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

[futureapppsy2]

---

Members don't see this ad.

http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/ApplicantSurvey2011Part2.aspx

(I'm glad they did this again, but I still wish they would run actual stats and/or open the data set to people who want to).

Some stats that may be particularly interesting to SDNers:

Program characteristics:

2. Type of Doctoral Program

Clinical Match rate = 79% n = 2161
Counseling Match rate = 86% n = 343
School Match rate = 79% n = 123
Combined Match rate = 84% n = 80


3. Degree sought:

Ph.D. Match rate = 84% n = 1479
Psy.D. Match rate = 75% n = 1239


4. Accreditation (APA or CPA) status of doctoral program:

Accredited Match rate = 81% n = 2558
Not Accredited Match rate = 61% n = 160

Training model:

7. Model of doctoral program:

Scientist-Practitioner Match rate = 86% n = 1199
Practitioner-Scholar or Match rate = 75% n = 1149
Scholar-Practitioner
Practitioner Match rate = 65% n = 23
Clinical Scientist Match rate = 89% n = 131
Local Clinical Scientist Match rate = 57% n = 61
Practitioner-Scientist Match rate = 67% n = 98
Practitioner Informed by Match rate = 91% n = 33
Science
Other Match rate = 80% n = 30

Class/cohort size:

10. Size of doctoral class (i.e., number of students who
began doctoral program in the same year as respondent)

1 - 10 students Match rate = 85% n = 1136
11 - 20 students Match rate = 82% n = 474
21 - 30 students Match rate = 75% n = 395
31 - 40 students Match rate = 72% n = 193
41 - 50 students Match rate = 73% n = 118
51 - 60 students Match rate = 69% n = 109
61 - 70 students Match rate = 82% n = 93
71 - 80 students Match rate = 70% n = 53
81 - 90 students Match rate = 79% n = 38
91 - 100 students Match rate = 72% n = 75
101 and greater Match rate = 59% n = 22

Number of internship applications and internship interviews:

12. Number of applications submitted:

1 to 5 applications Match rate = 62% n = 143
6 to 10 applications Match rate = 72% n = 258
11 to 15 applications Match rate = 83% n = 946
16 to 20 applications Match rate = 81% n = 912
21 to 25 applications Match rate = 84% n = 321
26 or more applications Match rate = 74% n = 132


13. Number of interview offers received:

1 to 2 interviews Match rate = 52% n = 385
3 to 4 interviews Match rate = 69% n = 516
5 to 6 interviews Match rate = 85% n = 538
7 to 8 interviews Match rate = 92% n = 433
9 to 10 interviews Match rate = 95% n = 355
11 or more interviews Match rate = 99% n = 417

Geographic restriction:

25. Geographic restriction on internship search:

None Match rate = 81% n = 1537
Due to significant family, Match rate = 71% n = 465
financial, and/or health
considerations
Due to personal preference Match rate = 85% n = 594


26. Scope of geographic restriction:

Single city or town, or Match rate = 72% n = 313
within 100-mile radius
of a city/town
State/Province Match rate = 78% n = 175
Region of the country Match rate = 83% n = 444

Presentations/publications:

29. Number of articles published in refereed journals:

Zero Match rate = 78% n = 1271
One or more Match rate = 86% n = 955


30. Number of professional presentations at regional, state, national,
or international meetings/conferences:

Zero Match rate = 75% n = 553
One Match rate = 76% n = 244
Two Match rate = 75% n = 203
Three Match rate = 81% n = 151
Four Match rate = 82% n = 119
Five Match rate = 86% n = 141
Six or more Match rate = 89% n = 805

There's also data on age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, martial status, dissertation proposal/comps completion, etc.

I'm sort of disappointed they only looked at publications as a dichotomous variable, tbh. Very interesting stats overall, though.

Also, here are the new (2011) PhD/PsyD comparison data: http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/ApplicantSurvey2011Part3.aspx

Here are the overall stats for the survey participants from which all this data has been collected ("A total of 2,731 internship applicants (65%) completed some or all of the survey.")

http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/ApplicantSurvey2011Part1.aspx

Of interest to me:

DEBT: Applicants' mean reported debt load related to
graduate level study in psychology was $85,545 (SD = 73,572,
median = $80,000), a 9.8% increase from 2010 (see question
11). Approximately 44% reported debt of $100,000 or higher
(compared to 39% in 2010), while 22% reported debt exceeding
$150,000 (compared to 18% in 2010).

Please note that these figures do not include any additional
debt that these students may accrue during the remainder of
their graduate training (e.g., during internship)

Yikes! 😱

What think you, SDNers?

 

[wigflip]

"25. Geographic restriction on internship search:

None Match rate = 81% n = 1537
Due to significant family, Match rate = 71% n = 465
financial, and/or health
considerations
Due to personal preference Match rate = 85% n = 594"

As a prospective who's taken some flack for considering this path despite geographic limitations, I found this pretty encouraging. Thanks for posting this, future.

 

[cara susanna]

What? This paints a pretty rosy picture. Did things vastly improve, or did they do something funny with the numbers?

Not that I'm pessimistic or anything. 😉

 

[JockNerd]

What? This paints a pretty rosy picture. Did things vastly improve, or did they do something funny with the numbers?

Not that I'm pessimistic or anything. 😉

This is post-phase 2 data. None of the other data sets included clearinghouse. The trends remain what you thought they were (bad, and getting worse).

 

[JockNerd]

"25. Geographic restriction on internship search:

None Match rate = 81% n = 1537
Due to significant family, Match rate = 71% n = 465
financial, and/or health
considerations
Due to personal preference Match rate = 85% n = 594"

As a prospective who's taken some flack for considering this path despite geographic limitations, I found this pretty encouraging. Thanks for posting this, future.

"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."

 

[wigflip]

"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."

What about this?

26. Scope of geographic restriction:

Single city or town, or Match rate = 72% n = 313
within 100-mile radius
of a city/town
State/Province Match rate = 78% n = 175
Region of the country Match rate = 83% n = 444

 

[JockNerd]

What about this?

26. Scope of geographic restriction:

Single city or town, or Match rate = 72% n = 313
within 100-mile radius
of a city/town
State/Province Match rate = 78% n = 175
Region of the country Match rate = 83% n = 444

Same issue: is the "single city or town" Juneau or Philadelphia?

Even assessed this broadly, though, these data do indicate that match is negatively impacted by geographical restriction.

 

[wigflip]

Even assessed this broadly, though, these data do indicate that match is negatively impacted by geographical restriction.

Oh, I never doubted that. But evenly broadly speaking, it's more favorable than I would have guessed. Just curious--are you assuming that the outlook would be "sunnier" for people hoping to stay near large Metro centers (because there are more internship opportunities there) or worse (because everybody else from all over the country wants to take advantage of those same internship opportunities)?

 

[Ollie123]

The other thing to keep in mind is (unless they've changed it) these are APPIC match rates, not necessarily APA. For many folks, going to a non-APA site is simply not acceptable and involves closing the door on many of the better-paying or otherwise preferred jobs (not to mention concerns about eroding professional standards). I imagine there is a significant discrepancy in proportion APPIC vs. APA, though how much of one is kind of an open question.

That said, the numbers are a bit higher than I expected too - I didn't think there enough spots in Clearinghouse (now phase 2) to make that much of a difference.

 

[futureapppsy2]

The other thing to keep in mind is (unless they've changed it) these are APPIC match rates, not necessarily APA. For many folks, going to a non-APA site is simply not acceptable and involves closing the door on many of the better-paying or otherwise preferred jobs (not to mention concerns about eroding professional standards). I imagine there is a significant discrepancy in proportion APPIC vs. APA, though how much of one is kind of an open question.

That said, the numbers are a bit higher than I expected too - I didn't think there enough spots in Clearinghouse (now phase 2) to make that much of a difference.

Good point, Ollie. Apparently, overall, about 80% of survey respondants who matched matched to an APA site.

Were you matched to a program that is CURRENTLY accredited by
APA (American Psychological Association)?

Yes 1690 79 %
No 448 21 %

I wish they broke the results down more by APA v. APPIC, too. I would so love to get my hands on this data.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The stats would look much different if they looked at APA-acred. only sites/applicants.

 

[ClinicalABA]

What? This paints a pretty rosy picture. Did things vastly improve, or did they do something funny with the numbers?

Not that I'm pessimistic or anything. 😉

These are survey results from 2731 voluntary respondents (out of 4199 match participants who APPIC solicited), thus some of the slightly higher overall weighted average match rates in this data vs. the data from all match participants. Fact is about 3/4 applicants who participate will match, and that's what it's been like for the past few years.

 

[FadedC]

I found the significantly lower match rates for older students to be interesting (and perhaps a bit concerning). Obviously they point out that being older is going to be correlated with a great many other variables such as being geographically limited and having children. However it did seem like the match rates for students in the high 30s and older was quite a bit lower then any of those other variables individually would account for.

 

[futureapppsy2]

These are survey results from 2731 voluntary respondents (out of 4199 match participants who APPIC solicited), thus some of the slightly higher overall weighted average match rates in this data vs. the data from all match participants. Fact is about 3/4 applicants who participate will match, and that's what it's been like for the past few years.

I'm surprised they don't get higher participation from a pool of social science researchers, tbh. 😉

 

[ClinicalABA]

Perhaps the most telling ratio is 2350:4199. That's the # APA/CPA accredited slots:Number of applicants. Only slightly more than half the applicants have a chance of getting an accredited internship. That should give pause to anyone considering doctoral study in clinical/counseling psych.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm glad they released additional data, as I hope to creates more discussion about the real challenges facing current and future applicants.

 

[wigflip]

I found the significantly lower match rates for older students to be interesting (and perhaps a bit concerning). Obviously they point out that being older is going to be correlated with a great many other variables such as being geographically limited and having children. However it did seem like the match rates for students in the high 30s and older was quite a bit lower then any of those other variables individually would account for.

😱

 

[futureapppsy2]

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!)

 

[InNae]

It's also probable that older students are more likely to be enrolled in the professional school programs, which circles back to the larger-sized program issue.

 

[Rivi]

So does this mean I can stop crying myself to sleep at night?

 

[Ollie123]

Yeah...I don't know what to think about the age issue but I doubt the effect is all that large (if its there at all) once other variables are controlled for. Keep in mind the way its presented precludes us from having a true sense of what is going on with the data, so the age effect could simply be a cumulative effect of all the above (e.g. geographic restrictions alone...bad. Geographic restrictions + Professional Program + x, y, z = much much worse). Having met and worked with a number of people in the field across a wide range of ages, I find it hard to believe any kind of age discrimination would be quite that extreme. Also worth noting that unlike many PhD programs...clinical psych trends a bit older even at research-y clinical science places. This isn't a field where everyone is done by 26...I'd guess low-mid 30's is the "average" age at graduation with a pretty wide distribution on either side of that still not being at all unusual.

 

[wigflip]

Here are qualitative comments...

Thanks for posting the qualitative responses link. Wow I really feel for these folks.

Among other things some of the grammar and spelling is... interesting

Best yet:
"It makes me sad and dissolution-ed for the profession."

 

[cara susanna]

I dunno, I can't really blame people for not participating. If I didn't match I would be like "Screw you guys, I'm not helping you out!"

Edit: I'm reading the comments and some of them... wow. Let's just say that I disagree with the statements about APA making internship accreditation easier to get, heh.

 

[yeti2213]

Best yet:
"It makes me sad and dissolution-ed for the profession."

dissolution-ed.... sounds like a pretty trippy state. I think several of the beats described that feeling ;-)

 

[Rivi]

Those comments are heart-wrenching.

I feel especially bad for people in professional schools that have families. A year of waiting means increased interest on those six figure student loans.

At what point is APA going to do something? It seems like they are just trying to appease everyone but aren't offering any significant solutions. Without drastic changes this situation is only going to get worse. I'd have a really hard time recommending this field to anyone right now.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Those comments are heart-wrenching.

I feel especially bad for people in professional schools that have families. A year of waiting means increased interest on those six figure student loans.

At what point is APA going to do something? It seems like they are just trying to appease everyone but aren't offering any significant solutions. Without drastic changes this situation is only going to get worse. I'd have a really hard time recommending this field to anyone right now.

Tbh, I lost faith in APA's handling of the crisis when they made someone from Argosy one of the chief people on the match imbalance committee (granted, it was from one of the "better" Argosy schools, but still...). Of interest, all three program representative heads (one for clinical PhD, one for counseling psych PhD, and one for PsyDs) said they went through "their" programs and tried to work with lowest X% of programs n terms of match rate. The twist is, the PhD representatives for both clinical and counseling went by APPIC/APA match rates. Otoh, the PsyD representatives included CAPIC match rates alongside APA/APPIC match rates in their comparisons. Not really an equitable comparison, IMO, and one I think may have been designed to help the prof schools (FSPS) look better. YMMV on that, though.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I dunno, I can't really blame people for not participating. If I didn't match I would be like "Screw you guys, I'm not helping you out!"

Edit: I'm reading the comments and some of them... wow. Let's just say that I disagree with the statements about APA making internship accreditation easier to get, heh.

I agree. It's a bad situation that's only going to get worse, and any sort of significant, viable, long-term solution is going to end up being painful for a portion of individuals who have yet to go through the match process.

However, to try and avoid that pain by lowering standards is only going to screw the system up even more.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

Instead of increasing positions for prospective interns, I'd rather see less people trying to become psychologists. The system will work itself out that way hopefully.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Instead of increasing positions for prospective interns, I'd rather see less people trying to become psychologists. The system will work itself out that way hopefully.

+1

I really think capping class sizes or just shutting down FSPS would go a long way to solving the imbalance. Although people from FSPS programs can become competent clinicians, as a whole, I think they bad for the field (huge debt, huge class sizes, etc) and for the individual, in terms of debt.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

+1

I really think capping class sizes or just shutting down FSPS would go a long way to solving the imbalance. Although people from FSPS programs can become competent clinicians, as a whole, I think they bad for the field (huge debt, huge class sizes, etc) and for the individual, in terms of debt.

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.

 

[Ollie123]

Agreed that it needs to move in that direction. Certainly people "can" be competent coming out of a school like that, but I've now met quite a few students/interns/graduates from the these schools and the more I meet, the more convinced I become that these schools are, quite frankly, not in the same league as the bulk of the field. Things I take for granted that anyone applying to graduate school would know is news to graduates of their programs. Certainly some work their butts off and do great, but that's hardly sufficient to justify the existence of the schools.

Just make them mid-level degrees - no more need for them to worry about accreditation, no more APPIC. From what I'm seeing, these schools already essentially are training mid-levels, but calling something a long/expensive master's degree isn't a great marketing strategy so they use doctorate instead. Its no wonder we are having so much difficulty with encroachment from mid-levels. If this is how we are defining doctoral-level training, we should probably be seeing even more psychologists supplanted by MA-level folks.

 

[cara susanna]

That won't happen as long as APA receives money for accreditation. Ugh.

 

[wigflip]

Things I take for granted that anyone applying to graduate school would know is news to graduates of their programs. Certainly some work their butts off and do great, but that's hardly sufficient to justify the existence of the schools.

Ollie, I tried to resist asking, but in the end gave in to temptation. Can you please give an example? Not challenging you, just genuinely curious.

Just make them mid-level degrees - no more need for them to worry about accreditation, no more APPIC. From what I'm seeing, these schools already essentially are training mid-levels, but calling something a long/expensive master's degree isn't a great marketing strategy so they use doctorate instead. Its no wonder we are having so much difficulty with encroachment from mid-levels. If this is how we are defining doctoral-level training, we should probably be seeing even more psychologists supplanted by MA-level folks.

I think the value of status (or more precisely, perceived status) can't be underestimated. The allure of being called "Doctor" trumps a lot. I've read this on sdn (that it's self-evident one should go on for doctoral level training because it's "cool" to be called "doctor"), and not just on the masters forum. Some friends in purely academic fields are driven by this too, even the ones who've figured out by now that even for most successful academics, the actual rewards of the discipline are far outstripped by the lengthy training investment. For those of you who've seen that "So you want to become a clinical psychologist" video, the "I want people to call me doctor" trope gets parodied there as well.

Talking with a tenured social scientist the other day about leaning towards leaving my social science doc program, s/he said something dazzling. Seriously, this person is otherwise very intelligent. But one of the arguments s/he offered for staying to finish and racking up tremendous debt in the process (keeping in mind that if I finish, I can likely do no more than adjunct), was that when I fly, flight attendants will call me "doctor."

I guess, what I'm trying to say with some humility and caution as an outsider to the field (but prospective insider) is that any solution to the flooded market will need to address the cultural component (the meaning people attach to the doctorate in psychology). It seems to me like the for profit schools are economically exploiting that particular brand of misguided vanity, and will continue to do so as long as there are people willing to mortgage their futures for the perception of prestige.

 

[Ollie123]

I will PM you some examples for the sake of anonymity.

RE: the rest of your post, I agree 100%.

 

[wigflip]

I will PM you some examples for the sake of anonymity.

Oh goody. Thanks.

RE: the rest of your post, I agree 100%.

Thanks again. I wonder if there were psych scamblogs (at least I haven't found any) if that would dampen the enthusiasm for "doctoral study in psych at any cost." There seem to be tons of folks blogging about the negative outcomes of going to less-than-top tier laws schools, as well as blogs by and for disaffected humanities and social science folks. Even the STEM folks have gotten in on the action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl4L4M8m4d0

But (with the exception of the aforementioned "So you wanna" video), I haven't found anything along the lines of: "Here's what it's really like to go to a for-profit school, end up 6-figures in debt and not be able to match at internship time."

 

[wigflip]

The "doctor" thing is a joke. Millions of people have accomplished this in one field or another. It is a minimum bar of entry into our field. That's it. I do not see the allure of being called "doctor."

Yes, you and I and most people here probably know this, Jon, but that's an insider perspective--something that many people who are first applying to graduate school lack. I'm talking about what motivates people to go down certain paths, and perception is key.

 

[cara susanna]

I don't think the flow of psych grad students will ever slow down. I mean, look at this forum and how many people are applying.

 

[edieb]

I don't think the flow of psych grad students will ever slow down. I mean, look at this forum and how many people are applying.

Yes, as the professional schools aim to make more and more money, they will continue to drop standards even further and pump out even more "psychologists." A perfect example is today's thread on SDN where a prospective student asks how heavily Psy.D. programs weigh the GRE and the responder said that despite barely earning a 1000, they were accepted into several programs. I am SO disgusted by the whole state of this field

 

[cara susanna]

Another issue is that people view applying to grad school as the ultimate hurdle and that it's easy sailing once you're in. At least, I viewed it that way. I wish I'd known that prac apps would be 10x more difficult and devastating than grad school apps. I can't even imagine the horror of internship apps, to be honest, which is why I've decided to delay it a year.

 

[Rivi]

Realistically, what would be a plan to fix these problems? As far as I can tell, these are the options:

1) Government student loan limitations (probably the most likely option although this may only decrease the price of pro-schools) which would cause several for-profit programs to stop taking students.

2) Effective leadership within APA (newer generation clinicians that put these concerns on the top of their priority list).

3) Flexner report type overhaul of the professional schools due to protesting from students and professionals.

4) A different accrediting body gaining more momentum within psychology that takes the place of APA and handles these problems more effectively.

 

[syzergy]

Another issue is that people view applying to grad school as the ultimate hurdle and that it's easy sailing once you're in. At least, I viewed it that way. I wish I'd known that prac apps would be 10x more difficult and devastating than grad school apps. I can't even imagine the horror of internship apps, to be honest, which is why I've decided to delay it a year.

I think this is a really important point. I had a clinical psych grad student come in and talk to a bunch of undergrads who were planning to go to grad school. He scared the crap out of them and every single one decided to either take a year off after undergrad or seriously reconsider their graduate school plans. It's so important to help undergrads understand what attending grad school is actually like because most of them had no idea.

Of course, he was right in the middle of internship apps so maybe it was a little more pessimistic then normal. 🙄+

 

[JockNerd]

Realistically, what would be a plan to fix these problems? As far as I can tell, these are the options:

1) Government student loan limitations (probably the most likely outcome although this may only decrease the price of pro-schools) which would cause several for-profit programs to stop taking students.

2) Effective leadership within APA (newer generation clinicians that put these concerns on the top of their priority list).

3) Flexner report type overhaul of the professional schools due to protesting from students and professionals.

4) A different accrediting body gaining more momentum within psychology that takes the place of APA and handles these problems more effectively.

1 might happen, but is outside of our direct scope of influence. 2 is unlikely, as early career psychs are routinely excluded from APA governance structure. 4 will not happen soon because accreditation is controlled by the government, which is not informed about professional issues and would be nearly impossible to educate.

3 can happen, and is within the scope of our influence.

 

[wigflip]

1 might happen, but is outside of our direct scope of influence.

I wonder if any social workers are taking up #1. I do know that some are framing the student debt crisis/bubble as a social justice issue and that there are nascent student debt resistance movements.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I wonder if any social workers are taking up #1. I do know that some are framing the student debt crisis/bubble as a social justice issue and that there are nascent student debt resistance movements.

It's been said on here (and elsewhere) multiple times that the student loan "bubble" is going to be the next to burst, and I can't say I disagree. Should that be the case, #1 might happen rather suddenly.

Beyond that, as JockNerd mentioned, #3 is our most realistic option...although given that non-FSPS students and graduates are quickly become the minority (as JonSnow pointed out), this is something that needs to happen sooner rather than later.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

There were some good (and not so good) suggestions to address the internship balance.

The Good
....limit the number of students in each program to the number that get accepted into APA Internships over the past 5 years.. I've been pushing this for years. A variation is to just have a hard cap of 10, 15, whatever.

award degrees prior to the intern year. This makes far too much sense.

The Not So Good
Offer the option to not pay interns, in an effort to save sites money so they can offer intern spots.

Make Ph.D.-only & Psy.D.-only sites. Separate but equal...that probably won't work out.

I think the data that is lost in all of this are the number of students who don't try again, and instead look outside of the match system (CAPIC, etc). I liken it to looking at unemployment rates and not taking into account the people who have stopped looking for a job and/or are not counted.

 

[Programmer06]

Excellent discussion. Personally I like granting degrees before internship year. Many people dont want to be clinicians. They instead want to go on to research/consulting/teaching careers. In that vein, internship is not terribly helpful. Maybe it gives you a little cred, but that's about it.

This option also forces the low performers (individual or program) to have to compete in a more open market. Then you create natural attrition for the field.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, I like the idea of making the internship not required. A lot of people said it's getting to the point where it's like a job interview and not a training experience because it's so competitive now.

 

[Pragma]

....limit the number of students in each program to the number that get accepted into APA Internships over the past 5 years.. I've been pushing this for years.

Wow, this is a fabulous idea. I don't know how people can sleep at night admitting 30-100 people into an annual doctoral class. It is ruining the profession.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Wow, this is a fabulous idea. I don't know how people can sleep at night admitting 30-100 people into an annual doctoral class. It is ruining the profession.

I agree--this seems like the most straight-forward idea. And while the APA can't physically force a program to limit its admissions numbers, it can most certainly threaten to withdraw accreditation if the above suggestion isn't followed and/or a program's APA/APPIC internship match rate falls below a certain %.

As for the internship year itself--personally, I'm fine with it being required, at least until training across programs can become sufficiently standardized. Otherwise, there's relatively little guarantee that individuals graduating with a degree in clinical psychology will have more than minimal exposure to actual (quality) clinical work.

 

[cara susanna]

I agree--this seems like the most straight-forward idea. And while the APA can't physically force a program to limit its admissions numbers, it can most certainly threaten to withdraw accreditation if the above suggestion isn't followed and/or a program's APA/APPIC internship match rate falls below a certain %.

As for the internship year itself--personally, I'm fine with it being required, at least until training across programs can become sufficiently standardized. Otherwise, there's relatively little guarantee that individuals graduating with a degree in clinical psychology will have more than minimal exposure to actual (quality) clinical work.

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