New APPIC data on match rates by program and applicant characteristics!

[bmedclinic]

"Geographic restriction" is poorly operationalized in the surveys. It could mean anything from "I MUST live in Lubbock" to "I'd like to live somewhere in the Northeast."

fwiw Lubbock's gotten a lot better

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bmedclinic]

That's the part I always come back to first, as it doesn't seem that many of these programs do a good job of informing prospective students about job prospects, the consequences of large amounts of debt, etc. Additionally, due to the large class sizes, I can't imagine that each student receives the necessary amount of individual attention they require (and deserve) throughout the course of a doctoral education, particularly with respect to general mentorship, practica diversity and availability, case supervision, and the like.

I have no personal experience with these schools, but you mirror my concern as well.
I think about how much I've gained from the great supervision I've recieved to this point. I consider how much I've grown and changed my perspective on my job, my field, my clients due to excellent supervision and I wonder what would that be like if my cohort was more than 10x its size (over 80 people).

Additionally, though I realize not everyone is as researched oriented as I consider myself, I wonder how excellent of consumers we're creating. In my perspective, that research is tied to clinical work, and the quality of my clinical work is (at least somewhat) based on my ability to know the literature and apply it to my work. Watching some training video is super and great, but only goes so far.

 

[futureapppsy2]

That used to be the case, but hours before internship are getting higher and higher.

This. Due to the imbalance, most people need to have a high number and variety of APPIC hours to match. The people with relatively fewer hours typically aim for the more research-heavy sites anyway and those people often have no intent of practicing. Internship is becoming less of a training time and more of something you're already expected to be trained *for*, IMO.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

Here are qualitative comments about the internship imbalance (I've never known APPIC to release qualitative survey answers before--very interesting!):

http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/CommentsaboutImbalance.aspx

Among other things some of the grammar and spelling is... interesting (although, looking at my posts, I can't really talk!)

I think it's interesting that so many people who commented don't seem to understand that APPIC and APA are two different entities...

The first thing that came to my mind was other doctoral programs and their requirements: coursework, research, some kind of work experience, etc. How many of those other programs don't set up the work/practicum experience for the student? Off the top of my head (it is 2am here) I can't think of any other area of study in which a student can't graduate based off of something that the student/school has completely zero control over.

...and that seems crazy to me. Legitimately crazy.

 

[cara susanna]

Thought this was kind of relevant. Apparently, rates of matching have been higher for students with a publication.

Publication credits may even help you get an internship. In the 2011 Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers match, students who had published at least one study matched to internships 86 percent of the time, compared with 78 percent for students who did not.

http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/01/publication.aspx

Thoughts?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Thought this was kind of relevant. Apparently, rates of matching have been higher for students with a publication.

It makes sense. When I reviewed applications, I checked for publications, presentations, and involvement in research that contributes to the field of psychology. While 98% of internships are clinically-focused, a student's involvement and understanding of the research is the foundation for strong clinical practice.

I didn't come from a particularly research heavy program, nor did I have a ton of publications, presentations, etc...but I had quite a few interviews that asked specifically about research I did that directly applied to their patient populations. I can't say that it made a huge difference, but I think it didn't hurt my chances at these sites (I matched to one of them).

 

[Ollie123]

Certainly depends what sorts of internships you are applying to. It may be a clinical year, but many of the ones I'm planning to apply to are unlikely to interview anyone who doesn't have a publication record.

That said, its hard to make too much of this just because of confounding factors. Do publications help? I'd be surprised if they didn't though obviously someone with lots of pubs but only 100 face to face clinical hours is going to be in serious trouble. These are also probably highly correlated with other things, like what program you attend, etc. I'm sure there are also a few backwoods places where it is a bad thing to have pubs...certain CMHCs and the like where they may worry you'll be too evidence-based or will assume you have no interest in staying there. I've mentioned it before, but almost everyone at my program I know who has gone on internships has gotten interviewed at most/all their "top" sites (Yale, Brown, UCLA, Hopkins, Chicago, major VAs, etc.) while the rejections mostly come from the weaker places they thought were "safeties".

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Certainly depends what sorts of internships you are applying to. It may be a clinical year, but many of the ones I'm planning to apply to are unlikely to interview anyone who doesn't have a publication record.

That said, its hard to make too much of this just because of confounding factors. Do publications help? I'd be surprised if they didn't though obviously someone with lots of pubs but only 100 face to face clinical hours is going to be in serious trouble. These are also probably highly correlated with other things, like what program you attend, etc. I'm sure there are also a few backwoods places where it is a bad thing to have pubs...certain CMHCs and the like where they may worry you'll be too evidence-based or will assume you have no interest in staying there. I've mentioned it before, but almost everyone at my program I know who has gone on internships has gotten interviewed at most/all their "top" sites (Yale, Brown, UCLA, Hopkins, Chicago, major VAs, etc.) while the rejections mostly come from the weaker places they thought were "safeties".

I think in the case of the latter, as you've alluded, it's likely just a mix of "fit," expectations of the applicant/site, and relationships between the programs. I'd imagine many of the smaller and/or less-known sites have long-standing connections with local programs and generally expect or prefer to take those students when possible. Some of these may then appear to be "safety" sites based on the low numbers of applications/high match rates reported. And yes, I'd also imagine that some applicants can appear to either be "overqualified" for a site (which would factor heavily into fit, as the site would likely think the applicant wouldn't be happy if matched there), or a poor fit based on clinical orientation and prior experiences.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I've mentioned it before, but almost everyone at my program I know who has gone on internships has gotten interviewed at most/all their "top" sites (Yale, Brown, UCLA, Hopkins, Chicago, major VAs, etc.) while the rejections mostly come from the weaker places they thought were "safeties".

Three of the four rejections I got during internship interviews came from places I viewed as "safety" sites.

 

[Pragma]

I think in the case of the latter, as you've alluded, it's likely just a mix of "fit," expectations of the applicant/site, and relationships between the programs. I'd imagine many of the smaller and/or less-known sites have long-standing connections with local programs and generally expect or prefer to take those students when possible. Some of these may then appear to be "safety" sites based on the low numbers of applications/high match rates reported. And yes, I'd also imagine that some applicants can appear to either be "overqualified" for a site (which would factor heavily into fit, as the site would likely think the applicant wouldn't be happy if matched there), or a poor fit based on clinical orientation and prior experiences.

Yes this can be the case for smaller sites.

There was earlier talk about publications being important, and in most cases they are probably not a negative unless you are obviously quite research focused and that does not match the site. It also is a clinical year, but some places will want you involved in research to a small extent. I know some competitive internship sites even look for folks who have a history of obtaining funding, which is a step further even than publications.

However, after doing internship, I have to say it is really anticlimactic. Unless you are in a state where you can start practicing right away, or the internship might help you with later job prospects (e.g., VA or hiring at that location), I really think it matters little in the grand scheme of things as long as you get an APA accredited one.

Even if you go non-accredited, it does not matter if you aren't interested in working at a place where accredidation is required. At most internship sites, you start planning or your postdoc almost immediately. That is the job that matters.

 

[RoseRed2]

Yes this can be the case for smaller sites.

There was earlier talk about publications being important, and in most cases they are probably not a negative unless you are obviously quite research focused and that does not match the site. It also is a clinical year, but some places will want you involved in research to a small extent. I know some competitive internship sites even look for folks who have a history of obtaining funding, which is a step further even than publications.

However, after doing internship, I have to say it is really anticlimactic. Unless you are in a state where you can start practicing right away, or the internship might help you with later job prospects (e.g., VA or hiring at that location), I really think it matters little in the grand scheme of things as long as you get an APA accredited one.

Even if you go non-accredited, it does not matter if you aren't interested in working at a place where accredidation is required. At most internship sites, you start planning or your postdoc almost immediately. That is the job that matters.

Thank you for saying this re: internship can be fairly anticlimatic. I am going through the internship cycle currently, almost done with interviewing. I feel more burned out and jaded than anything by this whole process. While I was fortunate to get plenty of interviews, including many VAs (where I am hoping to match), I am trying to keep it in perspective. The best thing that has come out of this process has been getting to talk to psychologists who work for the VA and getting clarity on an area of specialization I am really excited about for post-doc. Thank you for being a voice of reason. I know it's just your opinion, but definitely what I needed to hear as I am thinking about ranking decisions and trying to keep things in perspective.

 

[Pragma]

Thank you for saying this re: internship can be fairly anticlimatic. I am going through the internship cycle currently, almost done with interviewing. I feel more burned out and jaded than anything by this whole process. While I was fortunate to get plenty of interviews, including many VAs (where I am hoping to match), I am trying to keep it in perspective. The best thing that has come out of this process has been getting to talk to psychologists who work for the VA and getting clarity on an area of specialization I am really excited about for post-doc. Thank you for being a voice of reason. I know it's just your opinion, but definitely what I needed to hear as I am thinking about ranking decisions and trying to keep things in perspective.

Sounds like you had a good interview experience!

I recall matching when I was up for internship (back in 2009), and after getting the news that I "matched" I felt like "Ok, now what? I stressed out over this for the past 6 months, and now it's over. I have a job in 6 months to start."

The year goes super fast too, and you will start planning for the next year pretty fast.

I am not trying to minimize the match crisis or the importance of looking at various match characteristics to improve your chances of getting a desirable internship. It IS a huge crisis, but mostly because of poor for profit-programs that admit WAY too many students. There wouldn't be a crisis if that weren't the case.

The other thing to keep in mind is that MOST people DO match. I have known a few folks who didn't, and they all found something with one exception. As for that exception, they were in the couples' match and chose to take the year to accomplish a lot of other things, and got a rockin' internship the next year.

So, best of luck to you in the process. Just don't let it make you crazy, because after-the-fact it is just one of the several training years and you'll have bigger fish to fry.

 

[cara susanna]

It's getting worse though. I know people from my program who didn't match and who didn't find something, and they were strong applicants.

It shouldn't be a big deal, but it's become one because of the imbalance. And that's part of the injustice, it's just one training experience that lasts only a year. But now it's so competitive that it's become so much more than that. Sites are beginning to view prospective applicants in regards to what the applicants offer as opposed to what the site can offer them.

 

[Pragma]

It's getting worse though. I know people from my program who didn't match and who didn't find something, and they were strong applicants.

It shouldn't be a big deal, but it's become one because of the imbalance. And that's part of the injustice, it's just one training experience that lasts only a year. But now it's so competitive that it's become so much more than that. Sites are beginning to view prospective applicants in regards to what the applicants offer as opposed to what the site can offer them. [/QUOTE]

Agreed that things are getting worse. But with regard to your last comment, isn't that how it should be? That is how all jobs are, regardless of educational background. We aren't special because we are psychologists. Required training should not be difficult to get because of too few nationwide openings, but it doesn't mean that is shouldn't be competitive. Makes the world go round!

 

[cara susanna]

I dunno, I think it should be a balance. Not just what can I offer this site, but what can this site offer me, too. It's becoming more lopsided.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I dunno, I think it should be a balance. Not just what can I offer this site, but what can this site offer me, too. It's becoming more lopsided.

My experiences have been somewhat similar to Pragma's it sounds like--of the applicants from my program who didn't match (a small handful over the entire time I was there), they were each able to give specific reasons why. In general, they seemingly either relied too heavily on reputation/relationships and thus didn't apply to enough sites, or applied to niches in which they had little experience. These individuals then either found something the next year, or grabbed a clearinghouse spot that same year.

That being said, I agree that even in just the past 2-3 years, things seemed to have noticeably shifted. The ways in which sites have reviewed applicants in the past may have begun becoming "outdated" due to the larger numbers of individuals applying (and particularly the larger number of re-applicants), which in turn can lead to solid applicants not matching.

Although yes, to agree with another of Pragma's points, I really did have to shift gears right into post-doc mode nearly as soon as internship started. Internship is a great experience, and as with grad school, you'll get out what you put in. But at the same time, most of the faculty also know that by this point, many interns just want to graduate and get on with their lives, and internship is the last "obstacle" in their paths.

 

[Pragma]

I dunno, I think it should be a balance. Not just what can I offer this site, but what can this site offer me, too. It's becoming more lopsided.

Unless there has been some dramatic shift in things in the past couple of years, I can't imagine this being true.

Even in a "buyer's market" for sites, I can't imagine them not wanting to project a great training experience unless they are complete jerks. They won't get their top applicants if they do not sell their training experience well enough.

Now, if a site has had horrible experience with some interns, I suppose they may act jaded as the interview process is a lot of work for them too. In an increasingly productivity-oriented clinical environment (aside from maybe VAs or other government entities), I have been shocked at how much non-billable work the people reviewing applications have to do to prepare for interviewees, etc.

I know I am biased, but I can't stand it when I see other folks in training that think everything should revolve around their experience. As you get farther in graduate school, you get closer to the real world, which doesn't give a crap about how you feel about it and does care about you doing a competent and professional job that will meet billing expectations.

 

[cara susanna]

I haven't applied yet, I'm just going from those comments that were linked in the OP.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I haven't applied yet, I'm just going from those comments that were linked in the OP.

I can only speak for myself, but last year I really did feel as though all of the sites that invited me for interviews did still try to "sell" themselves to me. Part of it might've been because, for fear of sounding big-headed, I believe I was a competitive applicant; but even then, unless the faculty pulled complete 180's on the other interviewees (which I doubt), they all seemed very much invested in contributing to a supportive and collaborative training experience for the interns. And like Pragma mentioned, that's actually saying quite a bit given how much money the whole internship process ends up costing these places.

 

[cara susanna]

Well, that's good to hear. Maybe things aren't as downhill as I thought.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Unless there has been some dramatic shift in things in the past couple of years, I can't imagine this being true.

Even in a "buyer's market" for sites, I can't imagine them not wanting to project a great training experience unless they are complete jerks. They won't get their top applicants if they do not sell their training experience well enough.

The dramatic shift in the past few years has been the online application process. Now, training directors can sort through applicants in a spreadsheet form without needing to read cover letters. I'm not saying that this is happening everywhere, just that it is doable (a TD on the listserv discussed this a few months back) and some sites probably choose their interviewees that way (i.e., top 50 clinical hours, top 50 publications, etc.). I'm sure that this same comparison/ranking/process happened in the past, it's just a LOT easier to do now because of the computerized application process.

So the difficulty with great applicants not matching comes from, I think, the interviewee selection process.

Sites where I have interviewed (these past 2 years) have tried to illustrate their great training opportunities, definitely. But this is after they've already cut hundreds of applicants out.

If every applicant applied to every site (not feasible, obviously), the unmatched percentage would still be about the same. However, it seems that something is "lopsided" when applicants (and their programs, colleagues, etc.) are often left thinking, "Jeez, what happened? I'm a great candidate for internship but I didn't [match OR get any interviews]." Obviously, not every unmatched student is in this group but far too many are. If there are no apparent flaws in the applicant and people with less experience/qualifications/etc. do match (match rates at professional schools are relatively low compared to the overall rate but still surprisingly high if there's the assumption that they offer poor training/preparation), then it seems like the fault must lie with the sites' interview criteria or with the entire process (and the latter is too vague for me, so I assume it's the former )

Based on my experiences (faulty/biased/etc.), Phase I interviews are offered like invitations to a middle school dance. Please bear with me on this. In middle school, boys generally ask the prettiest girl to go to the dance with them (if they ask anyone at all). What they don't realize is that there are multiple boys asking the same girl to the dance. The girl can only go with one, so she picks him and all the rest are disappointed (except for the boys who threw in a few "safety" date requests to girls that they've known since preschool or who live next door to them, i.e., the girls with whom they have similar/shared experiences). This is the Phase I interview and match process. Many sites ask the same 500-1000 prettiest applicants to interview with them (with a few idiosyncratic choices at most sites based on perception of fit and previous experience), ignoring that there are 15 other sites who this applicant also wants to dance with. On Phase I match day, the sites realize that they all asked the same prettiest applicants and some have a date for the dance and some were passed over. Then Phase II arrives (this is another big change/shift from previous years). Having been turned down by the prettiest girls (except for those boys who immediately asked the old standby friend after their initial rejection), the boys can stay home and not go to the dance, quickly ask the prettiest girl left to go to the dance with them (this was the old Clearinghouse version), or reevaluate their definition of pretty and act accordingly with it. So in Phase II, sites either drop out are forced to reevaluate their interview selection criteria. If you're going to match, you usually do it by the end of Phase II, though there are a few sites still left over the spring and summer due to a variety of scheduling, funding, or other changes. (Corresponding to the same last-minute pre-dance changes that happen to middle schoolers.)

Thanks for sticking with me through that. I don't mean to trivialize the importance of internship or the imbalance issues (or developmental issues or gender roles) but this conceptualization helps me to understand why 1) great sites end up in Phase II and 2) many great applicants don't get interviews in Phase I.

 

[cara susanna]

I love that analogy!

I dunno, what scares me is I know a student who didn't match at Phase I or Phase II. This person was applying to a niche area and had a ton of clinical practicum experience in said area, as well as relevant research experience and interests. I still have no idea why they did not match.

 

[docma]

The dramatic shift in the past few years has been the online application process. Now, training directors can sort through applicants in a spreadsheet form without needing to read cover letters. I'm not saying that this is happening everywhere, just that it is doable (a TD on the listserv discussed this a few months back) and some sites probably choose their interviewees that way (i.e., top 50 clinical hours, top 50 publications, etc.). I'm sure that this same comparison/ranking/process happened in the past, it's just a LOT easier to do now because of the computerized application process.

So the difficulty with great applicants not matching comes from, I think, the interviewee selection process.

Sites where I have interviewed (these past 2 years) have tried to illustrate their great training opportunities, definitely. But this is after they've already cut hundreds of applicants out.

If every applicant applied to every site (not feasible, obviously), the unmatched percentage would still be about the same. However, it seems that something is "lopsided" when applicants (and their programs, colleagues, etc.) are often left thinking, "Jeez, what happened? I'm a great candidate for internship but I didn't [match OR get any interviews]." Obviously, not every unmatched student is in this group but far too many are. If there are no apparent flaws in the applicant and people with less experience/qualifications/etc. do match (match rates at professional schools are relatively low compared to the overall rate but still surprisingly high if there's the assumption that they offer poor training/preparation), then it seems like the fault must lie with the sites' interview criteria or with the entire process (and the latter is too vague for me, so I assume it's the former )

Based on my experiences (faulty/biased/etc.), Phase I interviews are offered like invitations to a middle school dance. Please bear with me on this. In middle school, boys generally ask the prettiest girl to go to the dance with them (if they ask anyone at all). What they don't realize is that there are multiple boys asking the same girl to the dance. The girl can only go with one, so she picks him and all the rest are disappointed (except for the boys who threw in a few "safety" date requests to girls that they've known since preschool or who live next door to them, i.e., the girls with whom they have similar/shared experiences). This is the Phase I interview and match process. Many sites ask the same 500-1000 prettiest applicants to interview with them (with a few idiosyncratic choices at most sites based on perception of fit and previous experience), ignoring that there are 15 other sites who this applicant also wants to dance with. On Phase I match day, the sites realize that they all asked the same prettiest applicants and some have a date for the dance and some were passed over. Then Phase II arrives (this is another big change/shift from previous years). Having been turned down by the prettiest girls (except for those boys who immediately asked the old standby friend after their initial rejection), the boys can stay home and not go to the dance, quickly ask the prettiest girl left to go to the dance with them (this was the old Clearinghouse version), or reevaluate their definition of pretty and act accordingly with it. So in Phase II, sites either drop out are forced to reevaluate their interview selection criteria. If you're going to match, you usually do it by the end of Phase II, though there are a few sites still left over the spring and summer due to a variety of scheduling, funding, or other changes. (Corresponding to the same last-minute pre-dance changes that happen to middle schoolers.)

Thanks for sticking with me through that. I don't mean to trivialize the importance of internship or the imbalance issues (or developmental issues or gender roles) but this conceptualization helps me to understand why 1) great sites end up in Phase II and 2) many great applicants don't get interviews in Phase I.

This analogy is great, I think and captures the process (and the pain) well. It also suggests that, just as students survive middle school miseries (tho perhaps not without feeling traumatized), they also make it through to degree completion eventually

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

I love that analogy!

I dunno, what scares me is I know a student who didn't match at Phase I or Phase II. This person was applying to a niche area and had a ton of clinical practicum experience in said area, as well as relevant research experience and interests. I still have no idea why they did not match.

Thanks!

I wonder how many interviews that person got in each Phase. (Poor interviewing skills don't come into play if you don't get a chance to interview.) If s/he had a lot of interviews and still didn't match, it probably comes down to the number of applicants in the niche and the number of internships in the niche. If there are 20 applicants in the niche area who all interview at 16 similar sites, at least 4 applicants will probably be left without a match (more if the site picks applicants outside the niche who have other strong qualities). Phase II is harder if you're looking for a specific experience, I think, because the sites remaining are really luck of the draw and might not fit with an applicant's past experiences. Additionally, there are far more applicants in Phase II than there are sites remaining, so the match rate is waaaaay lower than for Phase I.

To use the analogy: this person you know may be class president and captain of the middle school football team but the pretty girls who he asks to the dance may prefer a shy boy, a baseball player, or someone she doesn't really have much in common with (i.e., someone from outside the niche who could potentially learn a lot more at the site than someone who already has niche experience) as a date for the dance.