Frustratingly impossible to have "complete" internship app

[NeuroWise]

I am currently doing a neuropsych externship at an AMC that also has a pre-doctoral internship to which I will apply. Recently, my externship supervisor, who is heavily involved in the internship application review/selection process, asked me about my potential application and if I was ready to apply in November 2017. As we talked about the internship application process, the supervisor provided information about how this particular site reviews applications, and I became somewhat frustrated (internally) because it seems impossible to have a "complete" application.

This supervisor talked about how they are provided with a granular breakdown of the applicants graduate work including: the number of journal publications, the number of journal publications where the applicant is first author, the number of journal publications that are in neuropsych journals, the number of conference presentations, the number of conference presentations at INS, NAN, and APA, and other things of this nature.

The reason I am sort of frustrated is because it seems no matter how hard we try to have quality training experiences and meet the nebulous requirements of review committees, it is never enough. It is not enough that we publish as first author, but it also needs to be in the "correct" type of journal. Oh, you have 30 poster presentations? Only 2 of them were at APA, so lets talk about that weakness. I know that it is impossible to have the perfect application. If it were possible there would be no room for growth while on internship. But it seems as if the bar is set unnecessarily high. (Or can it be set this high given how many trainees want to match?)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[EmotRegulation]

I'm confused. Just because the application is broken down in this fashion (which to me seems like it's to ascertain the applicant's commitment to neuropsych from a research perspective) doesn't mean they necessarily require something to be in each category to interview that person. There are all kinds of other things that go into those numbers, too, and committees know this. Some faculty are more generous with co-authorship on papers and conference presentations than others. Unless the person said that they have cutoffs in each category (e.g., you have to have at least 1 first author publication in a neuropsych journal to be offered an interview), consider this knowledge that the site clearly values neuropsych research productivity. It's good to know about sites values before you apply.

Don't get me wrong, there are high bars all over this field and the *feeling* that "it's never enough" can be pervasive. But it's a feeling.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I am currently doing a neuropsych externship at an AMC that also has a pre-doctoral internship to which I will apply. Recently, my externship supervisor, who is heavily involved in the internship application review/selection process, asked me about my potential application and if I was ready to apply in November 2017. As we talked about the internship application process, the supervisor provided information about how this particular site reviews applications, and I became somewhat frustrated (internally) because it seems impossible to have a "complete" application.

This supervisor talked about how they are provided with a granular breakdown of the applicants graduate work including: the number of journal publications, the number of journal publications where the applicant is first author, the number of journal publications that are in neuropsych journals, the number of conference presentations, the number of conference presentations at INS, NAN, and APA, and other things of this nature.

The reason I am sort of frustrated is because it seems no matter how hard we try to have quality training experiences and meet the nebulous requirements of review committees, it is never enough. It is not enough that we publish as first author, but it also needs to be in the "correct" type of journal. Oh, you have 30 poster presentations? Only 2 of them were at APA, so lets talk about that weakness. I know that it is impossible to have the perfect application. If it were possible there would be no room for growth while on internship. But it seems as if the bar is set unnecessarily high. (Or can it be set this high given how many trainees want to match?)

Reminds me of a conversation I had with the training director for neuropsychology at UCLA right in the middle of the process of applying for internships. I remember the panicky feeling as I started thinking I wouldn't match and all of my shortcomings were too late to correct. Fortunately, I did match despite the boxes that weren't filled.

 

[WisNeuro]

Of course we look at the quality of the application. Of course a poster at INS is better than a poster presented at your university's "research day." Of course an article in JINS/TCN/etc is going to be viewed more highly than something in a department newsletter. These things aren't nebulous at all, just common sense. Quality matters, and people with higher quality work (practicums/nationally recognized letter writers/pubs/presentations) will have a leg on on those who don't in most situations. Committees have to make rankings on something, and your past work and planning is pretty much the best thing we have to look at.

 

[erg923]

I am currently doing a neuropsych externship at an AMC that also has a pre-doctoral internship to which I will apply. Recently, my externship supervisor, who is heavily involved in the internship application review/selection process, asked me about my potential application and if I was ready to apply in November 2017. As we talked about the internship application process, the supervisor provided information about how this particular site reviews applications, and I became somewhat frustrated (internally) because it seems impossible to have a "complete" application.

This supervisor talked about how they are provided with a granular breakdown of the applicants graduate work including: the number of journal publications, the number of journal publications where the applicant is first author, the number of journal publications that are in neuropsych journals, the number of conference presentations, the number of conference presentations at INS, NAN, and APA, and other things of this nature.

The reason I am sort of frustrated is because it seems no matter how hard we try to have quality training experiences and meet the nebulous requirements of review committees, it is never enough. It is not enough that we publish as first author, but it also needs to be in the "correct" type of journal. Oh, you have 30 poster presentations? Only 2 of them were at APA, so lets talk about that weakness. I know that it is impossible to have the perfect application. If it were possible there would be no room for growth while on internship. But it seems as if the bar is set unnecessarily high. (Or can it be set this high given how many trainees want to match?)

Obviously, this is research focused site. Most sites, my VA included, do not have number of publications or research productivity as any kind of significant factor when reviewing applications for internship. Further, I'm not sure what your beef is here? I'm sure you are aware of impact factors and that 5 pubs in high IF journals is meaningful compared to 5 in low IF journals for research oriented sites.

When there are hundreds of applicants for handful of positions is necessary to develop a set of indicators and metrics to weed down the pile. This no different than the process of getting into grad school, or all that different from how HR departments in various industries operate for that matter.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Committees have to make rankings on something, and your past work and planning is pretty much the best thing we have to look at.

Agreed.

All students will have things that they need additional exposure to or need to work on, that is why there are additional steps in training. Come from a decent program, have experience with intervention work AND assessment work, publish and present, and be as far along with your dissertation as possible and most students do fine. There is then the issue of fit, so you need to use your letter to talk about fit. It isn't a perfect formula, but review committees are trying to identify students that would benefit from their site, as they want to be able to offer something to the student.

 

[WisNeuro]

Obviously, this is research focused site. Most sites, my VA included, do not have number of publications or research productivity as any kind of significant factor when reviewing applications for internship. Further, I'm not sure what your beef is here? I'm sure you are aware of impact factors and that 5 pubs in high IF journals is any meaningful compared to 5 in low IF journals for research oriented sites.

I've been involved in ranking decisions for neuro focused/track applicants at 4 separate clinically focused sites. They all used pubs and presentations in ranking decisions. So, not that obvious.

 

[erg923]

I've been involved in ranking decisions for neuro focused/track applicants at 4 separate clinically focused sites. They all used pubs and presentations in ranking decisions. So, not that obvious.

They said it was an AMC, so I would imagine it is site that highly values research. Just saying that not all are like that.

 

[WisNeuro]

Perhaps not all, but I have also been affiliated with two AMCs with internships and postdocs, these also went into the rankings there. Quality sites value people who understand and can produce research.

 

[deleted343839]

As we talked about the internship application process, the supervisor provided information about how this particular site reviews applications, and I became somewhat frustrated (internally) because it seems impossible to have a "complete" application.

To put a new twist on an old phrase: perfect is the enemy of complete.

I mean, you could also just stay in school for a couple more years... But in reality, it won't hurt you to apply. Assuming that your training director and primary mentor have deemed you ready to apply for internship, it's go time with what you've got (or can get between now and this fall). Even if you are short on some of the products/achievements that a site values, it's impossible to tell in any given year what the other applicants' strengths and weaknesses will be. If the site offers the training you need, and the fit is good, it's worth a shot.

 

[Justanothergrad]

You'll never get every experience or opportunity needed to appeal to every site. If you are unable to get what you need for a specific site or a specific type of site from your program or how you approach training, that is a different issue that having a general set of skills that are 'complete'.

And yes, things get weighed differently depending on the details of them. Publishing in Nature is not the same as publishing in the department newsletter, no matter what. Same thing with presentations or anything else.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I agree with the above folks in that applicants have to be differentiated somehow. If two people have the same number of publications, you have to then look further. Does one have more first-author work? Is one publishing in higher-tier journals? It would be unfair to an applicant with three first-author publications in, say, JINS and Neuropsychology to equate that to three first-author publications in a departmental journal, or to three non-first author pubs.

But at the same time, that's not to say you need to have amazingly stellar credentials across the board. Building on what MamaPhD said, it's important to distinguish complete from perfect. Is it reasonable to expect/hope that an applicant will have some degree of first-hand research experience and productivity, clinical work with some variety of patient populations and settings, and appropriate coursework? In my opinion, yes. But this isn't saying that an applicant needs to have a slew of first-author pubs in very strong journals, be grant-funded, and have completed a half-dozen practicums across a variety of neuropsych sites in addition to having completed a couple hundred hours of therapy, all with a "big name" in the field.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'd also recommend not getting caught up in numbers in regard to hours (as long as you hit at least the minimum for the site) because not all training is created equal.

 

[Ollie123]

Quick reframe...it is very easy to have a "complete" application. It is impossible to have a "perfect" application.

Its important to keep in mind that this IS a competition. No site can tell you "If you have X publications and Y hours, you will match here" because they might get an application from someone with X+5 publications...so why wouldn't they take that person? Do your best to be the strongest candidate you can realistically be and let the cards fall where they may. That is really all you can do. You can always be better than you are right now. Strive for it, but don't let it keep you awake at night.

Also know that this isn't unusual or specific to internship. Its true of grad school, internship, post-doc, job market, promotion, tenure, awards, grants and life in general.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd also recommend not getting caught up in numbers in regard to hours (as long as you hit at least the minimum for the site) because not all training is created equal.

Very true, I don't care about someone with 700 assessment hours, almost all of which are in their school's clinic doing LD/ADHD evals, when I've got another applicant who has 400 assessment hours, but at practica where they had great supervision and exposure to a variety of neuropathological disorders.

 

[modestmousktr]

Obviously, this is research focused site. Most sites, my VA included, do not have number of publications or research productivity as any kind of significant factor when reviewing applications for internship. Further, I'm not sure what your beef is here? I'm sure you are aware of impact factors and that 5 pubs in high IF journals is meaningful compared to 5 in low IF journals for research oriented sites.

When there are hundreds of applicants for handful of positions is necessary to develop a set of indicators and metrics to weed down the pile. This no different than the process of getting into grad school, or all that different from how HR departments in various industries operate for that matter.

Slightly off topic, but is there a way to search for the average number of publications for students accepted at research focused sites? I know that in 2015, 10% of overall applicants to the match had 5+ publications, so I'm wondering if this number is higher for those accepted to sites with an emphasis on research. Even anecdotal answers from folks who have gone through the process or have reviewed applications would be helpful. Sorry if this derails the thread, feel free to ignore!

 

[Ollie123]

Slightly off topic, but is there a way to search for the average number of publications for students accepted at research focused sites? I know that in 2015, 10% of overall applicants to the match had 5+ publications, so I'm wondering if this number is higher for those accepted to sites with an emphasis on research. Even anecdotal answers from folks who have gone through the process or have reviewed applications would be helpful. Sorry if this derails the thread, feel free to ignore!

I just checked and I had 10 pubs and 30 presentations (split fairly evenly between posters/talks) when I applied for internship. I was interviewed at every research-heavy site I applied to except UCSF (though I wasn't a great fit there so don't read too much into that one). Don't feel like that is the number you need though...I know people who had similar experiences with 2-3 publications.

Unquestionably you will find a higher percentage of folks with more publications at research-heavy sites.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I interviewed at a few research-heavy sites with....maybe 3-4 publications and probably 10-15 posters. Some of that may have related to the history of my program with those sites, but there were other applicants present during interviews who seemed to have similar credentials.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I had 6 pubs (6 FA) when I applied (if I recall correctly) and about 30 poster presentations. I also was a Co-PI on a small externally funded grant (10kish). That got me interviews at some of the research-heavy sites I applied to although I, ultimately, opted for a non-research focused site for fit/opportunities. Just going through and reviewing applications this year I've seen a wide variety of research products even at a non-research site. The range I've seen is between 0 and 8 pubs for folks we invited. Neuro folks tended to have more than the non-neuro folks, although that was not an exclusive rule. As AA said, I think most of the folks at the research sites had around 3-6 pubs.

 

[smalltownpsych]

This topic also brings to mind a group supervision with my clinical team when one of the therapists said, "of course the patient's core negative belief is 'I'm not good enough'. Isn't that true for all of us?" I don't know if it is truly a universal problem or even the most problematic of negative beliefs, but I do know that I run into it myself and with my patients pretty consistently. One of the things I like about CBT is the identification of some of these irrational beliefs and the practice of challenging them and I do believe all humans have them to varying degrees. What I find even more fascinating is how some patients with more problematic personality structure will resist challenging them; whereas, the more functional individuals will do it with minimal encouragement.