Are APA match rates a selection effect?

[deleted861354]

Do we have a sense of whether APA match rates are a function of the quality of the program (e.g. low match because they don't train students well), the quality of the students (e.g. low match because students are not up to par), or the relationships the program has with internships (e.g. low match because internships tend to look poorly uponthat program based on its reputation, so that even if you're a great practitioner, you're screwed)?

In other words: let's say I'm considering programs with match rates of 70%, 60%, and 50%, and the program with the 50% match rate is most appealing to me for my professional goals. Should that match rate scare me, or should I assume that because I am a go-getter, I'll be fine?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MAClinician]

If you were a go-getter, you would have already read the What Are my Chances thread and Doctoral Applicants: Read First threads that are pinned at the top that discuss this very topic in depth hundreds of times over, in addition to the 20 or so most recent threads asking about different programs to apply to that explain why students should avoid programs with poor match rates. And you would run like hell from all three programs.

 

[erg923]

Do we have a sense of whether APA match rates are a function of the quality of the program (e.g. low match because they don't train students well), the quality of the students (e.g. low match because students are not up to par), or the relationships the program has with internships (e.g. low match because internships tend to look poorly uponthat program based on its reputation, so that even if you're a great practitioner, you're screwed)?

In other words: let's say I'm considering programs with match rates of 70%, 60%, and 50%, and the program with the 50% match rate is most appealing to me for my professional goals. Should that match rate scare me, or should I assume that because I am a go-getter, I'll be fine?

I'm not quite clear what you're getting at, bc obviously all those factors play into match rate. If you Lake Wobegoninjg yourself, then, no, I wouln't rely on this.

 

[cara susanna]

Do we have a sense of whether APA match rates are a function of the quality of the program (e.g. low match because they don't train students well), the quality of the students (e.g. low match because students are not up to par), or the relationships the program has with internships (e.g. low match because internships tend to look poorly uponthat program based on its reputation, so that even if you're a great practitioner, you're screwed)?

In other words: let's say I'm considering programs with match rates of 70%, 60%, and 50%, and the program with the 50% match rate is most appealing to me for my professional goals. Should that match rate scare me, or should I assume that because I am a go-getter, I'll be fine?

Go-getter or not, I would be scared if a program's match rate is below 80%.

 

[deleted343839]

Do we have a sense of whether APA match rates are a function of the quality of the program (e.g. low match because they don't train students well), the quality of the students (e.g. low match because students are not up to par), or the relationships the program has with internships (e.g. low match because internships tend to look poorly uponthat program based on its reputation, so that even if you're a great practitioner, you're screwed)?

These factors are not independent of one another. In fact, they overlap a great deal. So the only answer I have to your question is "yes."

In other words: let's say I'm considering programs with match rates of 70%, 60%, and 50%, and the program with the 50% match rate is most appealing to me for my professional goals. Should that match rate scare me, or should I assume that because I am a go-getter, I'll be fine?

No amount of can-do attitude can overcome weak training, large cohort sizes, inadequate practicum and research opportunities, or any of the other systemic factors that put students in poor training programs at a disadvantage.

 

[WisNeuro]

Go-getter or not, I would be scared if a program's match rate is below 80%.

In today's match, with many more positions than applicants, anything <90% is pretty bad.

 

[PsyDr]

In other words: let's say I'm considering programs with match rates of 70%, 60%, and 50%, and the program with the 50% match rate is most appealing to me for my professional goals. Should that match rate scare me, or should I assume that because I am a go-getter, I'll be fine?

One would be wise to consider that getting into grad school requires above average abilities, and work ethic. So the "average" in grad school is above average for undergrad.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Do we have a sense of whether APA match rates are a function of the quality of the program (e.g. low match because they don't train students well), the quality of the students (e.g. low match because students are not up to par), or the relationships the program has with internships (e.g. low match because internships tend to look poorly uponthat program based on its reputation, so that even if you're a great practitioner, you're screwed)?

In other words: let's say I'm considering programs with match rates of 70%, 60%, and 50%, and the program with the 50% match rate is most appealing to me for my professional goals. Should that match rate scare me, or should I assume that because I am a go-getter, I'll be fine?

Yes to all but the last question. Also, I don't see how a program with less than 50% match could better meet anyone's career goals. It is probably more marketing on their part than reality. It is like the programs that have "tracks" to try and make students feel like they are going to get better training in their area of interest than if they were to go to the higher quality programs that don't promote tracks since they don't have to because the reality is that most of our doctoral training is generalist first and specialist later in the process such as when you match to a quality APA site in your area of interest!

 

[psych.meout]

Do we have a sense of whether APA match rates are a function of the quality of the program (e.g. low match because they don't train students well), the quality of the students (e.g. low match because students are not up to par), or the relationships the program has with internships (e.g. low match because internships tend to look poorly uponthat program based on its reputation, so that even if you're a great practitioner, you're screwed)?

In other words: let's say I'm considering programs with match rates of 70%, 60%, and 50%, and the program with the 50% match rate is most appealing to me for my professional goals. Should that match rate scare me, or should I assume that because I am a go-getter, I'll be fine?

It really sounds like you're fishing for an answer, i.e., reassurance that you'll be fine and succeed equally well wherever you want to go.

Everyone wants to think that they are so hardworking, smart, talented, etc. that they'll be the high achieving exception or outlier compared to the modal outcome of a given low-quality program. It would be foolish to a make decision based on this. Even if you are correct in assuming that you being a "go-getter" means that you would be near the top of all clinical doctoral students as a whole, there are things completely out of your control that seriously hamper your training and career. Regardless of how smart and talented you are, you still need the mentoring, clinical training, research experience and productivity, and other key training milestones in which programs with low match rates are demonstrably deficient.

 

[cara susanna]

In today's match, with many more positions than applicants, anything <90% is pretty bad.

Well, yes, but sometimes programs have bad years. My own program's match rate was in the 80s.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Well, yes, but sometimes programs have bad years. My own program's match rate was in the 80s.

It's also much easier to have a match rate in the 80s with only 5-7 students applying each year as opposed to 20+.

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, yes, but sometimes programs have bad years. My own program's match rate was in the 80s.

a bad year is one thing, a 10 year string of bad years is another, as is the case in many programs.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

a bad year is one thing, a 10 year string of bad years is another, as is the case in many programs.

Agreed. There have also been more APA-acred sites added in the last handful of years and I believe rates have inched back up from the “internship crisis” of 5-10 years ago. A one year dip into the 80s isn’t a concern....it’s programs that are consistently 50%-70% for APA-acred. match rate. APA+APPIC site match rates don’t matter and only attempt to obscure a low APA-acred match rate....so don’t get wowed by 80-90% match rates there.

 

[psych.meout]

Well, yes, but sometimes programs have bad years. My own program's match rate was in the 80s.

It's also much easier to have a match rate in the 80s with only 5-7 students applying each year as opposed to 20+.

a bad year is one thing, a 10 year string of bad years is another, as is the case in many programs.

Exactly. One student could tank a program's match rate in a given year (e.g., geographically restricting their internship apps, bombing interviews, applying only to highly competitive sites), so it's important to look at overall trends.

Agreed. There have also been more APA-acred sites added in the last handful of years and I believe rates have inched back up from the “internship crisis” of 5-10 years ago. A one year dip into the 80s isn’t a concern....it’s programs that are consistently 50%-70% for APA-acred. match rate. APA+APPIC site match rates don’t matter and only attempt to obscure a low APA-acred match rate....so don’t get wowed by 80-90% match rates there.

My program does a debriefing, of sorts, after each internship application cycle. This past year there were more APA accredited internship spots than there were applicants and there were spots that went completely unfilled after all phases of the match.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

the “internship crisis” of 5-10 years ago

I went through internship 2013-2014, and although we didn't have concerns in my program about matching, there was a definitive collective scare it seemed that was instilled in other students around that time about this. Like i vaguely remember a youtube video being put out by apags even. This is probably a bit of a loaded question, but what factors have led to this "scare" not appearing to be as prevalent these days? Just an increase in spots?

 

[WisNeuro]

I went through internship 2013-2014, and although we didn't have concerns in my program about matching, there was a definitive collective scare it seemed that was instilled in other students around that time about this. Like i vaguely remember a youtube video being put out by apags even. This is probably a bit of a loaded question, but what factors have led to this "scare" not appearing to be as prevalent these days? Just an increase in spots?

Increase in spots, enrollment seems to be slowing and even dropping in some programs. Also, the "crisis" was somewhat a manufactured political thing anyway, so some sense of reality also simply set in.

 

[psych.meout]

Increase in spots, enrollment seems to be slowing and even dropping in some programs. Also, the "crisis" was somewhat a manufactured political thing anyway, so some sense of reality also simply set in.

Exactly. Students from good programs with historically high match rates, low cohort sizes, and rigorous training weren't really having problems securing accredited internships. It was more manufactured by programs with huge cohorts who were routinely having difficulties matching large proportions of their students.

 

[foreverbull]

Exactly. One student could tank a program's match rate in a given year (e.g., geographically restricting their internship apps, bombing interviews, applying only to highly competitive sites), so it's important to look at overall trends.

Agreed. Overall match rate over 10 years is crucial to consider. And look at the numbers of how many are applying each year: if only 3 apply and one doesn't get in, it will disproportionately pull the overall percentage down and look worse than than if 7 out of 8 matched (or 29 out of 30), despite just one student not matching in all situations.

Factors outside of a program's control can make the program look bad (I.e. geographically restricting, applying to less than the average 15 sites despite advice of the program, applying only to highly competitive sites--happened in my program sometimes). If you get just one stubborn student who ignores faculty advice every other year during application time, you could have a match rate that looks concerning, depending on cohort size. But rarely achieving 100% match rates is a red flag.

Has anyone ever asked a program or current students about factors involved in their match rate when applying or interviewing for doctoral programs? I'm curious.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

Has anyone ever asked a program or current students about factors involved in their match rate when applying or interviewing for doctoral programs? I'm curious.

Yes. Our program made it clear that students were 1) required to apply to states other than just our own and 2) they capped the number of apps students could submit (based on the available research on what would be diminishing returns).

 

[futureapppsy2]

Agreed. Overall match rate over 10 years is crucial to consider. And look at the numbers of how many are applying each year: if only 3 apply and one doesn't get in, it will disproportionately pull the overall percentage down and look worse than than if 7 out of 8 matched (or 29 out of 30), despite just one student not matching in all situations.

Factors outside of a program's control can make the program look bad (I.e. geographically restricting, applying to less than the average 15 sites despite advice of the program, applying only to highly competitive sites--happened in my program sometimes). If you get just one stubborn student who ignores faculty advice every other year during application time, you could have a match rate that looks concerning, depending on cohort size. But rarely achieving 100% match rates is a red flag.

Has anyone ever asked a program or current students about factors involved in their match rate when applying or interviewing for doctoral programs? I'm curious.

I don’t know. I can think of several well-reputed, fully funded PhD programs that rarely match 100%, and typically have 1 or 2 students out of 5-7 who don’t match in a given year.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don’t know. I can think of several well-reputed, fully funded PhD programs that rarely match 100%, and typically have 1 or 2 students out of 5-7 who don’t match in a given year.

That rarely match 100%? Especially recently, it's easy for the good programs to snag a 100% like 4/5 years, with maybe one year of an 80% because one person didn't match.

 

[foreverbull]

I don’t know. I can think of several well-reputed, fully funded PhD programs that rarely match 100%, and typically have 1 or 2 students out of 5-7 who don’t match in a given year.

If so, is it because of the same student-related factors I was talking about?

 

[WisNeuro]

At least in the several year span in the time I was in my program, we had exactly 1 student mot match one year. And, in this one instance, it was definitely a student-related factor. It surprised most of us there in no way whatsoever. I imagine in some select cases, there are definitely some outside factors that play a role, but in many cases, I think it's student related. Even aside from the dozens of applications I review each year of students who have no real shot at any halfway decent internship based on their CV, there are many more who only apply to super-saturated popular areas. Hard to have too much sympathy for self-inflicted wounds.

 

[psych.meout]

Yes. Our program made it clear that students were 1) required to apply to states other than just our own and 2) they capped the number of apps students could submit (based on the available research on what would be diminishing returns).

I get that you wouldn't want students to go broke applying to as many places as possible out of fear of not matching anywhere, but it's still a bit weird to put a hard cap on how many sites students can apply to. If someone has the resources and is willing to put forth the extra effort, why not let them do what they want?

It makes far more sense to have a minimum number of apps.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I get that you wouldn't want students to go broke applying to as many places as possible out of fear of not matching anywhere, but it's still a bit weird to put a hard cap on how many sites students can apply to. If someone has the resources and is willing to put forth the extra effort, why not let them do what they want?

It makes far more sense to have a minimum number of apps.

That's what we thought going through it, but it really made us focus in on what exactly we wanted in our sites and not just apply to places to apply. Looking back at it, and the research, if you can't match in your first 10-15, its extremely unlikely you will with more. And frankly, it seemed to also be to not waste everyone's time (review committees, letter writers, DCT). For what it was worth, in all the years I have known about internship match outcomes from this program's cohorts (and at least one other program that had something similar) they matched 100% to APA sites, almost all their first choice. So this was likely taking quality of applicants into consideration too.

 

[deleted861354]

Really appreciate your responses, thank you.