Internship Match Results 2008

[clearcolor]

In case anyone is curious, here are the results for this years match:

http://www.appic.org/match/5_2_2_1_10_match_about_statistics_general_2008.html

21% of people who applied for internship didn't match, which I think is pretty concerning. But I guess at least it is a little better than last year (25% didn't match). I glanced at other years quickly and every year since 2004, 20-25% didn't match. I just started hearing about this last year, but does anyone know if there have been active steps taken to increase sites/decrease cohort sizes or if that is just what people are saying should be done?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WaitingKills]

I'm not at this stage yet but I did check the stats earlier today to see if they had info up about individual schools' match rates (which they don't ).

There were stats posted about internship placements based on the number of rankings applicants put in. Those that did not match only submitted an average of 4.1 rankings while those that did match ranked an average of 7.7 rankings. Moral of the story, the more sites you try for, the more likely you are going to match, especially since there are still sites available. http://www.appic.org/match/5_2_2_1_10_match_about_statistics_general_2008.html

I'm not trying to say that it's easy to get an internship, but some of the people that didn't get placed may have been super picky or only picked really competitive sites. It would also be interesting to see the stats for the applicants the didn't match in regards to the type of program they are coming from... Ohhhh, taboo statement coming... how many students from the 21% that didn't match are from programs with bad reps (ahhh California psy.d's [I know not ALL are bad but you understand what I'm getting at!] or unaccreditted programs) versus programs with better reps?

 

[Ollie123]

Ohhhh, taboo statement coming... how many students from the 21% that didn't match are from programs with bad reps (ahhh California psy.d's [I know not ALL are bad but you understand what I'm getting at!] or unaccreditted programs) versus programs with better reps?

I can't remember the exact number but I think it was last year ~25% were from Argosy campuses.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

I had this conversation with someone who applied to internship this year (she matched, so it's not just bitterness...)

She told me that her perception is that the students who graduate from less well-respected PsyD programs tend to take the back-up schools that PhD students USED to get. So you have your freakishly wonderful applicants getting the super competitive internships, and the students who wouldn't have been students before certain schools started cranking out PsyDs getting the backups, and that just leaves the middle sites for everyone else. So now there are really qualified PsyD and PhD students who are finding themselves without sites.

The perception at my school is that there isn't even a point to applying in the US because there are too many students applying every year due to the fact that a few schools feel the need to fund themselves by accepting 150 students a year. I don't necessarily agree with this (and I'm going to be applying to the US no matter what) but it's pretty frustrating.

I realize I just sounded like a snob but I really see this as a supply/demand issue. There are TOO MANY students graduating to fill a small number of internships every year, so people get stuck in limbo waiting.

 

[GiantSteps]

Where are the 2008 stats for individual schools?

 

[LM02]

Where are the 2008 stats for individual schools?

APPIC doesn't post these annually - they wait every few years and then post them in aggregate.

Just remember that the system is run through an algorithm, and even people in the "top" programs can fall victim to this lousy system. I've seen it happen a few times.

As I have said several times over here, it's hard to interpret school-specific numbers anyway, because the more research-oriented schools have such small classes. For example, if only 4 people apply for internship in a given year from a given school, and 1 does not match, you're looking at a 75% match rate. That may mean nothing if the other 3 are matching at Brown, Palo Alto, and WPIC.

 

[biogirl215]

For example, if only 4 people apply for internship in a given year from a given school, and 1 does not match, you're looking at a 75% match rate. That may mean nothing if the other 3 are matching at Brown, Palo Alto, and WPIC.

Unless you're that one person, of course.

Any thoughts on the algorithim "matching" model? Would it be better just to go with a straight acceptance model, as in undergrad, or would this just be more problematic?

 

[GiantSteps]

Unless you're that one person, of course.

Any thoughts on the algorithim "matching" model? Would it be better just to go with a straight acceptance model, as in undergrad, or would this just be more problematic?

I am concerned about the 701 too few positions to meet the demand of applicants. Is the APA doing anything to increase this number.

The straight acceptance model clearly puts more power into the hands of the students since they can choose the schools they want if selected. The current model is more efficient and eliminates the need for an SDN thread which everyone would be obsessively checking to see which interships offered decisions and when!

 

[deleted176373]

I am concerned about the 701 too few positions to meet the demand of applicants. Is the APA doing anything to increase this number.

The straight acceptance model clearly puts more power into the hands of the students since they can choose the schools they want if selected. The current model is more efficient and eliminates the need for an SDN thread which everyone would be obsessively checking to see which interships offered decisions and when!

I am more concerned with the number of graduate students who are being allowed into programs knowing there are not enough slots to take the graduates. Programs with under 50% aggregate 5 year match rates should be forced to reduce their numbers until they reach that number.

Mark

 

[GiantSteps]

I am more concerned with the number of graduate students who are being allowed into programs knowing there are not enough slots to take the graduates. Programs with under 50% aggregate 5 year match rates should be forced to reduce their numbers until they reach that number.

Mark

I was thinking about this perspective but then Biogirl mentioned that the stats for schools can be misleading (see her post) due to size. Or as RayneeDeigh posted, some of the students from the school which are churning out many students are in fact beating out students from more prestigious places in terms of landing internships. Does this happen in Medicine too since they have the same system?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I am more concerned with the number of graduate students who are being allowed into programs knowing there are not enough slots to take the graduates. Programs with under 50% aggregate 5 year match rates should be forced to reduce their numbers until they reach that number.

Mark

We had a good discussion about this maybe 6 months ago? Personally I'd look at 60-65% over the 5 year span. It really is unacceptable to not place at least 2/3 of your people consistently.

 

[SunnyDee]

I can't remember the exact number but I think it was last year ~25% were from Argosy campuses.

I have been reviewing this site for quite a while and I would like to add my 2 cents about the internship process. First, many people on this site post negative things about professional schools. Specifically, posters comment about how students from professional schools will have difficulty getting into internships, post doc, blah blah blah. Well, I am proof in the pudding that those assumptions are absolutely FALSE. I completed my internship at UCLA Semel Institute and am now going off to do a post doc. And YES, I am from one of those professional schools that everyone loathes about. I have 8 research publications, along with over 15 conference presentations (which I might add is more than most students at the "top tier" schools end up with).

My point is that although professional schools are not the most favored, what matters is what you do wherever you are at. Plus, people have to LIKE YOU. If you come across as an arrogant stick in the mud, then your chances of getting an internship is ZERO because it doesn't matter what school you went to, what your GRE scores were, etc. If you are arrogant, overconfident, think you are the best, NO ONE will want to work with you.

I see so many students on this site talk about how their school is a top tier school and then whine about how they didn't get an APA internship because they are "too good" or didn't apply to enough "middle of the road sites." An APA site should only be considered "middle of road" if it is not going to get you to your career goal, NOT because it's not Brown, Harvard, or some other Ivy league site.

 

[JockNerd]

I am more concerned with the number of graduate students who are being allowed into programs knowing there are not enough slots to take the graduates. Programs with under 50% aggregate 5 year match rates should be forced to reduce their numbers until they reach that number.

Mark

I agree. The problem isn't on the back end; the APA should cut accreditation to schools that produce poor applicants. Prob solved.

My program hit 100% this year, 12 students. Apps from my lab all got their first choices. cha-cha!

 

[GiantSteps]

I have been reviewing this site for quite a while and I would like to add my 2 cents about the internship process. First, many people on this site post negative things about professional schools. Specifically, posters comment about how students from professional schools will have difficulty getting into internships, post doc, blah blah blah. Well, I am proof in the pudding that those assumptions are absolutely FALSE. I completed my internship at UCLA Semel Institute and am now going off to do a post doc. And YES, I am from one of those professional schools that everyone loathes about. I have 8 research publications, along with over 15 conference presentations (which I might add is more than most students at the "top tier" schools end up with).

My point is that although professional schools are not the most favored, what matters is what you do wherever you are at. Plus, people have to LIKE YOU. If you come across as an arrogant stick in the mud, then your chances of getting an internship is ZERO because it doesn't matter what school you went to, what your GRE scores were, etc. If you are arrogant, overconfident, think you are the best, NO ONE will want to work with you.

I see so many students on this site talk about how their school is a top tier school and then whine about how they didn't get an APA internship because they are "too good" or didn't apply to enough "middle of the road sites." An APA site should only be considered "middle of road" if it is not going to get you to your career goal, NOT because it's not Brown, Harvard, or some other Ivy league site.

SunnyDee,

Your statement is very interesting and helpful. Although many people may disagree with your statement: "Well, I am proof in the pudding that those assumptions are absolutely FALSE." In other words, they may be more inclined to view you as more of an exception to the norm (i.e. typical person) since many professional schools are still stuck with the low percentage rates for placement at internships. Conversely, a rejected student from a top tier school would be viewed as an exception to the norm since the norm at those schools is to be accepted. Either way, I agree with you that one must work hard no matter what school he/ she attends and must present him/herself as someone with whom people want to work.

However, you are the perfect person to ask the question: do you think that professional schools are letting in too many people? In other words, you are clearly a fine student but do you think too many of your peers are below par or do you disagree with this? If you think most of your fellow students are really top notch then what can be done to lift the overall rate of success for matches at these schools?

 

[LM02]

Unless you're that one person, of course.

Yeah, it may suck for you if you are that one person. But I don't think that you could argue that such a program is "bad" because they have a 75% match rate, but are otherwise sending people to competitive internships.

There's always a chance that you'll be that one person - nothing is 100% guaranteed. But my original point is that it can be misleading to interpret match rates from small, research-oriented programs because the total N applying from such programs is likely to be small.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

PGSP=82% before clearing house this year (PhD Program). They hired a person to micro manage the process and insure a better rate than last year. I guess she gets to keep her job.

 

[Ollie123]

I have been reviewing this site for quite a while and I would like to add my 2 cents about the internship process. First, many people on this site post negative things about professional schools. Specifically, posters comment about how students from professional schools will have difficulty getting into internships, post doc, blah blah blah. Well, I am proof in the pudding that those assumptions are absolutely FALSE. I completed my internship at UCLA Semel Institute and am now going off to do a post doc. And YES, I am from one of those professional schools that everyone loathes about. I have 8 research publications, along with over 15 conference presentations (which I might add is more than most students at the "top tier" schools end up with).

My point is that although professional schools are not the most favored, what matters is what you do wherever you are at. Plus, people have to LIKE YOU. If you come across as an arrogant stick in the mud, then your chances of getting an internship is ZERO because it doesn't matter what school you went to, what your GRE scores were, etc. If you are arrogant, overconfident, think you are the best, NO ONE will want to work with you.

I see so many students on this site talk about how their school is a top tier school and then whine about how they didn't get an APA internship because they are "too good" or didn't apply to enough "middle of the road sites." An APA site should only be considered "middle of road" if it is not going to get you to your career goal, NOT because it's not Brown, Harvard, or some other Ivy league site.

I don't doubt that you did well with internship. However I'm confused what that has to do with my post. Someone asked what percent came from professional schools. I said 25% came from Argosy.

At no point did I say "No one from Argosy has ever matched at a competitive internship". You going to a great internship does nothing to disprove what has been posted.

Given the match rates at those schools, its pretty clear there is either something wrong with the training and opportunities they provide, or something wrong with the quality of the student body as a whole (even if there are individuals who still excel). I can't think of any other explanation - can you? If its the former, I think its APAs job to correct its accreditation standards, if its the latter than I think it is up to the school to increase admission standards. Regardless I still see how your post does anything to disprove people's opinions.

 

[parto123]

That's great, but your experience is anecdotal. I know others that share your experience, but again, all this shows is that it is possible to succeed from a professional school with low admissions standards, hundred-student cohort sizes, and extreme cost, not that it is probable. It doesn't show that these programs are good for the field in general. I have to agree with MarkP. These programs need to lower their class sizes. . .

They should also decrease their tuition, increase their assistantships, and probably cease to exist. But, that's another argument.




. . . also, given where you matched (UCLA), I'd be willing to bet you were somehow affiliated with UCLA as a student. . .maybe attending Fuller or some school like that. These programs parasitically profit from such affiliations. It's not that you went to a professional school, it's that you worked in Dr. BigDog's lab at Harvard while you happened to be paying the professional school.

You are right, though. Once you get the interviews (internship), personality is the swingvote.

I actually think having an imbalance of students and internship positions is actually very good for the profession. Excess supply helps ensure that the very weakest students either work on themselves, or walk away. Unselective psyd programs may have weak applicants, but so do the very selective phd programs. As true with every profession, there are those who are very strong academically but are terrible, incompetent or simply intolerable professionals and vise versa.

The result of the current imbalance gives us the best of both worlds. We are able to keep out the weak candidates from top schools and get very talented candidates who are otherwise weak academically.

This may sound harsh, but if you went to a top program, got a lot of interview, but struck out in the match, instead of getting angry at all the people from weaker schools who are “stealing spots” you may want to take a step back and figure out what you did wrong. For some reason, many many individuals who have been in the profession a very long time have all decided that they do not want to work with you, despite your credentials . If that were me, instead of constantly ranting on the internet how we should get rid of lower schools I would try to figure out where I went wrong and what I am lacking (even I were to eventually secure a spot in clearinghouse, where everyone is desperate).

Yes, there is a strong correlation between academic achievement and skill, but there are also plenty of academically gifted students who make terrible professionals.

 

[Total Shrinkage]

does anyone know if there have been active steps taken to increase sites/decrease cohort sizes

Therein may lie the problem: cohort sizes are inormous for some of the PsyD programs. And that's even without going into the comparison of a PhD from a true research-oriented program vs a diploma mill PhD (upon personal chats with some of such "PhDs" from the latter types of institutions I realized that they had done no research at all or, alternatively, it is quite sophomoric). I may be wrong, and I apologize in advance for hurting anyone's feelings here (not my intention at all), but it seems to me that the PhDs are sometimes at a disadvantage.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Therein may lie the problem: cohort sizes are inormous for some of the PsyD programs. And that's even without going into the comparison of a PhD from a true research-oriented program vs a diploma mill PhD (upon personal chats with some of such "PhDs" from the latter types of institutions I realized that they had done no research at all or, alternatively, it is quite sophomoric). I may be wrong, and I apologize in advance for hurting anyone's feelings here (not my intention at all), but it seems to me that the PhDs are sometimes at a disadvantage.

It would probably only hurt feelings if you named schools when using the term "diploma mill."

 

[Total Shrinkage]

For some reason, many many individuals who have been in the profession a very long time have all decided that they do not want to work with you, despite your credentials.

I disagree with that point. Those of you who did not match should not think of it from this perspective. The way the match works is not necessarily an absolutist "YES, we want him/her at our site" or "No, we don't." It may well be the case that they actually did ranked you, and far from the bottom. It's just they ranked you right below someone whom they preferred a little more over you. What may have happened is that the people who were ranked above you and were ultimately matched to that site did not match better at the other ones where they also applied to. There's a less winded way that this is explained on the NMS website.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

I'm not at this stage yet but I did check the stats earlier today to see if they had info up about individual schools' match rates (which they don't ).

There were stats posted about internship placements based on the number of rankings applicants put in. Those that did not match only submitted an average of 4.1 rankings while those that did match ranked an average of 7.7 rankings. Moral of the story, the more sites you try for, the more likely you are going to match, especially since there are still sites available. http://www.appic.org/match/5_2_2_1_10_match_about_statistics_general_2008.html

I'm not trying to say that it's easy to get an internship, but some of the people that didn't get placed may have been super picky or only picked really competitive sites. It would also be interesting to see the stats for the applicants the didn't match in regards to the type of program they are coming from... Ohhhh, taboo statement coming... how many students from the 21% that didn't match are from programs with bad reps (ahhh California psy.d's [I know not ALL are bad but you understand what I'm getting at!] or unaccreditted programs) versus programs with better reps?

Totally concur. The curve flattens out somewhere around 15-18 sites, but interviewing with and ranking more is probably the best way to increase your odds.

edit- By "best way" I mean mathematically, that is. You still need to be competitive.

 

[Total Shrinkage]

I completely agree. The above type candidate (top school, lots of internship interviews at top sites, clearinghouse) shouldn't even be concerned with the professional schools with respect to the match.



I don't think that's the case. Internship is not a professionl weedout stage of much consequence. Much like medical school, if you get into a clinical psych doctorate program, you're most likely going to be a psychologist. That is why it is important to be better guardians of entry. . . and why I argue against the professional schools.

Amen to that.

 

[SunnyDee]

SunnyDee,

Your statement is very interesting and helpful. Although many people may disagree with your statement: "Well, I am proof in the pudding that those assumptions are absolutely FALSE." In other words, they may be more inclined to view you as more of an exception to the norm (i.e. typical person) since many professional schools are still stuck with the low percentage rates for placement at internships. Conversely, a rejected student from a top tier school would be viewed as an exception to the norm since the norm at those schools is to be accepted. Either way, I agree with you that one must work hard no matter what school he/ she attends and must present him/herself as someone with whom people want to work.

However, you are the perfect person to ask the question: do you think that professional schools are letting in too many people? In other words, you are clearly a fine student but do you think too many of your peers are below par or do you disagree with this? If you think most of your fellow students are really top notch then what can be done to lift the overall rate of success for matches at these schools?

I absolutely agree that professional schools let in too many students. In my case, the school I went to was divided up by a Ph.D. and Psy.D. program. My cohort consisted of 30, whereas the Psy.D. cohort was about 80. However, in my experience, the students who are unqualified to begin with cannot keep up with the workload and subsequently fall behind by failing to finish their dissertations, and certainly fail to obtain a match for internship.

In my cohort of 30, only 20 made it to the final year. Out of the 20, 10 students were top notch and truly had scholar-practitioner goals for their careers. Now many may say, "Well only 50% of your cohort was considered top notch," my argument to that is.....how many students in your cohort are really qualified. Are they really good at assessment? Are they good with understanding complex research designs? Or, do they simply "act as a slave for their advisor and mimick his or her research interests and professional goals?"

From what I have seen at my internship is that the students who come from "top tier" schools put on a facade that they know what they are doing. One guy had no idea how cultural factors can affect one's performance on neurocognitive assessments. And might I add, he was from a "top tier" graduate school.

Coming from a professional school (if you're a good student) you learn how to work the game in the "professional world." You learn how intellect, networking, and charisma gets you to where you want to be. A lot of students (not all) believe that just because they come from a "top tier" school is going to secure employment for them in the future. Furthermore, when you think about all the students across the country who strive to become tenure track professors.......it's ridiculous.

I learned a long time ago to keep your options open, be humble, network like there is no tomorrow, and truly be passionate about what you want to do. That is worth more than "I went to X,Y,Z school and worked with so and so."

 

[SunnyDee]

I don't doubt that you did well with internship. However I'm confused what that has to do with my post. Someone asked what percent came from professional schools. I said 25% came from Argosy.

At no point did I say "No one from Argosy has ever matched at a competitive internship". You going to a great internship does nothing to disprove what has been posted.

Given the match rates at those schools, its pretty clear there is either something wrong with the training and opportunities they provide, or something wrong with the quality of the student body as a whole (even if there are individuals who still excel). I can't think of any other explanation - can you? If its the former, I think its APAs job to correct its accreditation standards, if its the latter than I think it is up to the school to increase admission standards. Regardless I still see how your post does anything to disprove people's opinions.

Sorry Ollie, I may have misread your post. At any rate, the low rates for a school like Argosy may be because some Argosy campuses still haven't been accredited by the APA (that is problematic). Second, low match rates exist at professional schools because many students (particularly from my former institution) were not willing to leave the state of California. Let's face it, no matter where you come from you limit your chances when you only apply to sites within your state. Third, as many have said, not all students meet the qualifications to get into an APA internship.

Last, but definetely not least, the bias that exists towards professional schools among training directors at certain sites make it difficult to land certain internships (although this is changing). I believe in the next 4-5 years this will be a small issue that only exist within a few sites.

I will admit, I had to work my tail off because of this bias and so did my peers. However, I would never change my experience because I learned a lot through the process. For example, much of my assessment experience was obtained through paid work writing up psych evals working under the tutelage of a licensed psychologist. This helped while applying to internships because when I had to send sample assessments to certain sites, I had MANY to choose from.

I am not trying to sound like I am tooting my own horn (though I may sound like it), I am simply saying that I wish people would be open minded about professional schools. We are not all "bad, poorly educated" individuals.

 

[deleted176373]

In my cohort of 30, only 20 made it to the final year. Out of the 20, 10 students were top notch and truly had scholar-practitioner goals for their careers. Now many may say, "Well only 50% of your cohort was considered top notch," my argument to that is.....how many students in your cohort are really qualified.

I actually really am a little angry with the way professional schools go about this. The difference between top notch and qualified is one thing, but when you have an attrition rate of 33%, something is VERY wrong. This shows an abusive pattern of luring people into these programs just to squeeze them for tuition for a year.

No doctoral training program should be admitting such a high percentage of students that have such little hope of completing the program. Let's imagine that the lower quartile of your school output while minimally competent, represents people that you personally would prefer not to be associated with.

Don't you feel that your school is not only doing a disservice to it's students but you as well. Here you are, you are trying to make your program look good. You exemplify the standards of the profession and contribute meaningfully to the field only to have someone who possibly should have been eliminated sullying the reputation of your program, your degree, and your profession being allowed to graduate?

I have little doubt that all the students in my cohort will all complete the program and I believe we will all be very qualified when we are done. I believe that selectivity with regard to the participants prior to beginning the program has a lot to do with this. As a result, few get in and most (nearly all) complete the program. There have been a few that have left the program over the past 10 years. We have an average incoming class of 6-8 students and I think only 2 have not completed in the past 10 years.

Mark

 

[deleted176373]

QFT

nevermind figured it out...

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

After reading all of this for the 100th time, I am officially out. I am resolved to stop trying to argue about professional schools and "top tier" schools and who should be in gradaute school, and how proud or not proud of my program I am, PhD vs PsyD, or who should be matching, oh my. I just can't stand it anymore.

If any of you need me, I'll either be working on the scholarly contribution that is my dissertation, at my APA approved internship site, or over on the military medicine forum.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

*MOD NOTE: I think this is a good time to get back to talking about the match results, and not another (countless) discussion of Ph.D., Psy.D, Prof School, etc...discussion.*

 

[psychanon]

Not to keep this off topic, but since this is relevant, here is an interesting statistic I heard from the APPIC talk at ABCT (these are from my notes, and I may not have copied these figures down exactly right, but these are close to right):
Scientist practitioner/ clinical scientist programs: 88% match
Professional schools: 63% match
I'm not trying to steer this debate toward the same-old, same-old. But that's a pretty big discrepancy, and it's some interesting food for thought. A lot of qualified people don't match because of geographical constraints or atrocious luck, both of which are difficult to filter out of the system. But when people are systematically not matching, that may represent something far more serious.

Here's some more positive information: while some people are unlucky and don't match, most do match at one of their top choices:

"We are pleased to report that 2,749 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions. A total of 48% of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, more than two-thirds (69%) received one of their top two choices, and four-in-five (81%) received one of their top three choices."

 

[SunnyDee]

*MOD NOTE: I think this is a good time to get back to talking about the match results, and not another (countless) discussion of Ph.D., Psy.D, Prof School, etc...discussion.*

I agree......This comment I will pose is relevant to the internship process.

When you think about all the money that applicants spend registering for the match, gathering materials, and flying to who knows where to interview, it's crazy! I remember that when I did the process, I was infuriated when I went all the way to interview at a site just to find out that they do a 'group interview' with very little chance to interact individually with the faculty. I am happy that I received my top choice; however, I spent about $3500 on the entire process.

My sister did this process this year (yes, she matched), and we looked at many sites who interviewed like 60% of their applicants for 2-3 spots. Now, I think that is a little ridiculous.

I believe that just like graduate school (and Mark is right, the professional schools need to do this) there should be a 'weedout' process with the applications.

Some sites have a strict percentage of the number of applicants they will interview and I really believe that all sites should adopt this policy. This saves students from spending money to fly out to these sites for an interview when they really do not have a chance. Sometimes I think with the sites who conduct group interviews, they have an idea of who they want before the applicants get there. Believe me if these sites had to pay for us to come interview, you better believe they would lower the number of interviewees.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My sister did this process this year (yes, she matched), and we looked at many sites who interviewed like 60% of their applicants for 2-3 spots. Now, I think that is a little ridiculous.

Some sites have a strict percentage of the number of applicants they will interview and I really believe that all sites should adopt this policy.

All of the sites I interviewed at this year seemed to have a cap of ~20 for 2-3 spots....though I asked all of the sites how far down their list they go, and they all said not very far. One said they hit 8 one year, but that was more than usual. Other sites said they have been inviting the same # of people a year, and hadn't run into a problem. I am sure there are some sites that need to rank 30-40 people, but at that point....is it still worth interviewing people?

 

[psychanon]

Agreed. I have no interest in flying 3,000 miles and paying $200/ night for a hotel for an internship who is only somewhat considering me. Brown is one of the worst offenders:

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Number of Completed Applications 271 331 341
Number of applicants invited for interviews 114 117 110
Total Number of Interns 23 20 18

So they interview 30-40% of their applicants and end up with only 10-20% of their interviewees as interns.

 

[LM02]

Agreed. I have no interest in flying 3,000 miles and paying $200/ night for a hotel for an internship who is only somewhat considering me. Brown is one of the worst offenders:

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Number of Completed Applications 271 331 341
Number of applicants invited for interviews 114 117 110
Total Number of Interns 23 20 18

So they interview 30-40% of their applicants and end up with only 10-20% of their interviewees as interns.

The complicated issue with Brown is that there are 4 separate (non-overlapping) tracks that have their own APPIC match code. It's basically like applying to 4 different internships. So, in some ways, it's less meaningful to look at the total number of people they invite to interview, and more meaningful to look at the total number interviewed per track. For example, if there are 5 slots per track, and they interview roughly 25-30 people per track, it suddenly doesn't look as bad.

This isn't unique to Brown, but is probably true for most sites that are comprised of individual tracks that submit separate rank order lists for each track.

 

[northstar575]

Agreed. I have no interest in flying 3,000 miles and paying $200/ night for a hotel for an internship who is only somewhat considering me. Brown is one of the worst offenders:

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Number of Completed Applications 271 331 341
Number of applicants invited for interviews 114 117 110
Total Number of Interns 23 20 18

So they interview 30-40% of their applicants and end up with only 10-20% of their interviewees as interns.

Actually this is very standard (at least by canadian standards and we match over 80% of applicants).

1. The site cannot control the number of applications so it's unfair to criticize them for their % of interviews granted, but interviewing 40% is by no means odd.

2. Having a 4:1 ratio for interview to positions available is actually very good. Many sites have 9:1 ratios. Anything less than 4:1 and you run the serious risk of not filling all of your positions due to the nature of the APPIC match.

 

[psychanon]

I guess it just sounded high to me, but you're right that divided between the tracks, it sounds a bit better (someone I know who was invited there was complaining about how many people they invite, so that's where I got this). I'll still probably apply there, anyway.

 

[airmont]

This may be a stupid question but must an internship be APA accredited? Wouldn`t any supervision suffice for licensure? Is APA accreditation necessary to receive your degree?

 

[cmuhooligan]

This may be a stupid question but must an internship be APA accredited? Wouldn`t any supervision suffice for licensure? Is APA accreditation necessary to receive your degree?

Some (if not most) states require you to complete an APA-approved internship for licensure; however, this is not a necessary condition in all states (California I believe doesn't require it).

 

[docma]

Actually, only Mississippi and Oklahoma require an APA internship for licensure at this time. All other states will accept APPIC sites (or Canadian Psychological Association) or have ways to establish "equivalency" but these may require some additional paperwork by the applicant. Some academic programs do require an APA internship and if you want to work in the VA system you must do an APA internship. The APPIC site has good information on this topic on their website under the Match topic, item 17. Restricting yourself to APA sites is the most conservative choice, but definitely not the only way to become licensed.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Some (if not most) states require you to complete an APA-approved internship for licensure; however, this is not a necessary condition in all states (California I believe doesn't require it).

That's incorrect.

I think there are 2-3 states that require it, that may or may not allow for equivalency, which is typically the standard. Going to an APA-accredited internship site is the easiest path to licensure. APPIC is the next. The challenge is showing the state that you received the proper training, and the accreditations help address that issue. Most states have something called equivalency, which allows for the applicant for licensure to show that their training is equivalent and thus can be licensed....though some state boards are stricter than others about documentation, supervision hours, etc. It is best to look at each state's licensing requirements, as they can vary.

Dr. Emil Rodolfa write a good e-mail about this on the APPIC list serv 2 days ago. He is the President-elect of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards, which help determine regulations around the US. I copied part of it below to how that it is rarely cut and dry as people make it seem.

If you are interested in accruing supervised professional experience
hours in California, there are a number of ways to do so. Check
SECTION II on the CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY SUPERVISION
AGREEMENT FOR SUPERVISED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN HEALTH SERVICES
to find all the ways you can accrue experience. In California you
do not have to complete an internship to become licensed. Applicants
for licensure can accrue supervised hours as follows:
1. as a registered psychologist
2. as an employee in an "exempt" setting
3. as an intern in a formal internship with meets 1387 (this is the
only method that the individual said would allow the accrual of
hours)...again, this is not so.
4. as a psychological assistant
5. Department of Mental Health Waiver
6. Out of State Experience.

I am sorry to go on about this, but I do want to make a point, that
gathering factual information on this or any list may be problematic.

But let me say, that as a past president and current member of the
California Board of Psychology, you can trust the factual information
about the process of CA licensure presented above is correct and if
you would like it verified please contact the CA Board of Psychology.

 

[socal34]

I don't doubt that you did well with internship. However I'm confused what that has to do with my post. Someone asked what percent came from professional schools. I said 25% came from Argosy

Can you offer a source for that stat?

 

[Ollie123]

Can you offer a source for that stat?

At a conference at the moment, but I'll look into it upon my return and get back to you.

 

[xlittlemissalix]

I'm not in a graduate program yet, but just found out about all this match stuff. I looked into the school I may be going to in the fall to see how they compare...but I'm still not even sure. What's a good match rate percentage? OBVIOUSLY I know that the higher the better and 100% would be absolutely wonderful, but when would you begin thinking a school's match rate was too low? Also, of course, taking into account the fact that each school varies in how many graduate students they even have.

 

[JockNerd]

I'm not in a graduate program yet, but just found out about all this match stuff. I looked into the school I may be going to in the fall to see how they compare...but I'm still not even sure. What's a good match rate percentage? OBVIOUSLY I know that the higher the better and 100% would be absolutely wonderful, but when would you begin thinking a school's match rate was too low? Also, of course, taking into account the fact that each school varies in how many graduate students they even have.

Here's the web site with the year-by-years:
http://www.appic.org/match/5_2_2_match_about_statistics.html

I think people generally call anything above average (~80%) "good." 100% is hard to achieve, at least consistently, because someone is going to overestimate their competitiveness or interview poorly. You're right to consider cohort size, but still... if a place only graduates 4 people a year and maintains a 75% match rate, I don't think that's too hot. Dropping below average is problematic, and I wouldn't even look at any places that match sub-70%.

 

[xlittlemissalix]

Here's the web site with the year-by-years:
http://www.appic.org/match/5_2_2_match_about_statistics.html

I think people generally call anything above average (~80%) "good." 100% is hard to achieve, at least consistently, because someone is going to overestimate their competitiveness or interview poorly. You're right to consider cohort size, but still... if a place only graduates 4 people a year and maintains a 75% match rate, I don't think that's too hot. Dropping below average is problematic, and I wouldn't even look at any places that match sub-70%.

Well, the school I'm hopefully going to this fall had a 79.7% match rate for a total of 79 students between 2000-2006. I assume this is acceptable? I mean, looking at the other schools, 79 students seems like a lot so I would say that might be part of the reason the match rate is a little lower.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'd say anything 80% and above, as that allows for a bit of fluctuation, but you really have to wonder about a program that consistently places far below that (<70%).

 

[JockNerd]

Well, the school I'm hopefully going to this fall had a 79.7% match rate for a total of 79 students between 2000-2006. I assume this is acceptable? I mean, looking at the other schools, 79 students seems like a lot so I would say that might be part of the reason the match rate is a little lower.

I'd find out where people are matching, too. Should have mentioned that in the first post. Are they getting competitive placements or do they have to work in Podunk for $12k?

The match rate of the place you're looking at is average, but look at that cohort size. 16 people are stuck in limbo? Yikes. That's not miserable, but I'd find out what those other 63 people did, and make sure I did that too.

 

[Ollie123]

At a conference at the moment, but I'll look into it upon my return and get back to you.

Looked into it.

Just go to APPIC.org, click "Match Statistics" on the right hand side and look at the breakdown by university.

I didn't go through all the math again since its a busy week and I trust the guy who did, but there were 431 unmatched applicants in 2006 (which is apparently when the most recent university-based numbers are from). Take a quick glance through the numbers for the Argosy schools and you can see the number I mentioned above has to at least be in the ballpark of correct - they have large numbers of students, and relatively low match rates at many of their campuses. I know there are some "_____ professional school of psychology" that are Argosy-based and I didn't look into those, but even looking at the ones listed under Argosy and estimating the number of unmatched students based off their average 7 year match rate, you can see its going to work out to a pretty sizable portion of the 431.

 

[psyched1inMN]

Given the match rates at those schools, its pretty clear there is either something wrong with the training and opportunities they provide, or something wrong with the quality of the student body as a whole (even if there are individuals who still excel). I can't think of any other explanation - can you? If its the former, I think its APAs job to correct its accreditation standards, if its the latter than I think it is up to the school to increase admission standards. Regardless I still see how your post does anything to disprove people's opinions.[/quote]


Actually, yes, I can think of another explanation to the lower match rates at professional schools...biased opionions of psyd students/schools that may or may not be based in reality. You know, like the opinions seen here. You know, the snobbery that just might surface in an effort to justify working in a lab for 80 hours a week for 4-5 years for someone else instead of learning how to treat patients.

On a less sarcastic note, there are sites that prefer psyd students and there are those that prefer phd students. Which are right? I am sure someone here can answer that! Oops, back to sarcasm.

And now to answer someone's previous question and to present the other side of the coin. Yes, I do think that my professional school admits some who should not be admitted. Cohorts of 50 per year could easily be reduced to 40, or even 30. My concerns range from "poor students" to "it seems like an MFT degree would be more their thing, not sure, from what I know about this person drove them to pursue a doctorate". I agree that they should have some kind of limit placed on them if they can't get their students placed, but the reason for so many not being placed doesn't necesarily have to do, completely, with student or training quality. Good students fail to match and bad ones match.

I have to say, I believe I have received excellent training, though I don't really have anything to compare it to, do I? And in the end, it is really about what I put into it, isn't it? I don't have the ability to be a stellar researcher, but that's not what I went to school for. WHich brings up a whole 'nother topic...why are we (future researchers and future clinicians) even competing for the same internships, or even the same schools? Do future PhD's in legal studies go to law school?

Any-who, it's funny, Ollie...I knew your post was from you without having read who it was from. Something about that "hmmm...I fail to see the reason that you exist" flavor to it. Hopefully you are going into research, not practice.

Peace,

A matched Argosy student

 

[psychwanabe]

Actually, yes, I can think of another explanation to the lower match rates at professional schools...biased opionions of psyd students/schools that may or may not be based in reality. You know, like the opinions seen here. You know, the snobbery that just might surface in an effort to justify working in a lab for 80 hours a week for 4-5 years for someone else instead of learning how to treat patients.

Your comment implies that clincial work is the only valuable part of psychology. I am a PsyD student and I rejected a program's offer because their students had no respect for research. Our field needs researchers to fund the knowledge clinicians use practice, teachers use to teach, etc. We need to know what works and what doesn't, how the mind processes information and a billion other things. I accepted an offer from a PsyD program that stresses the importance of research, requires an empirical dissertation, and trains students to follow literature with a critical eye.

I am offended by your comment and I worry that hundreds of other PsyD students are leaving their programs with the same mindset. These graduates won't read, won't keep up with current research, and the field will suffer for it.