How Do Internship Sites Not Match?

[WalterKovacs]

I have a question for any TDs/Selection Committee members/anyone that knows about APPIC in general: How do sites not match? I've heard a lot of success stories about people getting great sites in Phase II, but if you're interviewing 30-40 people, I'm wondering how that works..Do people fall off the list entirely? Honestly, I love a lot of the places I've visited and would be happy to match with most of them, but now my mind goes to this algorithm and how some people end up not matching with a decent number of interviews..For example, I've heard one person ranking 10+ places and not matching while another ranked 3 and did (that one makes a little more sense).

I know it's a mysterious process and people tell me it's a "numbers game" (?), but I'm wondering if anyone can shed some light on the ranking process from the site's perspective?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[R. Matey]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WisNeuro]

It's really not a mysterious process at all. As for sites not matching, in the past, it used to be generally...not great sites in Match II. Nowadays, with more spots than applicants, it's easier for good sites to have some slots open.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha yes I've seen the video..The question is how we the prospective interns are seemingly ranking less sites than the site's are ranking interviewees yet still not matching.

 

[WalterKovacs]

It's really not a mysterious process at all. As for sites not matching, in the past, it used to be generally...not great sites in Match II. Nowadays, with more spots than applicants, it's easier for good sites to have some slots open.

Interesting, may just be overthinking it (as one does around this time..), my thoughts were just if I rank someone 10 and they've interviewed 40 people and I'm ranked 40...I should still match right?

I suppose the site could be less popular and therefore only be ranking 10-20 people and not match, but then as you said, Phase II sounds like a much scarier process! But thank you for the info.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ha yes I've seen the video..The question is how we the prospective interns are seemingly ranking less sites than the site's are ranking interviewees yet still not matching.

In past years, there have been many more spots added, and the number of applicants has not increased by the same number. There are more slots than applicants, it's a simple supply and demand equation.

Interesting, may just be overthinking it (as one does around this time..), my thoughts were just if I rank someone 10 and they've interviewed 40 people and I'm ranked 40...I should still match right?

I suppose the site could be less popular and therefore only be ranking 10-20 people and not match, but then as you said, Phase II sounds like a much scarier process! But thank you for the info.

In your example, it depends on whether or not they ranked you in final rankings, and if they didn't match enough from the other 39 rankings to fill slots.

 

[WalterKovacs]

In past years, there have been many more spots added, and the number of applicants has not increased by the same number. There are more slots than applicants, it's a simple supply and demand equation.



In your example, it depends on whether or not they ranked you in final rankings, and if they didn't match enough from the other 39 rankings to fill slots.

I think you answered the question with the "final rankings". So some people do fall off the list following interviews? Because the general vibe I got was "you are here because we like you and would love to have you here". It makes sense some people's interviews would make the ranking list shorter...But for very popular sites, it seems unlikely they wouldn't match. I hope you're not crushing my illusion that they're are "great sites" in Phase II!!

 

[R. Matey]

There are people who we didn’t rank after meeting them during interviews.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WisNeuro]

I think you answered the question with the "final rankings". So some people do fall off the list following interviews? Because the general vibe I got was "you are here because we like you and would love to have you here". It makes sense some people's interviews would make the ranking list shorter...But for very popular sites, it seems unlikely they wouldn't match. I hope you're not crushing my illusion that they're are "great sites" in Phase II!!

Every year, there are at least a couple people we decide not to rank after interview, for a variety of reasons. As for great sites, in the past few years, there have been many quality sites that go to Phase II. Some sites have now changed their interview protocol, inviting and ranking more applicants, to try and avoid it now.

 

[cara susanna]

When I was applying for internship, I learned or at least got the impression that internship apps was kind of like the prom and everyone was always asking the most "attractive" people. And if you only ask the most "attractive" people, you run the risk that they're gonna get asked by someone else and like that option better.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

When I was applying for internship, I learned or at least got the impression that internship apps was kind of like the prom and everyone was always asking the most "attractive" people. And if you only ask the most "attractive" people, you run the risk that they're gonna get asked by someone else and like that option better.

Particularly at well-known/competitive sites, this can often be a cause of why positions go unfilled. If a handful of sites share most or all of their applicants, it's possible for a site to rank dozens of folks and not match with any of them. Even more so now with the relatively even ratio of positions to interns. But as WisNeuro mentioned, with sites having had a couple Match cycles to adjust, they may have changed their interviewing and ranking procedures. In addition to ranking more applicants, for example, they might also relax rules on how many applicants they're willing to match with from any one program.

And yes, it is very possible that sites choose not to rank everyone they interview.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Thanks everyone! It may have been a silly question in retrospect but I appreciate the responses! In general as I go through the process, I have become less afraid of Phase II, but I did want some reassurance that if it were to happen that way it wouldn't neccesarily be the worst thing in which I'd be left with a list of unappealing sites and have to choose...

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Not a silly question at all.

RE: phase II, there have almost always been a handful of great sites that made it to phase II (even at the height of the imbalance), and nowadays, there are quite a few excellent sites in phase II, just like there are quite a few excellent applicants.

 

[cara susanna]

VA San Diego/UCSD usually is in Phase II because the tracks are so specific and I imagine the applicant pool is competitive.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

VA San Diego/UCSD usually is in Phase II because the tracks are so specific and I imagine the applicant pool is competitive.

I believe that 2 years ago the Minneapolis VA had all 4 General Track positions in Phase 2 and they are an excellent site. In contrast, they filled all positions in Phase 1 last year.

 

[WisNeuro]

I believe that 2 years ago the Minneapolis VA had all 4 General Track positions in Phase 2 and they are an excellent site. In contrast, they filled all positions in Phase 1 last year.

They are one of the sites that changed their interview and ranking protocols to avoid having that happen again.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

They are one of the sites that changed their interview and ranking protocols to avoid having that happen again.

Ah, got it. Interesting!

 

[foreverbull]

Not to worry anyone, but occasionally, something can go wrong in the match algorithm, although this is likely to be EXTREMELY rare. One anecdotal horror story I will share here is that a TD at a site interviewed an applicant and ranked this person highly (like #1), then that person somehow didn't match AT ALL and asked said site for feedback, even though people below her rank matched at this site. This TD was flustered to find out the person didn't match after ranking the interviewee and wasn't allowed to say anything about that. The TD reported this to APPIC, but I have no idea what happened and I would assume that the person had to apply in Phase II or the next year because of the mixup (I would also assume that APPIC wouldn't have admitted to the student that they messed up, because, let's face it, no one wants to tell someone "uh...we messed up and you were supposed to match at X site"). It was a really terrible thing for the site to find out that this really qualified and amiable person ranked so highly didn't even match, let alone at their site.

I REALLY hope this was a unicorn .0000000001 situation, but it's proof that the algorithm isn't 100% perfect.

 

[psyche27]

Not to worry anyone, but occasionally, something can go wrong in the match algorithm, although this is likely to be EXTREMELY rare. One anecdotal horror story I will share here is that a TD at a site interviewed an applicant and ranked this person highly (like #1), then that person somehow didn't match AT ALL and asked said site for feedback, even though people below her rank matched at this site. This TD was flustered to find out the person didn't match after ranking the interviewee and wasn't allowed to say anything about that. The TD reported this to APPIC, but I have no idea what happened and I would assume that the person had to apply in Phase II or the next year because of the mixup (I would also assume that APPIC wouldn't have admitted to the student that they messed up, because, let's face it, no one wants to tell someone "uh...we messed up and you were supposed to match at X site"). It was a really terrible thing for the site to find out that this really qualified and amiable person ranked so highly didn't even match, let alone at their site.

I REALLY hope this was a unicorn .0000000001 situation, but it's proof that the algorithm isn't 100% perfect.

I assume this isn’t the case since they asked for feedback, but one likely scenario can be that the student didn’t rank the site for whatever reason and then when they didn’t match they asked for feedback from all their sites to figure out what to do differently.

 

[R. Matey]

I’ll share that there were sites I interviewed at, but didn’t end up ranking because I’d rather take my chances in Phase II rather than matching somewhere I didn’t want to be. I think I wouldn’t have done that in the height of the imbalance “crisis.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SmithPsy24]

Yup - I definitely ranked a site that I didn't think would be a good fit when the imbalance was bad. If I were in that situation now I don't think I would have bothered (it seemed to be a pretty clear mismatch). But truly, I wouldn't be afraid of Phase II. There were several people in my cohort that went to Phase II, and really all but one ended up happy with their site. I actually ended up in "post-match service" and ended up with a perfect, APA-accredited fit in June.

 

[WisNeuro]

Remember everyone, we need to be putting "crisis" in its appropriate air quotes in this context.

 

[clausewitz2]

When people talk about the malign influence of the medical model in psychology, I didn't realize that they might mean y'all will also have the joy of applying to 80+ programs and interviewing hundreds of applicants every year.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

When people talk about the malign influence of the medical model in psychology, I didn't realize that they might mean y'all will also have the joy of applying to 80+ programs and interviewing hundreds of applicants every year.

We aren't quite at the point of applying to 80+ programs (typically more like 15-20) and the more popular sites probably receive 100-150 applications, so y'all still have it pretty rough, but there are definitely similarities. Including the use of the same matching service.

 

[hillies]

Every year, there are at least a couple people we decide not to rank after interview, for a variety of reasons. As for great sites, in the past few years, there have been many quality sites that go to Phase II. Some sites have now changed their interview protocol, inviting and ranking more applicants, to try and avoid it now.

Considering the expenses and stress involved for applicants, we generally only interview folks that we would be excited to work with on paper. That said, if an applicant shows up and say, goes on a racist and xenophobic rant when asked about approach to diversity, we definitely won't rank them, no matter how good the fit was on paper. Also, act like you're interviewing for every site at every interview, regardless of your preferences, because that's a quick way to get dropped from the list or demoted to the bottom.

 

[WisNeuro]

Considering the expenses and stress involved for applicants, we generally only interview folks that we would be excited to work with on paper. That said, if an applicant shows up and say, goes on a racist and xenophobic rant when asked about approach to diversity, we definitely won't rank them, no matter how good the fit was on paper. Also, act like you're interviewing for every site at every interview, regardless of your preferences, because that's a quick way to get dropped from the list or demoted to the bottom.

We only invite people that we would actually be ok working with, on paper. But, there are a ton of reasons we may not rank someone. They may be near the bottom of our interview list, and they interview very poorly. They may tell our current interns that the only reason they are applying to our site is to get back to this city. They may act very inappropriately, or say something very inappropriate. All have happened in some capacity. Every year.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I love hearing about the process from the site's side! Thanks guys, really demystifies some things..I've also heard that, in general, as long as you're not completely inappropriate and/or racist (which I mean, I really hope there aren't too many of those people in our field, buut..) the interviews don't factor in as much as initial rankings after reviewing our applications. As in, one doesn't move up or down much after an interview, or is more likely to move down if they interview poorly as oppose to move up if they interview well. This may also be site specific, but is that also the general vibe from the training committee side i.e. applicants remaining mostly static following interviews baring a huge red flag?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I would say, based just on my own experiences, that the impact of the interview can vary significantly from one site to the next.

 

[WisNeuro]

Our rankings do not change much following interviews.

 

[hillies]

Our interviews are approximately equally weighted with our application review, but barring a completely exceptional or completely awful interview, the interview doesn't tend to change the order a whole lot. Our #3 might go to #2 and #5 to #6 or 7, for example, but minor shuffling is most common following our interviews vs. a total re-write of the list.