for the group interview format via virtual platforms. It is awkward and some platforms have audio preferences so it favors some applicants over others and causes a lot of anxiety.

Other than that, I think the overall experience has been surprisingly pleasant. Everyone was supportive and flexible, with several TDs and faculty reaching out to clarify questions or follow-up with anything that was unclear.
 
psychicago said:
As we're winding down the interview process, I'm curious. What has been the most unexpected experience you've had during this process?
Click to expand...
I think the same as another person mentioned of how a 25 minute interview can determine if the applicant is a good fit. Especially if the interview is one where you ask them questions and not have questions asked to you...

...or when you interview with supervisors who in the overview meeting seem like real people and then in the individual interviews become stone-faced. Like where’d your personality go?!
 
Regarding warmth/lack of warmth via virtual interviews.....How much weight are you putting on that? For example, there was a site that I thought I would rank top 2, but they were cold and now I am not sure what to make of it.
 
neuro_opal said:
Regarding warmth/lack of warmth via virtual interviews.....How much weight are you putting on that? For example, there was a site that I thought I would rank top 2, but they were cold and now I am not sure what to make of it.
Click to expand...
I would take into account two things
1) the reported intern experiences at the prac site (whether they seemed less or more enthusiastic about the level of support they had and their general experiences with their supervisors)
2) the amount of importance I place in interpersonal relationships and the impact it has on my well being.

Personally, I'm someone who places a lot of importance on my workplace relationships, and know that it would effect me negatively if I didn't feel that warmth from a supervisor. But I also know people who don't care all that much and who would place more importance on the quality of training even if their supervisor is considered less than socially competent. I've heard of supervisors you wouldn't want to get coffee with, but because of their level of prestige in the field, people tolerate them. It's up to you what you think is more important and what you think you can tolerate. Personality differences also play a role. What you consider cold, might be socially typical at that site or even in that region of the country. That kind of clash might lead to a period of adjustment on your part. So I might ask myself "How flexible am I with people who express warmth and support differently than I do? Am I willing or able to adjust my expectations and social needs?" If the answer is no, it's important to be honest with yourself about that.

It's hard to figure out how much the vibes you get off one zoom call reflect people's typical predispositions, but I tend to err on the side of caution if something doesn't feel right to me. If I wasn't super sure, I might follow up with a current intern if possible and ask questions like 1) How did your site support you throughout your internship process? 2) What does your supervisor value in their supervision style 3) Does the site prioritize self care? If so, how? 4) When you faced challenges in your site, how did supervisors react? 5) How would you describe the workplace culture? etc.
 
neuro_opal said:
Regarding warmth/lack of warmth via virtual interviews.....How much weight are you putting on that? For example, there was a site that I thought I would rank top 2, but they were cold and now I am not sure what to make of it.
Click to expand...
That threw me off, but in the end, the "warm" interviewers I liked ended up being really harsh in terms of supervision when I landed there for internship. It's honestly a crap shoot. Some folks come across cold because it's one staff member interviewing you who isn't going to be interacting with you regularly, etc. so that's hard to judge or they're just tired of interviewing so they sound mechanical, but would be more interpersonal if they got to know you on internship. Something to keep in mind. I don't know that putting a lot of energy into that aspect is honestly that helpful or indicative of the environment there. In my case, it definitely wasn't.

I also interviewed at some of the exact same places that my peers did and warmth varied widely by interviewer. I had a different psychologist interviewing me and it was a very different experience than my peers depending on who you got that day for the interview.
 
neuro_opal said:
Regarding warmth/lack of warmth via virtual interviews.....How much weight are you putting on that? For example, there was a site that I thought I would rank top 2, but they were cold and now I am not sure what to make of it.
Click to expand...
With performance based interviewing (at sites like VAs, for example), interviewers may be trying to be unemotional and “standardized” with how they ask questions. So it may not be reflective of their actual interpersonal style. I met a number of people who I knew were super supportive of interns and very invested in training that came off coldish in an interview. But it was part of the process for them. In a way, I appreciated the less biased approach because it can unduly influence outcomes if applicants they favor (for whatever reason) get a more friendly interview than others. But I also see how it is so hard to gauge how they might be in supervision, for example, based on that. I learned a lot from how they talked about their past experiences (one TD described in detail the exciting things a former intern from a couple years ago had done and that showed me that she truly cared about the person and cherished what they accomplished in their time at the site).
 
clinpsychperson2016 said:
With performance based interviewing (at sites like VAs, for example), interviewers may be trying to be unemotional and “standardized” with how they ask questions. So it may not be reflective of their actual interpersonal style. I met a number of people who I knew were super supportive of interns and very invested in training that came off coldish in an interview. But it was part of the process for them. In a way, I appreciated the less biased approach because it can unduly influence outcomes if applicants they favor (for whatever reason) get a more friendly interview than others. But I also see how it is so hard to gauge how they might be in supervision, for example, based on that. I learned a lot from how they talked about their past experiences (one TD described in detail the exciting things a former intern from a couple years ago had done and that showed me that she truly cared about the person and cherished what they accomplished in their time at the site).
Click to expand...
That’s what is throwing me off so hard about a site I love but the interview made me feel not good. The lack of expression as well as the amount of questions being thrown at you sucks. I don’t know if I should even factor that into my decision making.
 
PsyD-2022 said:
That’s what is throwing me off so hard about a site I love but the interview made me feel not good. The lack of expression as well as the amount of questions being thrown at you sucks. I don’t know if I should even factor that into my decision making.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you find important. Personally, I look at the internship/postdoc training years as a way to get the best training you can, giving you the best flexibility you can have for your job search. It's a relatively short period of time compared to the entirety of your career. I'd personally go somewhere with a great reputation for training, with supervisors I didn't interpersonally like, rather than a mediocre site with people I really liked. I've had many kinds of supervisors (warm, cold and clinical, etc) and I haven't found much difference in quality of clinical supervision based on warmth of supervisor. But, YMMV, figure out what's important for you.
 
PsyD-2022 said:
That’s what is throwing me off so hard about a site I love but the interview made me feel not good.
Click to expand...
I had a similar experience when I applied at one site. The interview day was structured oddly and some of the interviewers were interpersonally off-putting. Multiple other interviewees that day and some others I met during later interviews also appeared to have similar reactions.

I ended up reaching out to 2 of the interns on the 'track' that I was applying for and they were able to provide a more balanced impression of what the year would look like, who I would be supervised by, and other organizational details which helped me to regain confidence in that site, which I ended up ranking as my #1. I matched there and had a very good experience (as did the rest of my cohort) and my actual supervisors were excellent.

However, I also wouldn't dismiss gut intuition but I think gathering some more data points could be helpful for your decision making.
 
Do you guys think every site gives positive feedback to interviewees as a way to "butter them up"? For example, a supervisor I interviewed with at a site I am ranking highly was very complimentary and I am wondering if this is just part of the recruitment process.....i have heard from peers on internship that sites intentionally make applicants "feel special" because they too need to be ranked highly to match
 
Neurogeek91 said:
Do you guys think every site gives positive feedback to interviewees as a way to "butter them up"? For example, a supervisor I interviewed with at a site I am ranking highly was very complimentary and I am wondering if this is just part of the recruitment process.....i have heard from peers on internship that sites intentionally make applicants "feel special" because they too need to be ranked highly to match
Click to expand...

I wouldn't read to much into this. Most sites don't need much to match, my old site rarely ranked out of our top 10, my old VA sites went to 12 once, otherwise were always in top 10. Like applicants, most will match with their upper tier or ranks for the most part.
 
Indiana_Jane said:
Trying to figure out how a site can rank an applicant with a 30 minute interview lol! I get that it’s probably based more on materials but it was strange to me!
Click to expand...
I had one that was 20 minutes long... I’m pretty sure they had already decided who they were ranking prior to the interview.
 
DietCokeSoda said:
I'm struck by how vastly different each site is approaching virtual interviews. This ranges from schedules (e.g., sending individual links, full schedules, schedules including every applicant so you have to decipher what your schedule is), to platforms, to length (ranging from one 45 minute interview to 7 hours! on zoom), to the information provided/clarified in the interview, to warmth/lack of warmth during the interviews, etc.

I also do not care for the group interview format via virtual platforms. It is awkward and some platforms have audio preferences so it favors some applicants over others and causes a lot of anxiety.

Other than that, I think the overall experience has been surprisingly pleasant. Everyone was supportive and flexible, with several TDs and faculty reaching out to clarify questions or follow-up with anything that was unclear.
Click to expand...
Group interviews were the worst! “Why should we choose you instead of them?” Asked in a group format was not a good experience. I did not enjoy being interviewed by interns at one site prior to my interview with the faculty.
i agree with you that the whole thing has been more positive than I expected.
 
Neurogeek91 said:
Do you guys think every site gives positive feedback to interviewees as a way to "butter them up"? For example, a supervisor I interviewed with at a site I am ranking highly was very complimentary and I am wondering if this is just part of the recruitment process.....i have heard from peers on internship that sites intentionally make applicants "feel special" because they too need to be ranked highly to match
Click to expand...
I wouldn't look too much into this at all. I'm just complimentary generally as an interviewer.
 
Last edited:
thebalmofhurtminds said:
I wouldn't look too much into this at all. I'm just complimentary generally as an interviewee.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There is also still a VERY clear power differential in favor of the site. As much as we like to think we have some power as interviewees in choice, it’s still very much a site choosing you (or not choosing you). Certainly you rank them as well, but it’s not an egalitarian process at all.

Some interviewers are kinder and friendlier, etc. but it’s probably not because they’re worried you won’t choose THEM.
 
foreverbull said:
Agreed. There is also still a VERY clear power differential in favor of the site. As much as we like to think we have some power as interviewees in choice, it’s still very much a site choosing you (or not choosing you). Certainly you rank them as well, but it’s not an egalitarian process at all.
Click to expand...
Interesting. How do you know that? I thought it’s 50/50, and in only certain circumstances student’s choice may prevail.
 
mamux said:
Interesting. How do you know that? I thought it’s 50/50, and in only certain circumstances student’s choice may prevail.
Click to expand...
I meant in the sense that students are interviewed by sites and the onus is on them to appear as attractive candidates, not necessarily the other way around. Internship sites have many applicants to choose from, so they’re not in a position where they need to “sell” themselves whereas interviewees are in a more vulnerable position. Hence my opinion that it’s inherently not egalitarian. You don’t get to ask all the questions and pose them first, choose which sites to interview yourself, etc. they choose YOU for interviews and beyond based on a large pool of applicants—or not at all. Interviewees don’t get that same choice; they do pick sites they like, but they have to just hope the site finds their application worthy of the next step in the process.
 
Last edited:
The ranking and matching algorithm is generally egalitarian. But the sites being able to choose applicants definitely should favor the sites. This is not a lottery process, every applicant is not equal. Egalitarian is not the ideal, nor should it be in that circumstance.

Additionally, stronger applicants have more "power" in the dynamic than weak applicants, assuming they applied to places with good fit. This is how it should work.
 
WisNeuro said:
The ranking and matching algorithm is generally egalitarian. But the sites being able to choose applicants definitely should favor the sites. This is not a lottery process, every applicant is not equal. Egalitarian is not the ideal, nor should it be in that circumstance.

Additionally, stronger applicants have more "power" in the dynamic than weak applicants, assuming they applied to places with good fit. This is how it should work.
Click to expand...
I agree with WisNeuro on this one.
 
Does anyone know if APPIC match statistics take into account multiple tracks? For example, I anticipate ranking 3 tracks within one site, so if I got my third choice track at my top choice site, would APPIC consider that as me receiving my third choice? Currently entering the panic mode of which sites I'm most likely to potentially match with in terms of ranking. Trying to figure out how carefully to decide between rank #8 and rank #9, etc.
 
thatswhatipsych said:
Does anyone know if APPIC match statistics take into account multiple tracks? For example, I anticipate ranking 3 tracks within one site, so if I got my third choice track at my top choice site, would APPIC consider that as me receiving my third choice? Currently entering the panic mode of which sites I'm most likely to potentially match with in terms of ranking. Trying to figure out how carefully to decide between rank #8 and rank #9, etc.
Click to expand...
I believe the statistics do take the tracks into account, because you’re still ranking a separate number (that just happens to be part of the same site). That’s my understanding anyway.
 
Received an e-mail from North Texas VA after interviewing that they would let us know if they intended to rank us or not. Does anyone know when we should expect to hear from them by?
 
psyched1100 said:
Received an e-mail from North Texas VA after interviewing that they would let us know if they intended to rank us or not. Does anyone know when we should expect to hear from them by?
Click to expand...
IIRC, programs are supposed to submit their lists before applicants submit their rankings (but don't quote me on that). None of the sites I interviewed with sent me any f/u during my year btw.

Regardless, if you would be happy matching to this site, rank it according to your true preference as you will not be penalized by their ranking (or lack thereof).

Check out the APPIC FAQs if you've yet to do so and good luck!
 
Considering a move to a different state for internship and wondering if anyone has insight on this: Are interns moving to different state able to obtain housing with just the internship stipend as proof of income? So unsure about how that works
 
psychedtobedone2022 said:
Considering a move to a different state for internship and wondering if anyone has insight on this: Are interns moving to different state able to obtain housing with just the internship stipend as proof of income? So unsure about how that works
Click to expand...
I stayed in-state for internship, but moved from a rural area to a major city. For the apartment I ended up leasing, I had to show proof of my internship stipend, as well as have a co-signer (something I haven't had to do since undergrad). The place I rented from had a minimum income requirement and my stipend did not meet it. I think my dad showed proof of his income as a co-signer, but never had to do anything related to payments (as I took out loans to supplement the discrepancy). Not sure if that helps...
 
psychedtobedone2022 said:
Are interns moving to different state able to obtain housing with just the internship stipend as proof of income?
Click to expand...
If you're renting from a corporate-based apt complex, it likely will have a monthly income threshold (it was 3x for my internship and postdoc apts IIRC) so you may need a co-signer. I'd discuss this with leasing offices directly and see what options are available, especially if you can't find a co-signer. If you're gonna be in a college town, they may have a lot of experience with similar situations.

If you're taking out loans during internship year, that can count towards your income as well. And if you're planning on renting from an individual landlord, it'll be totally up to them but I imagine there might be more flexibility, especially if they think you'll be a responsible tenant. Good luck!
 
I am trying to understand how the algorithm works (watched some videos and read some of the emails we receive from APPIC), but still have a lingering question. Some of my sites were more competitive than others (e.g., interviewed ~80 applicants). I had one site in particular that only interviewed 12 this year (which they disclosed in an email). Does this somehow mean that I have a higher chance of going to the site that only interviewed 12 people, even if I rank it toward the bottom of my list? I hope this makes sense.
 
aahmed05 said:
I am trying to understand how the algorithm works (watched some videos and read some of the emails we receive from APPIC), but still have a lingering question. Some of my sites were more competitive than others (e.g., interviewed ~80 applicants). I had one site in particular that only interviewed 12 this year (which they disclosed in an email). Does this somehow mean that I have a higher chance of going to the site that only interviewed 12 people, even if I rank it toward the bottom of my list? I hope this makes sense.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, because these are not chance events. I always caution people against applying match stats to their individual situation, because it's largely irrelevant. Even year to year. One site I have been at never fell out of the top 10 of its rankings for its neuro slots. It's general program usually never went out of top 20, but one year was in match II.
 
WisNeuro said:
Not necessarily, because these are not chance events. I always caution people against applying match stats to their individual situation, because it's largely irrelevant. Even year to year. One site I have been at never fell out of the top 10 of its rankings for its neuro slots. It's general program usually never went out of top 20, but one year was in match II.
Click to expand...
aahmed05 said:
I am trying to understand how the algorithm works (watched some videos and read some of the emails we receive from APPIC), but still have a lingering question. Some of my sites were more competitive than others (e.g., interviewed ~80 applicants). I had one site in particular that only interviewed 12 this year (which they disclosed in an email). Does this somehow mean that I have a higher chance of going to the site that only interviewed 12 people, even if I rank it toward the bottom of my list? I hope this makes sense.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that you won't end up at that site (let's say you put it 10th), unless it's impossible for you to end up at sites 1-9. You wouldn't get placed at site 10 even if they had you placed #1, if you can end up at site #9.
 
olivethecutest said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that you won't end up at that site (let's say you put it 10th), unless it's impossible for you to end up at sites 1-9. You wouldn't get placed at site 10 even if they had you placed #1, if you can end up at site #9.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily correct. It depends on how sites 1-9 ranked applicants and how those applicants ranked sites 1-9. If sites 1-9 had you ranked lower, and generally matched with their top applicants (who also presumably ranked those corresponding sites highly), then you will fall farther down your rank list.
 
WisNeuro said:
That's not necessarily correct. It depends on how sites 1-9 ranked applicants and how those applicants ranked sites 1-9. If sites 1-9 had you ranked lower, and generally matched with their top applicants (who also presumably ranked those corresponding sites highly), then you will fall farther down your rank list.
Click to expand...
Thank you to all who responded, I think it's starting to click for me. I had a fear that even if my #1 or #2 site ranked me highly, I would go to my #10 site if they ranked me as #1 because the algorithm also prioritizes the needs of the site, and this #10 site had much less interviewees/applicants (and my #1 or #2 site likely have many people placing them at the top).
 
Hi all, I hope you’ve had a good week. While deliberating on ranking decisions, I’ve been in a really future-oriented state of mind...

I was wondering if anyone has any insight on the frequency/feasibility of loan repayment eligible positions (such as EDRP, NHSC, PSLF etc.) for neuropsychologists specifically (considering the settings in which neuropsychologists typically work). Based on the research I’ve done and the EDRP threads I’ve pored over, it seems that these positions are a bit hard to come by (and a bit more available in rural areas), and I would assume that this is especially the case for neuropsychologists? For example, I took a look at the current EDRP-eligible job postings and only one of them was a neuropsych position.

I was wondering if anyone has any insight on the frequency/feasibility of loan repayment eligible positions (such as EDRP, NHSC, PSLF etc.) for neuropsychologists specifically (considering the settings in which neuropsychologists typically work). Based on the research I’ve done and the EDRP threads I’ve pored over, it seems that these positions are a bit hard to come by (and a bit more available in rural areas), and I would assume that this is especially the case for neuropsychologists? For example, I took a look at the current EDRP-eligible job postings and only one of them was a neuropsych position.

Any insight would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
 
aahmed05 said:
Thank you to all who responded, I think it's starting to click for me. I had a fear that even if my #1 or #2 site ranked me highly, I would go to my #10 site if they ranked me as #1 because the algorithm also prioritizes the needs of the site, and this #10 site had much less interviewees/applicants (and my #1 or #2 site likely have many people placing them at the top).
Click to expand...
If they ranked you highly you would match there. If they have 10 spots, but rank you as #15, 5 people of the 10 would need to go somewhere else for you to have a chance. If you are #11 on their list, only 1 person needs to go somewhere else for you to match there. The number is interviewees is important, but it is also important to consider number of positions. 12 interviewees for 1 position is not better than 80 people competing for 10 spots.
 
aahmed05 said:
Thank you to all who responded, I think it's starting to click for me. I had a fear that even if my #1 or #2 site ranked me highly, I would go to my #10 site if they ranked me as #1 because the algorithm also prioritizes the needs of the site, and this #10 site had much less interviewees/applicants (and my #1 or #2 site likely have many people placing them at the top).
Click to expand...
It completely depends on EXACTLY how highly your top sites rank you and how many positions are open there, as well as how highly applicants ranked them who were ranked highly by the site.

Let’s say your #1 site has 3 slots and they rank you in the top 3. You’d match there. Let’s say they rank you #7. If those 6 other applicants ranked them highest or very high, the first few would match there and the algorithm moves on to the next site you ranked and so on, and if you got to site 10 because all 9 sites you ranked higher didn’t rank you highly enough, you’d match at #10, yes.

At the end of the day, if you get your 10th site, it’s not the end of the world. If you ranked them at all, that means you trust that their training will be a good experience and were willing to go there.
It’s okay if it’s not your top choice.
 
PsyDchick said:
I was wondering if anyone has any insight on the frequency/feasibility of loan repayment eligible positions (such as EDRP, NHSC, PSLF etc.) for neuropsychologists specifically (considering the settings in which neuropsychologists typically work).
Click to expand...
EDRP is basically available for every staff psychologist position that's ever posted at my VA due to our inability to hire and retain. I watch USAJob postings pretty frequently and there are other facilities that also typically include EDRP in their postings, as well as facilities that will never offer it. And some facilities offer it selectively based on position (HBPC, ICMHR).

My hunch is that facilities like mine get allotted a large EDRP cap each fiscal year because positions typically don't get filled without incentives and then lack of staffing drives down facility metrics like access but facilities that are doing OK with their metrics won't get this incentive.

I don't have a lot of insight into VA NP, but it seems like there is far less staff turnover in NP than other clinics like PTSD or general outpt MH, where people come and go more frequently (to other VAs, private sector or other clinics at the same VA).

And some sites (especially ones with NP postdocs, like the site where I completed mine) will look to hire their trainees when there's a good fit. For example, if MH leadership wants to add a new NP position, they can gather data for hospital leadership which justifies adding an additional FTE and if approved, also sometimes secure the opportunity to do a direct hire so those jobs will never show up on USAJobs.

Or if they know a current staff NP will be leaving, they can also work with MH/hospital leadership to authorize the re-posting as direct hire. If one ends up in a position like this, you can always try to pre-negotiate with the hiring manager and see if EDRP can be authorized.

2 things to consider:
- Cruise USAJobs frequently and figure out what facilities usually offer EDRP and consider whether these are places that you could move to if a NP job pops up and you're selected.
- If you end up wanting to work in the VA system and you can't get EDRP during your first job, you can move to another job that offers EDRP later (not sure the exact program restrictions besides only being able enroll in EDRP once).
 
summerbabe said:
EDRP is basically available for every staff psychologist position that's ever posted at my VA due to our inability to hire and retain. I watch USAJob postings pretty frequently and there are other facilities that also typically include EDRP in their postings, as well as facilities that will never offer it. And some facilities offer it selectively based on position (HBPC, ICMHR).

My hunch is that facilities like mine get allotted a large EDRP cap each fiscal year because positions typically don't get filled without incentives and then lack of staffing drives down facility metrics like access but facilities that are doing OK with their metrics won't get this incentive.

I don't have a lot of insight into VA NP, but it seems like there is far less staff turnover in NP than other clinics like PTSD or general outpt MH, where people come and go more frequently (to other VAs, private sector or other clinics at the same VA).

And some sites (especially ones with NP postdocs, like the site where I completed mine) will look to hire their trainees when there's a good fit. For example, if MH leadership wants to add a new NP position, they can gather data for hospital leadership which justifies adding an additional FTE and if approved, also sometimes secure the opportunity to do a direct hire so those jobs will never show up on USAJobs.

Or if they know a current staff NP will be leaving, they can also work with MH/hospital leadership to authorize the re-posting as direct hire. If one ends up in a position like this, you can always try to pre-negotiate with the hiring manager and see if EDRP can be authorized.

2 things to consider:
- Cruise USAJobs frequently and figure out what facilities usually offer EDRP and consider whether these are places that you could move to if a NP job pops up and you're selected.
- If you end up wanting to work in the VA system and you can't get EDRP during your first job, you can move to another job that offers EDRP later (not sure the exact program restrictions besides only being able enroll in EDRP once).
Click to expand...
Thank you sooooo much for your response. This is incredibly helpful!
 
If I sent some sites additional questions I have about their internship training and don't hear back in a few days, is it appropriate to follow up again? After how long? I recognize everyone is probably very busy right now, but I also have a few questions about the site to help me finalize my rankings, which are due in a few days.
 
I am wondering if anyone has feedback or updates regarding the UAB consortium's accreditation status? I understand previously they were on probation but on interview they mentioned they no longer are? I searched for their status on APA CoA and the only update is from Fall 2019 (the status of on probation). I am wondering if anyone has any advice on how this should play a role in rankings and perspective of the site? Thank you!
 
faq329 said:
If I sent some sites additional questions I have about their internship training and don't hear back in a few days, is it appropriate to follow up again? After how long? I recognize everyone is probably very busy right now, but I also have a few questions about the site to help me finalize my rankings, which are due in a few days.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't hurt to follow up especially because rankings are due so shortly. Is their an associate training director or current intern you could contact as well?
 
faq329 said:
If I sent some sites additional questions I have about their internship training and don't hear back in a few days, is it appropriate to follow up again? After how long? I recognize everyone is probably very busy right now, but I also have a few questions about the site to help me finalize my rankings, which are due in a few days.
Click to expand...

I would encourage you to follow up after a couple days. Your questions are important, and it’s likely that people are slow in responding right now. Good luck! I hope you are able to get your questions answered.
 
healthpsychenthusiast said:
I am wondering if anyone has feedback or updates regarding the UAB consortium's accreditation status? I understand previously they were on probation but on interview they mentioned they no longer are? I searched for their status on APA CoA and the only update is from Fall 2019 (the status of on probation). I am wondering if anyone has any advice on how this should play a role in rankings and perspective of the site? Thank you!
Click to expand...
I can confirm that UAB is back to regular “accredited” status. You can check it out for yourself using the APA accreditation search here: APA-Accredited Programs
 
Is there a way to see statistics for sites from last year? Doesn't it seem like some sites aren't worth ranking high if you don't rank them first? For example, If someone interviewed at a site that is highly competitive but the applicant didn't really feel it was the best match. Since one is unlikely to match if it's not ranked as #1 on the applicant's list, kind of makes sense for that site be listed as the last in the rankings, so as not to prevent the applicant from matching to other less competitive sites.
 
Did anyone apply to the Cynthia Belar Scholarship and hear back yet?
 
AlmostDoctorDread said:
Is there a way to see statistics for sites from last year? Doesn't it seem like some sites aren't worth ranking high if you don't rank them first? For example, If someone interviewed at a site that is highly competitive but the applicant didn't really feel it was the best match. Since one is unlikely to match if it's not ranked as #1 on the applicant's list, kind of makes sense for that site be listed as the last in the rankings, so as not to prevent the applicant from matching to other less competitive sites.
Click to expand...
From what I understand the best thing you can do is rank sites in your order of preference. If that site is the one you least want to go to you should rank them last (or not at all if you would prefer Phase II over them). If that site is the third most you want to go to, rank them third. You can see available statistics of sites in their appic profile on the search directory. (Scroll down near the bottom) You can see how many people applied, how many interviewed, how many slots were available for match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
APPIC 2025-2026 Interview Thread and Sheet
Replies
25
Views
15K
PsychPsychBaby
PsychPsychBaby
N
Postdoc Interview Invitation Thread 2025-2026/2027
Replies
8
Views
5K
BendDontBreak
B
abouttobeadoctor
APPIC Internship Phase II Interview & Support Thread (2024)
Replies
7
Views
4K
theSteppenwolf
theSteppenwolf
U
New APPIC Notification Sheet
Replies
0
Views
3K
ultra-rare-furby
U
P
2023-2024 APPIC Internship Interview Invitation Thread
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
366
Views
73K
childpsych2022
C
Top