Internship Applicant- How many sites should I apply to?

[WalterKovacs]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Apologies if this is answered elsewhere. I'm a prospective internship applicant who has narrowed down my list to about 20 sites. I've heard from people that 12-15 is the "magic number" and that there is a point where applying to more sites becomes detrimental to matching. I'm wondering what the general consensus is on this?

New to the forum btw, but lurked here often while applying to doctoral programs and you all helped a lot. Excited to join the community =)

 

[AbnormalPsych]

This was the consensus, in my day. Although now that there is more of a balance between # of applicants and # of positions these past few years, that number is probably lower.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Check out last years APPIC survey and base your estimate on match probability. In general, your numbers are correct although I wouldn't attribute applying to more as a cause of not matching (likely both are a symptom). I would apply 12-15 well fitted and reasonable sites

 

[foreverbull]

I’d agree to check the APPIC stats from the year prior to see what the averages were (for example, in my year, 15 was the magic number for applying, and 7 interviews was the average number of interviews needed to match, but this was during the internship crisis, so this probably changed).

I’d also make sure to factor in the competitiveness of the sites in your number. There should be a range of competitiveness and locations (i.e. not picking all of the most competitive sites and not geographically restricting yourself). If I recall correctly, you can see how many applications each site received the prior year to gauge competitiveness.

 

[MCParent]

When I applied, at the height of the internship imbalance, I applied to something like 20. I had no geographic restrictions so there were a very large number of sites that were good fits, and I didn't think it was a good idea to cut sites that were good fits and that I would like to be at, just to make a "magic number."

Now that there is a much better balance between applicants and spots, I might have strained and cut a few off my list. But, I personally would not advise someone to cut a strong match at a 16th or 17th site just to make 15.

 

[Ry.D.]

Thanks guys! I hadn’t considered the APPIC stats, just checked and it seems 95% matched between both Phases, with 88% in Phase I. That’s definitely encouraging in a pretty stressful time...

I am trying to balance/cut down my apps, not neccesarily geographically limited but am applying to about 7 city areas/surrounding suburbs. The number of applicants has been my first exclusion criteria, as I just don’t see it happening with 250+ people applying. I’ve stuck with those cities and 150 apps or lower. Some sites have as few as 15-30 apps in previous years, even without being affiliated to certain programs. Is low app #s a reason for concern? Should I continue to consider 250-300 apps as non-starters? I know this depends on my training and “fit” (which I hear a lot but still can’t really put my finger on what it means exactly lol). I do want to live in my chosen destinations but obviously this last year of training would be priority #1 so I also don’t want to cut out options unnecessarily.

Also, any small advice for cutting off sites? I know I need to read through the brochures thoroughly and consider the training and rotations as well as work/life balance and cost of living. It is difficult though when it comes down to the wire like this and all sites are appealing.

 

[str63]

Thanks guys! I hadn’t considered the APPIC stats, just checked and it seems 95% matched between both Phases, with 88% in Phase I. That’s definitely encouraging in a pretty stressful time...

I am trying to balance/cut down my apps, not neccesarily geographically limited but am applying to about 7 city areas/surrounding suburbs. The number of applicants has been my first exclusion criteria, as I just don’t see it happening with 250+ people applying. I’ve stuck with those cities and 150 apps or lower. Some sites have as few as 15-30 apps in previous years, even without being affiliated to certain programs. Is low app #s a reason for concern? Should I continue to consider 250-300 apps as non-starters? I know this depends on my training and “fit” (which I hear a lot but still can’t really put my finger on what it means exactly lol). I do want to live in my chosen destinations but obviously this last year of training would be priority #1 so I also don’t want to cut out options unnecessarily.

Also, any small advice for cutting off sites? I know I need to read through the brochures thoroughly and consider the training and rotations as well as work/life balance and cost of living. It is difficult though when it comes down to the wire like this and all sites are appealing.

Sometimes sites have 300 applicants, but 15 positions, which is actually a way better ratio than 150 applicants for 3 positions. If there are multiple tracks at a program, these numbers don't tell you how many applicants there are for each track (i.e., track 1 could have 250 applicants and track 2 could have 50). I would say don't limit yourself solely on the number of applications. If you think you may be a good fit and have the qualifications they're looking for, it may be better to apply to a site with many applicants as opposed to a site with fewer applicants but where the fit isn't as great.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Echo all the points here. One other tidbit; don't waste your time applying to sites that aren't an actual fit with your interests, even if on paper the site seems to be not so competitive. Myself and some friends did this, as it was the height of people scaring us about the internship stuff back in 2012, and we all thought "better safe than sorry." (as Wisneuro often alludes to though, this wasn't really true, as if you went to a solid program back then, you most likely didn't need to worry) Anyway, I ended up applying to places that I had no interest or training experience at, just because I was nervous about not getting a spot. Was a waste of money. Got interviews at all the competitive spots that matched my interests, none at the one's I thought were "safe spots."

 

[DynamicDidactic]

that there is a point where applying to more sites becomes detrimental to matching.

I am fairly certain this is inaccurate. Applying and matching are two separate processes. You can apply to 100 places and get 0 interviews. Even still, I don't believe having a lot of sites ranked can be detrimental. The detrimental component is costs of travel (e.g., time and money) and costs of applying (mostly time and cognitive resources). You can always decline an interview invite if you have enough and you can always not rank a site if you didn't like it.

I also applied around the peak of the imbalance and had about 20 sites. Today I would likely cut out some of those sites and be closer to 15. But part of this is how competitive you are an an applicant the competitiveness of the sites. If all your sites have 300 applicants, I'd look for some less competitive sites to add to that list.

 

[psyc0100]

I am fairly certain this is inaccurate. Applying and matching are two separate processes. You can apply to 100 places and get 0 interviews. Even still, I don't believe having a lot of sites ranked can be detrimental. The detrimental component is costs of travel (e.g., time and money) and costs of applying (mostly time and cognitive resources). You can always decline an interview invite if you have enough and you can always not rank a site if you didn't like it.

I also applied around the peak of the imbalance and had about 20 sites. Today I would likely cut out some of those sites and be closer to 15. But part of this is how competitive you are an an applicant the competitiveness of the sites. If all your sites have 300 applicants, I'd look for some less competitive sites to add to that list.

This gets thrown around when looking at APPIC data that after a certain point (something like 18 applications, not interviews) match rates go down with each successive app submission. My thought on this is primarily that students with very poor backgrounds (FSPS PsyDs, partially online, absolutely no assessment but applying to assessment sites) are just throwing out like 25 applications, but the linking factor is the poor application materials leading to both high application numbers and poor fit numbers (like the 'ice cream causes drowning' example they give to first year undergrads). The second tenuous link is that arguably people applying to so many sites are tailoring their materials less but again this seems to me more about overreach of breadth than anything, because if you limit the types of sites i.e. clinical non-research VA outpatient, UCC, community health then tailoring shouldn't be that big of a deal anyway. Just my $.02.