Did you Complete a Formal Postdoc?

[Therapist4Chnge]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Lower quality generally speaking. There seemed to be a reason these people could not find reputable neuro postdocs.

This is very consistent with what i've seen.

 

[depthpsych]

Lower quality generally speaking. There seemed to be a reason these people could not find reputable neuro postdocs.

Thanks. It sounds like these applicants were "never never" rather than "now or never."

So, would you suspect that these two applicants would have a similar likelihood of getting into the same neuro postdoc?

Applicant A: APA-accredited program, internship at SITE A (>50% neuro, great letters from neuropsychologists, etc.), applies to neuro postdocs during their internship year.
Applicant B: Same APA-accredited program, internship at SITE A (>50% neuro, great letters from neuropsychologists, etc.), applies to neuro postdoc a few years after their internship year (not removed from clinical work but delaying the intensive postdoc experience for personal reasons, such as family- or health-related considerations).

It would seem odd to me that Applicant B would be at a serious disadvantage simply by virtue of deviating slightly from the standard linear trajectory (their experiences at the time of application entirely overlap with, and potentially exceed, Applicant A's).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thanks. It sounds like these applicants were "never never" rather than "now or never."

So, would you suspect that these two applicants would have a similar likelihood of getting into the same neuro postdoc?

Applicant A: APA-accredited program, internship at SITE A (>50% neuro, great letters from neuropsychologists, etc.), applies to neuro postdocs during their internship year.
Applicant B: Same APA-accredited program, internship at SITE A (>50% neuro, great letters from neuropsychologists, etc.), applies to neuro postdoc a few years after their internship year (not removed from clinical work but delaying the intensive postdoc experience for personal reasons, such as family- or health-related considerations).

It would seem odd to me that Applicant B would be at a serious disadvantage simply by virtue of deviating slightly from the standard linear trajectory (their experiences at the time of application entirely overlap with, and potentially exceed, Applicant A's).

My person take: I'd likely view them similarly. But anytime something deviates from the typical path, it has the potential to raise red or yellow flags for the reviewer, and it may then fall to the applicant (fair or not) to explain the situation. However, if (as in this example) applicant B has solid training, that would generally go a long way toward assuaging/avoiding those concerns on the part of the reviewer.

Like you've mentioned, it's the "never never" applicants that face the toughest situation.

 

[WisNeuro]

All things being equal, I'd wager Applicant A has the advantage. There is usually never a shortage of applications, so anything that could be perceived as a red flag will get someone pushed down. If it's a legitimately good background, wouldn't move then down far, but A would have the slight edge.