Internship Supply / Demand Imbalance

[Therapist4Chnge]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I figure some questions may help this discussion get back on track.....

1. How reasonable is the suggestion of limiting internship spots to the # that is placed in previous years?
2. How likely is the above proposal (or something similar)?
3. Has the APA done enough in regard to addressing this issue? If not, how can they better meet this challenge?

 

[cleverhans]

The APA should take a more active role in policing APA accreditation among schools that do not match students consistently (with CPA or APA internships). I like the idea of large professional schools being forced to create local clinics which provide their students with training opportunities. A "wall of shame" of non-compliant doctorate programs should be made public. After all, APA has considerable power - APA accredidation is an imprimatur. APA can and should use their power to make the "weak links"
more accountable.

There should also be subsidies and more rewards for clinics to be APA accredited. Changing some criteria for APA internship inclusion is a possibility, looking at what criteria are most important and perhaps dropping criteria which are least important or lowest priority in training students. IMO many APA sites aren't really what they're cracked up to be - we all know that. Making the accreditation process faster and more accessible would help
create more APA-brand name internships.

I do agree that professional schools do need to take responsibility by creating training opportunities at the internship level if they are going to continue take large number of students. As has already been said, most medical schools contribute to their field by also offering internship and resident training opportunities on-site. Professional schools should do the same. Where does all the money go anyway?

My main objection here is how the argument results in a sideswipe against students at professional schools - the students out of these schools get good clinical training and are as prepared as students elsewhere for clinical internships. The administrators at prof schools need to be more accountable to their students and not abandoning them after they've paid 100k, and need to contribute to the field as whole.

However, that only addresses the supply side of the problem. But how can the APA create more internships in hospitals, community clinics, increase the demand? Lobbying and advertising on behalf of psychologists is one possibility. Aside from that, I'd be interested to hear others ideas about how to increase the demand for psychologists in general, which would also increase the number of available internships.

 

[deleted75966]

1. How reasonable is the suggestion of limiting internship spots to the # that is placed in previous years?
2. How likely is the above proposal (or something similar)?
3. Has the APA done enough in regard to addressing this issue? If not, how can they better meet this challenge?

I think limiting internship slots is reasonable. I think APA accredidation percentages should also be looked at. E.g., programs should be expected to place a minimum percentage of their students in APA accredited programs.

I think the APA screwed the pooch by accrediting the Argosy and Alliant contingent. Elliminate those two organizations and the majority of our problems in this regard go away.

 

[cleverhans]

I think the APA screwed the pooch by accrediting the Argosy and Alliant contingent. Elliminate those two organizations and the majority of our problems in this regard go away.

I don't think there's any need to outright ELIMINATE, as you say, any school. However, pressure to reform these schools is indeed necessary: higher quality controls, limitations on enrollment numbers, etc, but the idea of outright and suddenly closing any school is acinine and unrealistic. APA needs to enforce regulations on these schools, and closing is a final step. Just as in foreign policy, imposing sanctions and working things out diplomatically rationally precedes a drastic action like a war, other options need to be tried aggressively with prof schools first.

Also, Alliant has been accredited for some 30 years by APA as the california school of prof psychology and has created good psychologists.

 

[JockNerd]

I don't think there's any need to outright ELIMINATE, as you say, any school. However, pressure to reform these schools is indeed necessary: higher quality controls, limitations on enrollment numbers, etc, but the idea of outright and suddenly closing any school is acinine and unrealistic. APA needs to enforce regulations on these schools, and closing is a final step. Just as in foreign policy, imposing sanctions and working things out diplomatically rationally precedes a drastic action like a war, other options need to be tried aggressively with prof schools first.

Tell me again why you so vehemently disagreed with me before, because you're now advocating the exact position I took earlier in this thread; check out programs, include match in accreditation, and punish schools that perform low.

 

[cleverhans]

Tell me again why you so vehemently disagreed with me before, because you're now advocating the exact position I took earlier in this thread; check out programs, include match in accreditation, and punish schools that perform low.

because there are good aspects as well to professional schools, like providing good clinical training. One shouldn't in a broad swipe, as how I took your posts, discredit prof schools completely.

You were right about some specifics regarding prof schools and what others have talked ad nauseam about in this forum (e.g., changes that need to happen regarding large enrollments, etc.) But it's unfair to discredit prof schools completely, as if they produce inferior clinicians, which they don't.

 

[JockNerd]

because there are good aspects as well to professional schools, like providing good clinical training. One shouldn't in a broad swipe, as how I took your posts, discredit prof schools completely.

I think you should reread my posts. e.g. "I by and large mean professional schools." I think I hedged every mention. I don't have anything intrinsically against professional schools; if a university-based program was admitting that many students, funding none, and then not matching them, I'd have a problem too. But, the reality is that the problem is virtually endemic to one model of training. I've mentioned before that I simply don't see the value in pretending like that's not true.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'd like to keep the discussion on how to address the S/D Imbalance, and not another Trad. v. Prof School debate.

 

[deleted75966]

I'd like to keep the discussion on how to address the S/D Imbalance, and not another Trad. v. Prof School debate

Isn't that really the same thing. . . I mean if we're talking about etiology.



Well, I think capping enrollments may be a solution, maybe changing the way APA defines faculty. Some of these schools have a lot of adjunct faculty that contribute to their meeting the limited student to teacher ratio standards that are in place.

Maybe, since some students obviously don't care about money, we could have more unpaid slots at accredited sites. . .kind of a tiered internship system.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Maybe, since some students obviously don't care about money, we could have more unpaid slots at accredited sites. . .kind of a tiered internship system.

That would just break the system further. It really bothers me that the APA/APPIC let it get this bad....it wasn't like it snuck up on them. I guess they were too busy raking in money on accrediting programs/sites.

 

[BellaPsyD]

Maybe, since some students obviously don't care about money, we could have more unpaid slots at accredited sites. . .kind of a tiered internship system.

really?! They can give their money to me!

 

[psychwhy]

I'd like to keep the discussion on how to address the S/D Imbalance, and not another Trad. v. Prof School debate.

The majority of posters cannot help but resort to again cannibalizing their own profession.

As cleverhans put it, we will never advance as a profession if we bog ourselves down in these fratricidal rants.

Medicine, nursing, counseling, etc., etc., are not monolithic entities. They are made up of diverse populations who do not agree about every professional issue -- just like psychology.

However, they do seem capable of putting their differences aside long enough to work to improve the status of their professions by presenting a unified front.

 

[deleted75966]

That would just break the system further. It really bothers me that the APA/APPIC let it get this bad....it wasn't like it snuck up on them. I guess they were too busy raking in money on accrediting programs/sites

.

Would it? My thought was to guarantee quality training. Professional schools want to pump out lots of students. It's more money and influence for them. Students want PsyDs. The demand is there. However, the internships don't support this demand. The field doesn't really support this demand. Salaries continue to go down. What we need is to slice these programs and regulate our numbers like AMA does theirs. That's the solution that makes the most sense for the field, its current professionals, and its future professionals. But, that seems unlikely. Given that, why not try to help out with quality a bit? Let them volunteer at APA accredited sites. Maybe the professional schools should bear some financial responsibility, meaning they should support what they put out there. Perhaps, professional schools can pay a living stipend and stop charging tuition for internships (should be illegal anyways) in exchange for these APA accredited sites providing the last leg of training for their students.

I don't really see the need to expand the number of internship slots. It's backwards. The question is, do we need more professionals than we are currently putting out every year? If the answer is no, then I don't think making it easier for professional schools to expand by providing more internships or changing the practice rules is a good idea. If the answer is yes, then we need to increase the # of internship slots. I think there are too many hands in the mental health pot. That's why internship salaries are low and why salaries are decreasing and stagnant overall. Given that, I think as you will see on APPIC epidemiological interviews regarding this problem, that professional schools are pretty much THE problem here, not the internship system.

 

[deleted75966]

The majority of posters cannot help but resort to again cannibalizing their own profession.

The majority? I don't think so.

As cleverhans put it, we will never advance as a profession if we bog ourselves down in these fratricidal rants.

I.e., I'm okay, you're okay. Everyone sing cumbaya. Hard decisions need to be made. I agree, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be bogged down. But, I don't know that we're going to advance as a profession. We may be dissolve. We may turn into something less than we are now. The biggest contributors to that are professional schools and weak lobbying with respect to dealing with midlevels. E.g., dealing with the tired argument about no data existing showing superiority of one training model over another that's been used as a blitz in psychology and medicine over the last decade or so.

Medicine, nursing, counseling, etc., etc., are not monolithic entities. They are made up of diverse populations who do not agree about every professional issue -- just like psychology.

However, they do seem capable of putting their differences aside long enough to work to improve the status of their professions by presenting a unified front.

Do they? Hmm.

 

[psychwhy]

Jon,

Anyone who has read more than two of your posts gets your message loud and clear -- your program is the only "real" program, anything that deviates from that training model is killing psychology. We get it.

But not all of us BUY it -- and I understand you will never move past that.

What is sadder is that you are not an anomaly.
There are more than a few who follow the same one-note agenda.

How's this for irony?
The mess we're in -- including the ascendency of professional schools -- was perpetrated by your own "old school" practitioners.
And THAT is a major reason why the profession cannot get its act together.

Psychology, as a profession, contributes the lowest rate of any profession for its advocacy groups. We whine, we complain, we lament the lack of prestige/recognition/compensation but we don't actually DO anything about it.

And please ... just a few decades ago, nurses were handmaidens to doctors. In short order they moved into a variety of midlevel practice positions -- midwives, nurse anesthetists -- supplanting physicians. Then came NPs -- and now Doctors of Nursing Practice. This doesn't qualify as spectacularly successful professional advancement?

Podiatrists and optometrists got prescription privileges. Where are ours (outside of Guam, NM and LA)?


Time to -- long OVERDUE time -- to act or get out of the way.

 

[deleted75966]

And please ... just a few decades ago, nurses were handmaidens to doctors. In short order they moved into a variety of midlevel practice positions -- midwives, nurse anesthetists -- supplanting physicians. Then came NPs -- and now Doctors of Nursing Practice. This doesn't qualify as spectacularly successful professional advancement?

No doubt. Some of this midlevel advancement has more to do with big business interests than it does with anything else.

Anyone who has read more than two of your posts gets your message loud and clear -- your program is the only "real" program, anything that deviates from that training model is killing psychology. We get it.

I've never said that, never implied it, never thought it, etc. . . You don't seem to actually argue against any point I ever make. Instead you create strawmen that you then dismiss as elitist and narrowminded, shaking your head in pious sadness. Poor form, poor form.

 

[JockNerd]

Anyone who has read more than two of your posts gets your message loud and clear -- your program is the only "real" program, anything that deviates from that training model is killing psychology. We get it.

I think this in an inaccurate characterization of JS's opinion, just like mine was mischaracterized by cleverhans. Nothing against models, everything against schools producing 100 people a year. This is terrible for the profession, and contributes directly to the internship match problem. Like I said earlier in the thread, you can see that supply and demand matter a lot by looking at the neuro, forensic, and military placements where demand exceeds supply.

Podiatrists and optometrists got prescription privileges. Where are ours (outside of Guam, NM and LA)?

I'm convinced that prescriptions would create WAY more problems than it would solve. I have no interest in seeing psychology become the slave to Big Pharma that psychiatry quickly became.

As for doing things, I'm becoming more and more involved with apa every week, myself.🙂

 

[JockNerd]

quick and dirty analysis supporting my position:
I went through the appic data from 2006, and used the average match rate over 2000-2006 x number of 2006 applicants to get a quick estimate of the # not matched in 2006. It came out to:
Adler-7
Alliant-Fresco-12
Allient Fresco Forensic - 10
Argosy - Dallas -4
Argosy - Honolulu -6
Argosy Phoenix -8
Argosy Richmond -10
Argosy Seattle 7
Argosy Twin Cities -20
Capella - 14
Fielding -9
Forest -18
Fuller-10

That's 135 people. 731 people did not match in 2006. So, these 13 schools contributed to approximately 18% of the nonmatches. Hm.

 

[deleted75966]

Throw in:

8 chicago school of prof psych
14 CSPP California school 1
10 CSPP 2
6 CSPP 3
19 ISPP Illinois school

That's 57 additional. . . and you've covered about 25% of the non-matches. I wonder how many of those school's students end up at APA accredited sites.

Yep, the internship problem is created by the professional schools flooding the market with both inferior product and big numbers. Bad combination.

 

[deleted75966]

nt

 

[psychwhy]

Jon Snow: I've never said that, never implied it, never thought it, etc. . . You don't seem to actually argue against any point I ever make. Instead you create strawmen that you then dismiss as elitist and narrowminded, shaking your head in pious sadness. Poor form, poor form.

Oh really? Read your own post on this very thread

Jon Snow: . . . the internship problem is created by the professional schools flooding the market with both inferior product and big numbers (emphasis added)

You present some data about the Match which could be a jumping off point for a reasonable analysis of supply/demand problem.

But you just can't help yourself and can't keep yourself from also passing judgment on quality as well. Not just poor form, but stunning in a lack of self-awareness!

And then, about the effective advocacy securing rapid advancement of the nursing profession ...

Jon Snow: Some of this midlevel advancement has more to do with big business interests than it does with anything else.

You are just incapable to concede that the "old school" mentality of psychology has done ANY damage to the profession ... or that any OTHER profession might be more effective in advocating/advancing themselves.

I took a break from this forum to actually tend to my professional practice and hoping there would be some moderation of the "old school or no school" mentality.

Alas, it seems more than clear there will be no moving this board's prevailing philosophy out of the mudpit of the blame game.

(off to join with professionals actually interested in preserving, protecting, and advancing the profession of psychology)

 

[deleted75966]

Oh really? Read your own post on this very thread

I've read my posts; I still don't see your point. I never stated nor implied that my program is the only way. You have no idea what my program or training background is in any type of detail. I would never expect what I did to be the bar for entry. It would be ridiculous and if actually implemented would destroy the field as there wouldn't be enough psychologists.

You continue to display almost no ability to argue a point without distorting the situation to suit your assertions.

But you just can't help yourself and can't keep yourself from also passing judgment on quality as well. Not just poor form, but stunning in a lack of self-awareness!

What makes you think I'm not aware? And, it is an inferior product. . . So what.

You are just incapable to concede that the "old school" mentality of psychology has done ANY damage to the profession ... or that any OTHER profession might be more effective in advocating/advancing themselves.

What part of "some" do you not comprehend?

I agree, the "old school" mentality has done damage to the profession. It did so by its inclusiveness and passivity. Now, we have multiple cancers attacking the body. There's your concession. Further, I do think, with the help of big business and sheer numbers, disciplines like social work have advocated very well for themselves. . . better than psychology has. Social workers do more with shoestring education than any other discipline I can think of. There. . .another concession. I also earlier said the issue is an empirical one, namely do we, as a field need the numbers of psychologists being foisted on the marked by these large professional schools? You just don't like my conclusions.

For you, standards = "old school." Limits = "old school." Thinking about supply and demand issues = "old school." Questioning quality of say online education = "old school."

You have a very convenient argument style. You can't lose. Because, you define the argument of your opponents and plow on ahead, almost arguing with yourself, rather than deal directly with anything actually stated.

I took a break from this forum to actually tend to my professional practice and hoping there would be some moderation of the "old school or no school" mentality.

Alas, it seems more than clear there will be no moving this board's prevailing philosophy out of the mudpit of the blame game.

(off to join with professionals actually interested in preserving, protecting, and advancing the profession of psychology)

You're lumping in an awful lot of people on this board with my particular viewpoint, that you've never shown any evidence of actually understanding as you repeatedly mistate/misconstrue almost everything I say. And there it is, the sanctimonious, "My group is better than your group." Pot meet kettle. . . today we're cooking hypocrisy. Tell me, how are you and your merry band of professionals going to preserve, protect, and advance psychology? Licensure before internship? License masters level psychologists? Let people practice with a B.S. Force internships to pay interns like MDs? Let any type of experience that an applicant claims count for supervised therapy/assessment experience? Accredit all forms of therapy/therapists via APA? What's the plan, sport?

 

[Cosmo75]

I'm a professional school student and agree with some of Jon's points. The class sizes are too big. I've watched a 100% increase in class size over the past 4 years at my school. My cohort 5 years ago was almost a 100% increase from the previous year's. When we all got there we were kind of shocked at how many of us there were. I think they should cap their incoming class sizes until the internship supply problem is resolved, or at least improved.

Yes the match rates at my school are somewhat lower than PhD programs (85%), but that's to be expected when a PhD program is trying to match 6 and a prof school is trying to match 60. Yes, students at my school take non-APA approved internships more than PhD students do. For most this will have very little impact on what they want to do when they're done, which isn't typically working at an academic institution or hospital. For those who have those aspirations, they do what they need to do and most match to APA sites. As for APPIC sites being of lesser quality that may be true in some cases, but up until very recently the college counseling center at Stanford University was non-APA.

So while I agree that the class sizes are too big for multiple reasons, for the purpose of this thread I just have a few questions. If many of these professional school students aren't worthy of the doctoral degree (which seems to be implied, hasn't really been said) then why are they matching at these sites? Why are they beating out the "better" PhD students? Why would they even be ranked if the quality of their education and training was so below par?

I agree the imbalance needs to be addressed. However, sometimes the tone of the discussion seems to be more about sour grapes than anything. It takes on a "I'm a PhD student and I can't match because there are too many PsyD's taking up all the spots." Then we get into the PhD-PsyD debate for the millionth time about who's better (though I don't really see PsyD's claiming to be better, just being worthy of some respect). When in actuality there is a flooding of the internship market of qualified individuals from both training models. That's the true problem, not who is "better" and "should" get the slots.

Let the beatings begin 🙂

 

[deleted75966]

I agree the imbalance needs to be addressed. However, sometimes the tone of the discussion seems to be more about sour grapes than anything. It takes on a "I'm a PhD student and I can't match because there are too many PsyD's taking up all the spots." Then we get into the PhD-PsyD debate for the millionth time about who's better (though I don't really see PsyD's claiming to be better, just being worthy of some respect).

Let the beatings begin

No beatings from here, Cosmo. I think if a professional school student beats out a non-professional school student at a slot, more power to them. That's great. Never been my point. You mentioned your internship location before. It's a good place. You've obviously worked hard to get there.

When in actuality there is a flooding of the internship market of qualified individuals from both training models. That's the true problem, not who is "better" and "should" get the slots.

I kind of agree, but I do believe there is also a quality problem. . . non-accredited sites, too many students of questionable background, etc. . .This discussion isn't about that, though. It's about exactly what you say. What's driving the imbalance? What should we do about it?

I'll re-iterate. This comes down to numbers. Do we or do we not produce enough psychologists? Are the current # of internship slots reasonable? In my opinion, professional schools are straining the system because of their expansion, regardless of quality.




As for your questions, I think it depends on the site. PsyD programs do a nice job training in structure of assessment/therapy because of the early emphasis on practical skills. This means, potentially, a perception of less work at the outset on the part of the internship program. Also, take a program like yours. It's very possible for someone there to have completed some top notch training at practicum sites in the general proximity. It's a big city; lots of opportunity. Combine that with some intelligence and you can have a very proficient and competitive candidate. In other words, the top students at these programs are often very good.

 

[Cosmo75]

Did we just agree? 😀

I think that's what frustrates me the most in terms of the explosion of enrollment at prof. schools. There are many high caliber students in these programs. By inflating the class sizes you're going to get a percentage that aren't. And when you're dealing with class sizes of 100+, that's a big number compared with having 1 student out of 5 at a PhD program that isn't really qualified. And don't even get me started on the advertising. It makes me cringe.

 

[edieb]

I just saw on a listserv two different opinions: one that te imbalance was going DOWN this year, the other said it was going to increase. Does anybody have any info?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm not sure how it can go down, since more people were left unmatched than the year before. Most of those people are going to try again, so unless there are a significant change in the 1st time applicants, I'd think it'd be the same or higher. The average number of applications per applicant is probably down because of the new fee structure, though probably not the total number of applicants.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

The economic crisis has led to some internship sites dropping out due to lack of fundingfor these positions. This likley means that the imbalance will be worse this year. One site in my geographic is unable to fund interns this year. They typically take 3 or 3 annually.😡

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The economic crisis has led to some internship sites dropping out due to lack of fundingfor these positions. This likley means that the imbalance will be worse this year. One site in my geographic is unable to fund interns this year.

I wonder what number will really catch the ire of the profession....1,000.....2,000? I forget the exact numbers from the match last year, but I think they were around ~800 after Match Day. I think what is most concerns is that the above figure includes non-APA and non-acred. placements! IIRC, the number of available APA placements after match day were <100, meaning the vast majority of Clearinghouse people were fighting for non-APA placements. Unfortunately the system puts people who don't match in a really tough position, they either fight for one of the few APA spots left, take a non-APA site, or wait to re-apply. The pressure to get a site is huge, and it can really force a person to make a short-term decision that has long-term consequences.

The first time I did the match I only applied to highly competitive sites, and while I received more interviews than not, I didn't match. The first few hours of Clearinghouse felt like my graduate career was circling the drain, and the only way to salvage it was by getting a spot. I was fortunate enough to receive a number of offers from APA-acred sites, but none fit my career path....so in the end I declined them. I was lucky to have a back-up plan, but many others didn't have the luxury and probably were forced to make a tough choice that severely impacted their future career. In the moment, you are thinking, "I need to get a site". I remember when I received my first offer, they literally asked me on the spot if I wanted it, and it took some negotiating to even get some time to think about it (~1hr). I felt an incredible amount of pressure to take it, even though I knew it wasn't a good match for me, the population wasn't what I wanted, the location wasn'nt good, etc. Imagine having to decide on the spot if you are willing to change everything you worked for, just so you can have a job? It all worked out in the end for me, but it was one of the most unpleasant things I have experienced during my graduate training.

 

[FadedC]

How bad do you think it is if you end up with a non APA internship? I have a ways to go before I have to worry about matching, but I had been talking to some of my professors about it and they didn't think that getting a non APA internship was that big a deal, other then the fact that you'd be unlikely to be paid for your internship (at least in my area).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

How bad do you think it is if you end up with a non APA internship? I have a ways to go before I have to worry about matching, but I had been talking to some of my professors about it and they didn't think that getting a non APA internship was that big a deal, other then the fact that you'd be unlikely to be paid for your internship (at least in my area).

First off, I think it is important to recognize that non-APA-accredited can still provide excellent training and mentorship, comparable to an APA-
accredited site. Many APPIC-accredited sites choose not to go for APA-accredidation for a number of reasons, though usually finance obligations are often towards the top. I've been told that the costs associated with gaining accredidation can often top $100k (if additional staff is needed). That kind of money can be very hard to justify at a community mental health center, so they often choose to spend the money on direct services.
As for the impact of a non-APA-accredited internship:

Short-Term

• Limited opportunities for post-doctoral placements. You'd most likely not be competitive for any formalized placements, which include the ones listed through APPIC/APPCN and most hospitals and medical centers.
• Possible training differences. There are many excellent non-APA sites, though not all are great.
• Harder time finding employment after internship. You'd have to compete agains other coming from APA-acredidited placements.

Long-Term

• Ineligible to apply for all VA positions.
  
• Ineligible to apply for licensure in a number of states, and you will have to prove "equivilancy" in all of the other states.
  
• Limited in your competitiveness for positions at medical schools, most academic institutitions, and certain federal positions.
  
• Limit your ability to get boarded (ABPP has rejected people for far less)
  

There are other reasons, though those are some of the main points.

RE: Not getting paid.

There are practical hurdles with this choice, particularly if you are in a high-cost area or if you have a family to support. Additionally, there are guild issues of accepting a non-paid position. The main issue is sending a message that our work can be had for free. It encourages predatory behavior in the market, and most likely will supress salaries at other positions. The rub is that people are put in a position of needing to get licensed, so they do what they need to do, and it is hard to fault the individual who is just trying to get by.

 

[manko7]

How bad do you think it is if you end up with a non APA internship? I have a ways to go before I have to worry about matching, but I had been talking to some of my professors about it and they didn't think that getting a non APA internship was that big a deal, other then the fact that you'd be unlikely to be paid for your internship (at least in my area).

It certainly varies according to the goals of one's life. If one wishes to be a researcher alone, then it doesn't matter. Keep in mind though if you wish to use research with patients seen in person at a facility (such as a hospital or VA), then you will have a hard time securing those positions if the hospital or VA requires an accredited internship.

If you wish to go into private practice than it depends on state guidelines for licensing.

Now allow me to provide my own perspective and I truly, honestly don't wish to offend. You will have a tougher time getting a post-doc (if you seek a post-doc). For the rest of your life you will have a non-accredited internship on your Vita. Nothing will change that. No amount of expertise will ever eliminate that reality. With luck, and despite the handicap in opportunities you will probably face, you may prove to be an exceptional world-renowned expert in your field....and your internship would STILL be non-accredited.I

I can't see how APA has allowed APPIC to hijack graduate training. Think of it this way, and I'm not kidding, imagine if your entire graduate training rested on the question of "What are your hobbies?" or "If you were a dog, what kind of dog would you be?" Others will chime in to defend the process and point out that those questions may not matter much or its the "fit" that matters. But you will never know why you didn't match at an accredited site because DCT's can dismiss your concerns with impunity. Some though, are charitable and will tell you why you didn't match.

 

[edieb]

As someone who is in the job market right now, I would say never take an unaccredited internship if you plan to work outside private practice. The number of jobs that require an APA-accrediteded internship is huge. Matter of fact, it seems to be more than 75 percent. Contrary to popular belief, many of these jobs are not at prestigious hospitals. As an aside, I interviewed at a CMH in Missour and, believe it or not, they required an APA internship. Just look at the APA job site and see for yourself


Even more important, the federal government, who is the primary employer of clinical psychologists and also pays the most generous salaries to psychologists, requires an APA-accredited internship. Thus, without this, you would be shut out from most job opportunities.

Additionally,it is almost mandatory to have an accredited internship to conduct forensic work or testify as an expert witness.
As an aside, does anybody else think there will be outrage this year if the match rate goes up even more? If I recally correctly, >30 percent of prospective interns were left unmatched. People just are going to take this b.s. much longer, especially students from professional schools who have to shell out a lot more money during the year they were supposed to be on intership.

 

[psychmama]

As an aside, does anybody else think there will be outrage this year if the match rate goes up even more? If I recally correctly, >30 percent of prospective interns were left unmatched.

Actually, I think last year's match rate was 75% - meaning 25% were unmatched. Not that this isn't bad enough.🙁

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I believe it has been around 75% for the last couple of years....though it'll be interesting to see what the final numbers are this year. My guess is at least 800 don't match on Match Day.

 

[manko7]

Actually, I think last year's match rate was 75% - meaning 25% were unmatched. Not that this isn't bad enough.🙁

"Bad enough" is a charitable description. This is an unmitigated catastrophe. APA needs to look at it this way. Being unmatched is like being unemployed in our profession. You cannot be employed as a doctoral level professional without that internship. In essence, one cannot practice the trade to which years have been spent honing and money invested.

At the worst point of the American Great Depression 1 in 4 Americans were unemployed. That's like our match rate!!!!

The FDR administration set about programs to address this problem. APA has essentially taken the Herbert Hoover route of solving the problem with gratuitous meetings and finger-wagging at programs that over-recruit or let unqualified students in the match. I'd like to see them knock off the power lunches and put out an effective policy with more teeth.

 

[edieb]

"Bad enough" is a charitable description. This is an unmitigated catastrophe. APA needs to look at it this way. Being unmatched is like being unemployed in our profession. You cannot be employed as a doctoral level professional without that internship. In essence, one cannot practice the trade to which years have been spent honing and money invested.

At the worst point of the American Great Depression 1 in 4 Americans was unemployed. That's like our match rate!!!!

The FDR administration set about programs to address this problem. APA has essentially taken the Herbert Hoover route of solving the problem with gratuitous meetings and finger-wagging at programs that over-recruit or let unqualified students in the match. I'd like to see them knock off the power lunches and put out an effective policy with more teeth.

You are SO right on, mako7. The APA and APPIC have done nothing but issued some recommendations such as asking schools to be "accountable" for their match rates. However why would a for-profit institution want to limit the # of students unless there were a real penalty? After all, the more students, the more money they make. From what I know, these schools are ramping up their class sizes even more.

Furthermore, why would APPIC/NMS, who makes money on this entire process, want to really decrease the amount of $$ they make by cutting the # of students in the match? The whole system should be not for profit.

 

[cara susanna]

I wouldn't compare APA to Herbert Hoover--the latter actually had a plan, even if the effects weren't short-term.

 

[FadedC]

Thanks for the information regarding the consequences of non APA internships. I'm in a school psych program myself and even though APA internships are meaningless in the schools (and less important if you choose to work as a professor in school psych given that there's a actually a shortage of us) people often seek them out to broaden their practice oppportunities in other areas.

For myself I hope to get one, and normally I'd be extremely confident of my ability to, but I am geographically limited so there's always a chance that might be my downfall. How does the clearinghouse work? Are people who match through that counted in the match statistics?

 

[TenaciousGirl]

I believe it has been around 75% for the last couple of years....though it'll be interesting to see what the final numbers are this year. My guess is at least 800 don't match on Match Day.

Do you think that the economy repercussion will come into play in a few years? What I mean is ... do you think the number of applicants will go down in future years because schools started accepting fewer applicants because of funding issues? I haven't really looked up the stats on this, but it seems to me that this year and the past few years the volume of internship applicants has been pretty hefty; possibly because when those individuals started grad school the economy was in a better place. Just a thought. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. One thing that is for sure: the economy isn't helping to provide *more* internship spots.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Do you think that the economy repercussion will come into play in a few years? What I mean is ... do you think the number of applicants will go down in future years because schools started accepting fewer applicants because of funding issues?

I believe the traditional effect is the opposite, more people seek out higher education in a down economy, hoping it turns around while they are training, so that when they come out they will be able to attain a good job. I'm not sure how funding may effect our area, as most graduate education (non-doctoral level) is not funded.

 

[Wildcat06]

I believe the traditional effect is the opposite, more people seek out higher education in a down economy, hoping it turns around while they are training, so that when they come out they will be able to attain a good job. I'm not sure how funding may effect our area, as most graduate education (non-doctoral level) is not funded.

Really good point. I know there are more applicants during a down economy but if there are a limited number of spots in graduate schools, will we be having the same rush of graduates as other fields? And will those of us who are, say, first years, be up against an even bigger internship crunch in a few years since we matriculated during a bad economy?

(I sooo shouldn't be worrying about this yet. 🙂)

 

[JockNerd]

There might be a limited number of grad students in university programs, but many professional schools currently maintain high numbers of applicants & acceptances despite consistently low internship match rates. I don't see any reason why that would stop because of the economic situation (I think applicants are generally oblivious to what internship is and why its important; compounded with the vast misunderstanding of income potential for psychologists, that's a problem).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

There might be a limited number of grad students in university programs, but many professional schools currently maintain high numbers of applicants & acceptances despite consistently low internship match rates. I don't see any reason why that would stop because of the economic situation (I think applicants are generally oblivious to what internship is and why its important; compounded with the vast misunderstanding of income potential for psychologists, that's a problem).

This is a problem for most students looking at graduate school. Unfortunately SDN hasn't been able to reach all of them yet. I am going to be putting together a guide for graduate school....essentially filling in all of the information not in the Insider's Guide. I started a draft a couple years ago, but then got busy. Hopefully once I secure a fellowship I'll have some time to pull it together, and then I'll look at publishing it. TBD.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

There might be a limited number of grad students in university programs, but many professional schools currently maintain high numbers of applicants & acceptances despite consistently low internship match rates. I don't see any reason why that would stop because of the economic situation (I think applicants are generally oblivious to what internship is and why its important; compounded with the vast misunderstanding of income potential for psychologists, that's a problem).

Yeah, this is true. It will be interesting to see what happens, that's for sure. I'm also curious to see if the match will become open to students from APA accredited programs only.

 

[aagman01]

One of my friends applying to internships said that one site told him via email the number of total applicants to the site - it was a university counseling site, and he said the number of reported applicants nearly doubled from last year! So, if that is any indication, I would opine that the match imbalance will increase.

Yeah, this is true. It will be interesting to see what happens, that's for sure. I'm also curious to see if the match will become open to students from APA accredited programs only.

 

[hkusp]

I strongly agree with the statement that most positions require an APA accred. internship. Do not go to a non-APA unless you are prepared to go into private practice or be a researcher (and even then not advised). The APA has the corner on the pipeline in that if you do not get an internship you don't get your degree.

As far as the increasing number of unmatched students, I place the blame for that directly on the APA. They can hand wring all they want but if they stopped accrediting programs that are not responsible to their students by having high match rates they might begin to solve the problem.

I was told early in my graduate training that grad students are often kept in the dark as the the real world hurdles they face getting an internship, licensing, etc. For the life of me I can't believe we jump the hurdles that we do, all to get paid half of what psychiatrists get paid. What is even crazier is that once you complete internship and your degree, you have absolutely no guarantee of getting a job because you aren't licensed for yet another year. I was also told in grad school that psychology often eats their young.

The lastest stats from appic


Following is a seven year comparison of the 2002 and 2009 Match statistics:

2002​

2009
7-YEAR CHANGE ​

Participating Sites

610

666
+56 (+ 9%)​

Positions Offered

2,752

3,051
+299 (+11%)​

Positions Filled

2,410

2,752
+342 (+14%)​

Positions Unfilled

342

299
-43 (-13%) ​

Registered Applicants

3,073

3,825
+752 (+24%)​

Withdrawn Applicants

231

227
-4 ( - 2%)​

Matched Applicants

2,410

2,752
+342 (+14%)​

Unmatched Applicants​

432
846
+414 (+96%)​

Of course, now that I have jumped ALL the hurdles...I love what I do.​

 

[psychmama]

I was told early in my graduate training that grad students are often kept in the dark as the the real world hurdles they face getting an internship, licensing, etc. For the life of me I can't believe we jump the hurdles that we do, all to get paid half of what psychiatrists get paid. What is even crazier is that once you complete internship and your degree, you have absolutely no guarantee of getting a job because you aren't licensed for yet another year. I was also told in grad school that psychology often eats their young.

Of course, now that I have jumped ALL the hurdles...I love what I do.​

lol, so true on all accounts. But I just love the work so I guess I'll continue the hurdle-jumping.😉

 

[PsyDGrrrl]

[*]Ineligible to apply for licensure in a number of states, and you will have to prove "equivilancy" in all of the other states.

[*]Limit your ability to get boarded (ABPP has rejected people for far less)

I think you may have APA-accredited graduate program and internship confused. You do not need an APA internship to get licensed in most states, nor do you need to prove equivalency. Also, you can get ABPP with an APPIC internship; you do not need an APA internship.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think you may have APA-accredited graduate program and internship confused. You do not need an APA internship to get licensed in most states, nor do you need to prove equivalency.

I should have written "some states require you to prove equivalency", which can be a hassle because you'll need to have detailed records of your hours. It is do-able, but most programs don't do a good job of explaining these extra steps.

Also, you can get ABPP with an APPIC internship; you do not need an APA internship.

I didn't say it was required, but it's a consideration. One of the reasons many psychologists don't complete their application is the amount of time and scrutiny that goes into applying.