Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Only 11 states require APA internship and 9 of those allow non-APA but just require more hours.
Internship Supply / Demand Imbalance
Started by Therapist4Chnge
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
Only 11 states require APA internship and 9 of those allow non-APA but just require more hours.
Does anyone know what those 2 states are that require APA and the 9 that require additional hours? I am guessing Wyoming is one of the 2 states?
As of 2005:
* Alabama or 1800 if not-APA internship
* Alaska or 1500 if not-APA internship
* Colorado or 1500 if not-APA internship
* Georgia or 2000 if not-APA internship
* Hawaii or 1900 if not-APA internship
* Louisiana or 1500 if not-APA internship
* New Mexico or 1500 if not-APA internship
* Texas
* Virginia or 12 consecutive months
* Washington or 1500 if not-APA internship
* West Virginia
* Alabama or 1800 if not-APA internship
* Alaska or 1500 if not-APA internship
* Colorado or 1500 if not-APA internship
* Georgia or 2000 if not-APA internship
* Hawaii or 1900 if not-APA internship
* Louisiana or 1500 if not-APA internship
* New Mexico or 1500 if not-APA internship
* Texas
* Virginia or 12 consecutive months
* Washington or 1500 if not-APA internship
* West Virginia
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So...if one does 2000 post doc hours after a non-APA internship, they would still likely be fine for state licensure in all of the states below except Texas and West Virginia???
Why Wyoming?
It looks like it.
Wyoming is the one state that I am aware of that does not permit individuals with doctoral degrees in school psychology to get licensure as a psychologist. I (incorrectly, it turns out) thought that maybe they were also more restrictive in internship requirements for licensure. that is why.....
I'm not sure how true that is. I recently spoke to a former ABPP president who said that APPIC is equivalent to APA and should be no problem when applying.
Ah, ok. I'm from Wyoming, so I was just curious.
Oklahoma and Mississippi are the 2 states that require APA internships; all others have a means to establish "equivalency" that is part of the licensure application process. They do vary in the number of hours required and the number of weeks of length (eg: last I knew MA required no less than 43 weeks). The ABPP site is not always up to date (though they try) so it is always important to look at the website of the specific state in question.
There was actually a decrease in the number of total applicants for the match this year, however I don't believe that provides the true picture because many of those applicants may have sought out unacred. internships instead of re-applying. Here are the 2009 stats thus far, with my bolding and comments in red.
-----------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2009, the total numbers of applicants and internship sites registered to participate in the 2010 APPIC Match were:
- 3,721 registered applicants (excludes 16 who registered but
subsequently withdrew)
- 3,157 positions offered by 690 registered internship sites
(658 of these registered sites are APPIC members)
APPIC member sites
These numbers reflect a DECREASE of 31 applicants and an INCREASE of 21 positions as compared to last year at this time. Furthermore, the number of participating internship sites has increased by 3, representing 3 fewer APPIC-member sites and 6 more non-member sites as compared to last year.
IMPORTANT NOTE: These numbers change daily and are only a "snapshot" as of December 31 of each year. The final numbers of participating sites and applicants will be significantly different from those presented above. In each of the past eleven years, more than 200 applicants withdrew from the Match after registering. Assuming that trend continues into this year, we estimate that approximately 3,500 to 3,600 applicants will ultimately submit Rank Order Lists for the 2010 Match.
Using the current numbers, 564 people will not be able to secure a position if every site fills every spot. Even if the pre-match attrition trend continues, there will still probably be at least 500 people who won't secure a position. Keep in mind included in those 690 sites and 3,157 spots there are unacreditted and/or unpaid spots. Here is a snapshot from 2008-2009 breaking down the funding and acredidation numbers.
The table below presents the registration numbers from the past twelve years (since the APPIC Match was initiated), as of December 31 of each year, along with the change from the previous year:
APPIC MATCH REGISTRATION NUMBERS AS OF DECEMBER 31
..................---Applicants--- ---Positions--- ---Sites-----
.....................Reg.....Chg..... Reg.....Chg.....Reg.....Chg
================ =============== ===============
Dec 31, 1998 3,090.............2,659...............609
Dec 31, 1999 3,127.....+37...2,773....+114....623.....+14
Dec 31, 2000 3,172.....+45...2,771.......-2.....625......+2
Dec 31, 2001 3,030....-142...2,766.......-5.....617......-8
Dec 31, 2002 3,136....+106...2,774......+8.....619......+2
Dec 31, 2003 3,218......+82...2,753.....-21.....628.....+9
Dec 31, 2004 3,350....+132...2,778.....+25.....621......-7
Dec 31, 2005 3,422......+72...2,811.....+33....630......+9
Dec 31, 2006 3,611....+189...2,904.....+93.....641....+11
Dec 31, 2007 3,665......+54...3,057...+153.....666....+25
Dec 31, 2008 3,752......+87...3,136.....+79.....687....+21
Dec 31, 2009 3,721......-31...3,157.....+21.....690......+3
This table speaks to the growth of applicants and sites, but not to the impact of the growth. I'd be curious to see how many of the positions are from APA/CPA (Canada) approved programs, in addition to how many applicants have skipped the match all together and sought out non-APA/CPA/APPIC acred. positions. I believe it is a far worse picture if you include all of the graduate students who will eventually seek licensure, versus just those graduate students who apply for the APPIC match.
For comparison purposes, here are the final numbers of participating applicants and programs from each of the ten previous APPIC Matches (note that the numbers are as of Match Day in February for each year, rather than for the preceding December 31, and reflect only the applicants who actually submitted Rank Order Lists):
NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING APPLICANTS AND INTERNSHIP POSITIONS
IN PREVIOUS APPIC MATCHES
Applicants Positions Difference
1999 Match 2,923 2,631 -292
2000 Match 2,957 2,713 -244
2001 Match 2,947 2,763 -184
2002 Match 2,842 2,752 -90
2003 Match 2,963 2,718 -245
2004 Match 3,039 2,732 -307
2005 Match 3,117 2,757 -360
2006 Match 3,210 2,779 -431
2007 Match 3,430 2,884 -546
2008 Match 3,492 3,058 -434
2009 Match 3,598 3,051 -547
Additional statistics from previous matches can be found at www.appic.org -- click on "Match Statistics."
--------------------------
Thoughts?
Depends on a few factors, but IMO likely to be up next year but trending downward the next few. 👍 My hope is that more qualified internship sites apply for APPIC or APA approval and/or that the APA starts to lower it's actual costs for sites.
Agree to a point, partly depending on where the cutoff is. It would be like pulling off a band-aid and there'd be lots of collateral damage (programs who now have super-low match rate). In all, I'm not too fond of regulations that don't allow improvement.
Restricting the amount of applications allowed from some schools could achieve similar results. That way, they'd be able to dig their way out eventually, with hopefully less negative affect on qualified students.
I think the way the UK does MD matching is superior to the way APA matching done in the US. APPIC knows there are huge weak links in the system, but they seem to think there's no other way to do it now.
NHS Matching (as explained to me): Each person gets up to X applications in a cycle, which you rank for preference. Match day happens, and happens like with APPIC. The key is the limiting number of apps.
I know APPIC doesn't have any clue how many apps they'd have to limit it to per person to make a good match, but doing two match days could work. (Have two rounds in a year).
T4C: Good point on students who don't participate in the match. I've seen some internships (meant for post-doc) that look super super interesting, but they would likely never participate in the match or look for APA accreditation. Just too small.
I think I'm lucky that it will be 5+ years until I'm ready for internship, so that some of this is sorted by then. Wishful thinking I'm sure 😀
I am on a few APA listservs and the thought seems to be that unmatched students will increase for the next two rounds but that it will be reduced once they figure out a solution.
I remember someone brought up the possibility of preventing students from unaccredited schools like Capella and Walden? from participating and there was an uproar. I think dealing with that aspect of it will be interesting because many seem to think they should be entitled to join APA accredited sites even though their programs are not APA accredited.
What I don't understand is why is costs so much for sites to become APA accredited even with the shortage? The last conversation I had with anyone from APA was last year so I dont know where they are with it right now but that's another issue they need to deal with...
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
What on earth are these predictions based on? The downward trend has been consistent for two decades.
Increasing the number of internship sites would do less than nothing; problematic sites maintain high enrollment despite their 60% match rates. If there are more internships, the market dynamics for the sites are clear: the market for doctoral programs tolerates a 60% match rate, so enroll more students, keep matching at 60%, and make more money.
Hey, it's Mr. Standoffish, wonder what he's doing today? Oh right, being standoffish. Uncool.
You probably don't want to know the "market dynamics" of a research program employing 17 students and making millions off their research while paying them $20k/yr.
Like everyone else here, it's my best guess.
My best guess is that the number of unmatched students will be higher next year, but that over the next few years, the number of unmatched students will trend DOWNward. My reasoning for this is an increase in qualified sites, a tiny increase in spots per site (on avg), and increase in unmatched candidates going for non-APPIC internships (of which many go unfilled every year).
I hope that if a new site is added that it is a great site, but I'm not sure I want more sites, particularly if we cannot be sure they will be great. I agree with you that there will be more unmatched candidates coing for non-APPIC internships, which will only glut the market with more psychologists who have not been evaluated by the same standards. I am sure there are some fine candidates that for one reason or another chose a non-APPIC site, though I'm more concerned with everyone else.
Grif, the one factor you did not address is the comparative supply of incoming graduate students. I don't see any influence (market force, political, legal, etc) that suggests a decrease in the N for incoming graduate students. Nor do I see reasons why it will stay steady, though I do see factors that suggest the N will grow. If more applicants are entering, those people will need to go somewhere. The attrition rates are such that most 1st years make it through to apply for internship, so that means there will most likely be more applicants.
I'm not sure if increasing the spots is the correct solution to reduce the # of unmatched people and/or address the increasing N. It's my opinion that decreasing the N and decreasing the available internship spots (through policy changes to raise acred standards) will produce a better psychologist AND still have plenty of work to go around.
D
deleted75966
I agree, though I'm not entirely confident of the AND.
Standoffish? Maybe in the sense of "haughty," I suppose, although I'm not entirely sure how my post would be perceived as prideful. I do indeed question the logic behind assuming an improvement in the rate that goes against a trend that's lasted over a decade. If my mere disagreement with you hurts your pride or appears haughty there's not much I can do about that.
I think your guess is erroneous for the exact reason I mentioned: what is stopping the problematic sites from simply enrolling more students and maintaining their tolerated poor match rates?
Most schools do have a maximum number of students and IIRC any real change to either curriculum or enrollment has to go through the APA first. IMO, my guesses are as good as yours.
I could be mistaken here, but you come off as very unfriendly in many of your posts. That's what I meant by standoffish. But yeah, Haughty could work as well. 😛
True. This is mostly wishful thinking, since I've got 5 years until my match.
historically, economic hardships have increased number of applicants to professional programs... but not necessarily change the number of accepted applicants per program...
What might change it is a) increase in schools both phd and psyd b) decrease in site funding...
the former I havent the slightest on how to fix or if it even is something to be fixed... the latter will fix it itself if/when the economy changes
I also foresee more international sites as possibilities in the future, would be an ideal, but if relationships were formed with institutions overseas (OR even in our own continent) more training opportunities could open up.
Although I agree that the people that were not matched the previous year would reapply, are there numbers on how many drop out? I am not saying its high, I would just be curious.
Also, because of all the changes, wouldnt you expect LESS people to apply (say in their 4/5 year) early but rather delay a year and apply the following year, effectively balancing out the numbers? It would keep them high but I do not believe it would significantly change them.
Alaska... lol go figure... many of the practicing clinicians are masters level... granted they have a really good couple of masters in clinical programs up there but still... def wont be going home to work when I am done 🙂
I think it'd would "look" less problematic, but since the total N doesn't decrease, it simply shifts the "problem" to later years....similar to what a Ponzi Scheme does for its investors.
nice with the Ponzi, but I am not convinced that these two are as synonymous as you might think... I guess its a "only time will tell" matter. The reason I am not convinced, is that, although I see the logic behind why it would just delay the problem... I feel as though it would just be a cycle, not a compounding issue...
So for numbers sake (not saying these are accurate reflections mind you) lets say 2000 people apply:
year 1: 1600 get matched, 400 do not (this is the basis year)
year 2: A new pool of 2000 people, but this time 25% (400) decide to defer for a year, so you have 400 (previous) + 1600 new
year 3: 400 old + 1600 new,
if you take the APPIC stats for what they are, the increases in student applicants per year wasnt increasing much, and I have not seen an accurate number as to how many more graduate students there are per year.
So maybe applicants go from 2000 to 2200, then you subtract new sites and an increase in deferring students, you will still get roughly the same number of applicants each year.
Again, I know I am simplifying, but nothing other than our conjecture has evidenced that this cycle would change and that things would get much worse than they already are (and yes they are bad, but worse I do not see happening)
whats the difference between getting an APA internship and an APPIC approved internship in terms of future employment and licensure capabilities? if you dont have an APA internship, your employment opportunities are much more limited as well as your licensure opportunities. if you get an APPIC approved site, does that change??
APA internships are required for licensure in Oklahoma and Mississippi and to work as a clinician in VA hospitals (not for research positions). All other states accept APPIC or have a way to establish "equivalency" to APA (and the program you choose must meet these; all APPIC programs meet the equivalency standards) Many post-docs prefer and some require APA. Beyond that, employers are looking at your experience and are often confused themselves about the difference between APA and APPIC status.
APA is the most conservative choice but is not realistically available to all, especially if you are geographically restricted. Many non-APA sites simply cannot afford the associated costs.
APA is the most conservative choice but is not realistically available to all, especially if you are geographically restricted. Many non-APA sites simply cannot afford the associated costs.
APA v. APPIC can impact your career path, so it is important to have an idea of what kind of work you want to do, and where you would like to do it. As docma mentioned, there are some state restrictions and additional hoops you'd need to jump through if you do not come from an APA-acred internship site, though most people don't have a problem with it. The VA is one of the largest employers of psychologists, so it can be a factor in people's decisions.
For what it's worth, I'm currently applying to post-doc fellowships, and the vast majority of formalized post-docs I've seen require APA-acred programs and internship sites. There are some informal post-docs I've seen posted on listservs that only require APA-acred programs, though I'd be concerned about being competitive against other applicants. Many people have taken unpaid post-doc positions to earn their hours, which made me realize it is more competitive out there than many people realize. I'd be a lot more concerned if you want to work in CA, as most of the requests seem to come from there.
For what it's worth, I'm currently applying to post-doc fellowships, and the vast majority of formalized post-docs I've seen require APA-acred programs and internship sites. There are some informal post-docs I've seen posted on listservs that only require APA-acred programs, though I'd be concerned about being competitive against other applicants. Many people have taken unpaid post-doc positions to earn their hours, which made me realize it is more competitive out there than many people realize. I'd be a lot more concerned if you want to work in CA, as most of the requests seem to come from there.
Last edited:
Does anyone know what percentage of applicants overall typically match to APA accredited internship sites specifically?
I'll put aside the comment about my haughtiness. My perception is that some people are determined to perceive disagreement as hostility, and I can't do much about that.
Really? Schools have a maximum number of students? As allowed by the APA you say? I was unaware of this; please post a web link or something, I'd be interested to read the APA policy on it. If it is in fact the case, then the number must be huge given the incoming class size of existing, accredited programs--somewhere well over 100.
Regardless, I don't believe you've actually addressed my central point about the imbalance not getting better, especially as it pertains to increasing internship slots. My logic is pretty straightforward:
Bad sites currently maintain high enrollment with, say, 60% match rates.
This means the market for doctoral training sites tolerates this.
Prof. schools are primarily business-model-based and aim to maximize revenue.
In the face of increased internship slots, bad sites can enroll more students and maintain the 60% match rate that's tolerated by the market for doctoral programs. Hence they earn more money.
If there's a flaw in my logic I'd be interested to have it delineated.
Most schools do have a maximum number of students and IIRC any real change to either curriculum or enrollment has to go through the APA first. IMO, my guesses are as good as yours.
Really? Schools have a maximum number of students? As allowed by the APA you say? I was unaware of this; please post a web link or something, I'd be interested to read the APA policy on it. If it is in fact the case, then the number must be huge given the incoming class size of existing, accredited programs--somewhere well over 100.
Regardless, I don't believe you've actually addressed my central point about the imbalance not getting better, especially as it pertains to increasing internship slots. My logic is pretty straightforward:
Bad sites currently maintain high enrollment with, say, 60% match rates.
This means the market for doctoral training sites tolerates this.
Prof. schools are primarily business-model-based and aim to maximize revenue.
In the face of increased internship slots, bad sites can enroll more students and maintain the 60% match rate that's tolerated by the market for doctoral programs. Hence they earn more money.
If there's a flaw in my logic I'd be interested to have it delineated.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I'd be curious to see of the unmatched people, who matches during the clearing house (CH), and who is left unmatched. I know a couple of people who did not match, but still secured APA-acred sites through the CH.
Are you trying to decide about taking a non-apa site (though one that is APPIC)?
I myself am in that situation and am really struggling. I applied to many sites, and didnt get interviews then decided to look into some sites with later deadline and applied to APPIC (non-apa) approved sites. many of the sites were actually right on par with what i want to do, they're just missing that accreditation. i have an interview at an APPIC (not APA) approved site and have been looking at licensing information but am just so nervous about ranking it, matching, and ultimately really hurting myself down the road with how i may be limited...
Not sure what you mean by the statement that increases are not substantial per year. Changes are happening insidiously, but its crucial to look at more than year by year changes. Looking at Match day numbers, there is a 23% increase in total number of participating applicants, whereas there is only about a 16% increase in number of positions offered. That means the number has jumped nearly a quarter in a decade and the number of positions has not kept pace.
Back in the old days (i.e. 1999) the difference between the number of applicants and the number of positions was 292, which represented 9% of the total applicants participating. For 2009, that difference was 547, and represented over 15%.
Im not quite sure I understand your hypothetical system:
You say that year one will have 2000 people. Only 1600 get matched.
Next year you will have 2000 people again, and you believe that if 400 people defer plans (hypothetically of course) then this would make room for the 400 previously unmatched folks. Fine. But in your model then, if trends were consistent then only 1600 would match again. Now that leaves 400 unmatched plus the 400 who deferred previously, wouldnt it? So the next year (year 3), would not be 400 old, but 800 old (the 400 who deferred + the 400 who still did not match). So going by linear trends in this model, year three would have 2000 people, 400 of which would defer, leaving 1600 people + the 800 old = 2400 applicants. Keep in mind this is going by your model which assumes that people will voluntarily defer. Never mind the pragmatics of expecting people to defer and lose a year of significant income generation.
Whatever the case even if the number of sites increases, it is not enough to keep pace with the increase of applicants (as trends show). What were seeing is a bottleneck in our internship process. The changes are happening slowly, but reliably.
How many will be enough? It seems that the market is currently flooded, and hospitals/companies/etc are already low-balling professionals. While not everyone is competing for the same positions, putting enough people out there makes it at least appear that there are plenty of people willing to work for less....regardless if they can provide the same level of service.
I'm pointing out that it is not enough to keep pace with the increase in applicants. Since the doctorate is contingent upon completion of the internship I believe every student who successfully completes all educational requirements should be granted access to an internship. If not, internship sites should be required to list reasons for not matching. If the internship is billed as an educational requirement, then students should receive feedback on why they have did not receive access. As it stands now, internship sites are not accountable.
I have said in prior posts that if you fail to pass your thesis or dissertation your faculty members will provide a reason for failure and ways to remedy the failure. The internship is the only milestone where you can be dismissed with abject impunity. Most sites are not callous, but frankly some are, and with a shortage that is unacceptable.
To expect a requirement and yet not even to be able to guarantee access to that requirement appears fraudulent. If a class was a curriculum requirement, the students would expect access to that important class or demand increased enrollment capacity.
At the same time the field's leadership needs to exert controls on enrollment for psychology. Medicine exerts controls. APA has failed to deliver a policy with teeth. Finger wagging will not cut it.
Last edited:
This is a good point. Many academic programs require students' internship sites to be APA accredited (mine does). But, requiring an APA-accredited internship without being able to ensure the student can get one is legally problematic. The APA is doing an abysmal job of handling this.
Incidentally, Medicine faced a similar circumstance at the beginning of the 1900s; medical schools were popping up all over that were based on business models and focused on producing large numbers of largely poorly-trained and underqualified physicians. They resolved the dilemma by hammering down the problematic schools.
+ 1
This was discussed on the APA listserv last year some time but I wished the responses were in this vein rather than the outrage around limiting internships to students of APA accredited programs.
Im not quite sure how APA has been able to get away with this for so long given the amount of interns that go unmatched year after year with the trend expected to increase over the next year or so. Have they been sued because of this?
I disagree with people all the time without my overall perception of them changing. 👍 You've made points I agree with and points I disagree with, but your tone can be off-putting.
Schools not only have a policy regarding maximum class size, maximum students in X program and maximum students overall. Major changes to these numbers would, I hope, make the APA or regional accreditation agency question the move. They are bound to a basic format at least, and changes to THAT could put a school on APA probation and be forced to clean up their act.
If you think things just trend upward forever, I advise not investing in the stock market. More forces than simply enrollment and annual APA match rates influence the number of people competing for a finite number of positions. While the rollover effect is a big deal, it's not something that I feel would happen forever in a vacuum. Each round, people assess and re-assess their chances of placing, and make decisions based on that.
I am also leery of saying there will be an extreme glut of providers, based on what happened with the AMA. Also, the APA is not stupid. I'm sure they are looking at the big picture over the next 10-15 years.
Does America realistically NEED more psychologists than we have now? Absolutely. Many areas are suffering from critical shortages of providers (of any type). But the market is defined as those willing to PAY to get better, who realize that they need help.
I would LOVE that data! I feel like I'm putting a square peg in an octagonal hole. Sure it fits, but there's so much missing....
No, I'm not there yet. I've applied to quite a few schools, and am looking at their internship stats. some schools don't have 100% apa rate, and some have higher APPIC rates than APA, so I was trying to find out the difference in terms of what that would mean for me if I got an APPIC but not APA. i don't want to set myself up for only being able to have an APPIC site and then get screwed later when it comes to licensing.
so another question, how screwed are you if you dont get an APA OR an APPIC site? in terms of jobs and licensing?
Grif, this is overly optimistic. They are not stupid, but they are not effective either. I have not been impressed with APA's stewardship of our field over the past 15 years. Is there any indication they are improving their long-range goals? Look at the latest issue of the Monitor and their "successes" which they list for the year 2009. Most of the "successes" are we began lobbying for this project, made friends with this group, formed a group to study this blah blah. Not a single tangible outcome this year. Thinking about a project and/or even just starting a study group is not success. Finishing a project is a success. APA fails miserably in this. Hence the internship fiasco. 10 years into it and APA has produced study groups which tell internship sites to pretty-please-with-a-cherry-on-top stop taking large classes. Plus cuts have abounded to reimbursement of psychologists, which over the years have been disproportionately more so than in other healthcare fields.
Plus APA continues to publicize computerized testing and even therapy!😱
You don't see the AMA screwing over their constituents that way. Or if they do it is certainly not as well-publicized.
Check out Carol Goodheart's presidential message this month in the Monitor. Of all the critical issues on the table this month- healthcare, the internship fiasco, medicare cuts, psychology in the new decade- do you know what her message was about? Email courtesy. How trifling!
We should demand better of APA. We should not have unwavering confidence in them given their recent and past record.
Seconded.
I'm active in APA/APAGS and making efforts. But, it sometimes feels like betting on a horse with a bad leg. And the horse hasn't eaten in three days. And its dead.
I do agree with most of this, I think that all of this is fair. The APA is slow to act on many fronts, and I do not agree with some of their DSM-V groups and some possible changes that are undergoing development right now. I've worked with trans people a lot and most of them are very dissatisfied with having very transphobic people deciding how it "should be" dx for the next 20 years. That coupled with the knowledge that a not-small number of trans people are later diagnosed as intersex makes me eye this wearily. I'm anxious to see what happens there. People already defer to WPATH instead of the DSM for this and I've seen dx for adjustment disorders in it's place, so who knows what will happen there. Sorry, tangent.
On the other hand, I am interested in how distance therapy (ie video conferencing) could help the treatment of people who are extremely phobic. If you set up a secure area (ie not skype) for patients to log in and to communicate with them, video could be workable. Notice I said "could" ! I don't want to get thirty flaming emails about this. For the socially anxious or agoraphobic (etc), the future looks to have more treatment options no matter what.
Not to mention the pain inflicted on the square peg to get pushed through the octagonal hole.
I'm not sure if it is dead, but it is closer to the dog food factory than the winner's circle.
In regard to manko7's comments about getting feedback....the more I think about it, the more I am starting to lean towards his point of view. I talked with some friends a couple weeks ago about their experience with the internship process, and they all talked about the high level of stress surrounding the experience. I still remember the feeling when I got my e-mail about not matching on my first go-around, and I could have benefited from feedback. Thankfully my issue (only applying to top sites + questionable "fit" at some) was easily correctable, though many people vetted their sites much more thoroughly.
There are definitely a portion of applicants who would benefit from feedback, though I think many applicants were in trouble before they even applied. Unfortunately more and more 'non-acred' sites seem to be popping up, which isn't a fair solution to applicants, and it only further perpetuates the supply-side imbalance. I can't even imagine the competition in places like NYC and SoCal, as both markets are flooded with early career psychologists. I'm just hoping I have worked hard enough and have made the right connections to differentiate myself from the 1,000s of other early career psychologists out there. I'm pretty sure 60+ hr weeks will be required to get ahead in the market.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Here is 2007 analysis of the internship imbalance: http://www.apa.org/education/grad/report-to-bea.pdf Most of the data is re-tread from what we have talked about, though it is an interesting read none the less.
Here is the information from the 2008 meeting about the internship imbalance: http://www.apa.org/education/grad/match-imbalance-mtg.pdf
Here is the information from the 2008 meeting about the internship imbalance: http://www.apa.org/education/grad/match-imbalance-mtg.pdf
*bump*
Hello T4,
This is very kind of you to provide these links. When I catch my plane next week I will try to take a look at these myself. I am sure this report will provide some helpful insight into APA's perspective on the problem.
Any light provided is helpful. I have heard quite a few outlandish propositions in our program. For example, in my program, the students who matched falsely believe that they matched because they were the site's #1 choice above all others. While this may have been the case, they may have only matched because the other more preferred students of the site ranked other sites higher. Likewise, someone may also have not matched because he/she had just missed entry into a slot by one ranking.
I matched this time, but I did not match during my first attempt and this has given me a more humble outlook on my own accomplishments. I'll never know why I did not match the last time (though I can speculate). It is equally true that I will probably not know FOR SURE of the reasons behind why I matched this time (though I can again speculate). One of the students in our program who matched on the first time was pontificating on why she matched and why others did not. Her supposition? She wore a distinctive pink shirt that set her apart from the others. She recommended others follow suit.
But at least having these links will provide me with some understanding of APA's take on this. Perhaps we can learn what some of these "action committees" and "task forces" have done over the year besides issuing "resolutions" with no teeth. Cheers!
manko7
- Status
