Opportunity for internship advocacy

[MCParent]

Hi, all,
Please see below for an announcement that went out to the APAGS listservs. I strongly encourage people to apply to be in this group, or to recommend grad students you know to join. I will be one of the "6 student leaders" (really ECP in my case) on the panel.

*****


At the 2014 APA convention, President Nadine Kaslow is convening a panel
tasked with finding new, proactive solutions to the internship crisis. 6
student leaders will each present 1 solution to 6 individuals in the
training community, and panelists will then think through how to
implement these solutions together. The purpose of the panel is to
generate new momentum and ideas on how to end the crisis.

APAGS has created a "thinktank" group to analyze the problem and
brainstorm solutions for this panel. Members include the six panelists
(APAGS representatives) and other student leaders. APAGS would like to
open this group up to member participation and input - we want your
ideas and your voice! If you would like to participate in this group and
share your ideas, please send an email to Emily Voelkel, APAGS
Chair-Elect ([email protected] [1]) no later than Monday, April
7th. Participation will include reading a few relevant articles on the
internship crisis and participating in email discussions and a potential
conference call. All participating individuals will be acknowledged
during this presidential panel at convention.

Please join us in this important endeavor!

JENNIFER M. DORAN, M.A.
_Chair_, American Psychological Association of Graduate Students
Doctoral Candidate in Clinical Psychology

The New School for Social Research
80 5th Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10011

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

this looks great. I am guessing I need to be an APAGS member or can I slip through?

 

[MCParent]

this looks great. I am guessing I need to be an APAGS member or can I slip through?

I don't know. Are you an apa member? You're automatically an apags member if so. You could always just apply and see if it matters.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I don't know. Are you an apa member? You're automatically an apags member if so. You could always just apply and see if it matters.

I have been really proud that I have never given a cent to anything related to the APA. Also, I'm cheap.

 

[edieb]

I have been really proud that I have never given a cent to anything related to the APA. Also, I'm cheap.

If you're not willing to spend the $50 or so to become an APA member and advocate for changing what you're constantly complaining about, then I don't hold out much hope for you to make any changes

 

[WisNeuro]

If you're not willing to spend the $50 or so to become an APA member and advocate for changing what you're constantly complaining about, then I don't hold out much hope for you to make any changes

Depends on your reason for not giving money to APA I would think. I, personally, do not want to give money to an organization that accepts substantial contributions from Argosy and Alliant, and in reality hasn't done much good to further my interests as a psychologist. I'd rather give my money to my npsych organizations, which have been very involved in advocacy for my interests.

 

[MCParent]

Just ask I guess. Actually if I were you I'd probably say that I wasn't a member. Apa is hemmoraging membership, and people saying why is important. You're still a grad student so they still represent you. And, doing this doesn't involve actually going to convention, so you wouldn't have to join to get member rates anyway. Sure just apply.

 

[Rivi]

Count me in. I really like Dr. Kaslow. Hopefully the NCSPP people will behave themselves.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

If you're not willing to spend the $50 or so to become an APA member and advocate for changing what you're constantly complaining about, then I don't hold out much hope for you to make any changes

I don't complain (much) anymore. At this point everyone sees the angles and the writing is on the wall. I guess I am at the acceptance stage. I try to make a change in the only way I feel that I can. That is why I do not pay the $50 dollars to APA. On the other hand, I join similarly minded organizations and try to discuss the topic with those around me that are less familiar with professional and training issues.

But I am on board for the above mentioned discussion. However, I am not sure if it will make much of a difference.

 

[calimich]

Thanks for sharing MC, it sounds like an interesting idea. I just emailed Emily and asked to be included. I'll be presenting at APA on the first day and plan to stay for the whole weekend. Perhaps we can also arrange a SDN "first-life" meet up.

 

[MCParent]

However, I am not sure if it will make much of a difference.

If only party-line tow-ers join, and the 6 questions the training people get are all about how wonderful APA's efforts thus far have been and how nice it is to make new internships, then no it will not make a difference. If people not afraid to ask real questions join, then maybe it might have some effect. The petition's biggest effect was instilling a sense that "the students are breathing down our necks" (which is a phase I literally heard spoken in reference to the petition).

 

[cara susanna]

I joined. I promised myself that I wouldn't let myself forget how awful the internship application process was this year, and that I would channel my anger towards helping future applicants not have to go through what we all did. I am going to hold myself to that promise.

The petition's biggest effect was instilling a sense that "the students are breathing down our necks" (which is a phase I literally heard spoken in reference to the petition).

Oh, I'm sorry that our reaction to the rigged lottery that is the internship match imbalance was such an inconvenience for them. I'm sure that pressure that they feel is so much worse than the pressure I felt every day this year from Nov 1 through Feb 21!

Edit: I don't usually use italics, so you can probably sense how angry that comment makes me.

 

[aly cat]

I joined. While I have always been quite concerned with the internship imbalance, I felt somewhat removed from the situation as my program had not generally been affected. However, after not matching this year I realize how silly it was to think anyone is "safe." I think my experience provided some insight on streamlining things from the student perspective and hope together we can inspire some changes.

 

[MCParent]

I'm sure that pressure that they feel is so much worse than the pressure I felt every day this year from Nov 1 through Feb 21!

Edit: I don't usually use italics, so you can probably sense how angry that comment makes me.

I agree; it's just better than the indifference that preceded it.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

That is why I do not pay the $50 dollars to APA. On the other hand, I join similarly minded organizations and try to discuss the topic with those around me that are less familiar with professional and training issues.

This is what I hope people do if they do not want to be a member of APA; it is important to support the field via money and advocacy. I didn't support APA for a number of years (outside of Div 22 & Div 40 membership), but I decided to re-up last year because there are opportunities for ECPs that I'm going to try for (again), despite my frustrations of the merry-go round that seems to happen on the boards/panels/committees.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Looking at the latest membership numbers for APA (and with my own biases in tow, of course), I honestly am not surprised that its leadership hasn't been taking the internship and employment/job outlook/scope of practice situations as seriously as might be hoped--large chunks of the folks still in APA have been practicing for 20+ years and are 60+ years old, meaning they trained and have primarily practiced in an era when these problems weren't on the radar. Thus, there probably haven't been expansive numbers of people bringing up these issues until recently (and many thinks to MCParent and others who are continually voicing these concerns in ways that the APA can finally hear).

 

[DynamicDidactic]

If only party-line tow-ers join, and the 6 questions the training people get are all about how wonderful APA's efforts thus far have been and how nice it is to make new internships, then no it will not make a difference. If people not afraid to ask real questions join, then maybe it might have some effect. The petition's biggest effect was instilling a sense that "the students are breathing down our necks" (which is a phase I literally heard spoken in reference to the petition).

My concern is the opposite. This may be a very ignorant statement: I worry it will be too many people blaming for profit schools and the people in charge (whomever these mythical individuals are) wont want to listen.

 

[MCParent]

My concern is the opposite. This may be a very ignorant statement: I worry it will be too many people blaming for profit schools and the people in charge (whomever these mythical individuals are) wont want to listen.

It's still hosted by APA and cochaired by the ncspp rep. That's not an option. It's between nothing about program-level accountability being addressed at all, and having it be one of the points.

 

[gilpin]

I'm just curious if students view the internship imbalance as a complex problem in need of creative solutions? I don't - and I wonder if that accounts for some of the apathy or hostility others may feel towards the APA and these types of "think-tanks." In reading the post-APPI feedback left by students, its easy to see that the same 4 or 5 ideas are being proposed over and over, for several years now...

 

[erg923]

Multifaceted but not complex. Too many applicants, not enough spots. Period.

No one could possibly argue that rectifying the supply of psychologists to the current market wouldn't solve the problem. That is easy enough. The reverse is much harder, costs more money, and leads to proliferation of yet more professional internships that are not peer reviewed by an accrediting body. That shouldn't even be an option in a legitimate healthcare profession.

 

[futureapppsy2]

My concern is the opposite. This may be a very ignorant statement: I worry it will be too many people blaming for profit schools and the people in charge (whomever these mythical individuals are) wont want to listen.

Well, it's kind of hard to have an honest discussion about the imbalance and not bring up how FSPS' grossly inflated classes are a huge factor in the applicant-to-site imbalance.

 

[erg923]

Well, it's kind of hard to have an honest discussion about the imbalance and not bring up how FSPS' grossly inflated classes are a huge factor in the applicant-to-site imbalance.

How many more student came out (applied) this year than there were APPIC or APA internships slots for? Was it more than a thousand?

 

[MCParent]

How many more student came out (applied) this year than there were APPIC or APA internships slots for? Was it more than a thousand?

Combined, 4335 registered for the match for 2602 APA/CPA spots = 60% possible APA/CPA match rate, 1733 students could not get APA spots
3534 APPIC member spots = 82% possible APPIC match rate, 801 could not get APPIC spots

http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/MatchStatistics2014Combined.aspx

 

[futureapppsy2]

Did anyone else get a response saying they had much more interest than expected and weren't sure if they'd be able to include everyone?

 

[erg923]

So almost a thousand more applicants than TOTAL slots in the match.

If ALL programs accredited by the APA were capped at having a cohort of 30, I wonder what that what that ratio would be then? Not perfect, but certainly better than +1000. Obviously, most progtram would be compeleley unaffected by such a cap, but those that take 50, 80, 90 would. And those are the ones cited in Parent's article as contributring disporportionaly to the match, no? APA tells programs what classes they have to have and many other such things, do they really not have the "authority" to cap enrollments if they want to keep their APA accrdiation stamp?

 

[aly cat]

Did anyone else get a response saying they had much more interest than expected and weren't sure if they'd be able to include everyone?

Yep.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

So almost a thousand more applicants than TOTAL slots in the match.

If ALL programs accredited by the APA were capped at having a cohort of 30, I wonder what that what that ratio would be then? Not perfect, but certainly better than +1000. Obviously, most progtram would be compeleley unaffected by such a cap, but those that take 50, 80, 90 would. And those are the ones cited in Parent's article as contributring disporportionaly to the match, no? APA tells programs what classes they have to have and many other such things, do they really not have the "authority" to cap enrollments if they want to keep their APA accrdiation stamp?

I agree--I don't immediately see how the APA wouldn't have the authority to somehow cap enrollments. Now, I could see arguments being made against a supposedly "arbitrary" number, like 30, being proposed. However, there are of course workarounds:

1) Link it to outcomes, as has been proposed (i.e., cap incoming class sizes to the average number of applicants matched to accredited internships over the last XX years)

2) Cap the incoming class sizes at the max number that all programs could contribute to the match while still keeping said number of incoming students at/below the number of internship spots available. So, for example, 3534 APA/APPIC spots were available this year; spread that number evenly across all accredited programs and say that no one program can admit more than XX students (e.g., if there are 100 APA-accredited programs, then no one program can admit more than 35 students).

 

[MCParent]

I agree--I don't immediately see how the APA wouldn't have the authority to somehow cap enrollments. Now, I could see arguments being made against a supposedly "arbitrary" number, like 30, being proposed. However, there are of course workarounds:

1) Link it to outcomes, as has been proposed (i.e., cap incoming class sizes to the average number of applicants matched to accredited internships over the last XX years)

2) Cap the incoming class sizes at the max number that all programs could contribute to the match while still keeping said number of incoming students at/below the number of internship spots available. So, for example, 3534 APA/APPIC spots were available this year; spread that number evenly across all accredited programs and say that no one program can admit more than XX students (e.g., if there are 100 APA-accredited programs, then no one program can admit more than 35 students).

2 would probably be restraint of trade (and pretty easy to get around, probably, if you pretend to break the program up into pieces and have XYZ school of psychology at 920 Broadway Ave, Chicago, and XYZ school of psychology at 922 Broadway Ave., Chicago), but they could do 1.

 

[cara susanna]

Combined, 4335 registered for the match for 2602 APA/CPA spots = 60% possible APA/CPA match rate, 1733 students could not get APA spots
3534 APPIC member spots = 82% possible APPIC match rate, 801 could not get APPIC spots

http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/MatchStatistics2014Combined.aspx

Holy frick. I guess that I forget how bad it is when it comes to APA only spots.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

If I get a chance to voice my opinion in the "thinktank" I will try to emphasize an approach that in no way infringes on the large-cohort programs from accepting as many students as they want. While this is the best option, it is also the most difficult. On the other hand, I think the responsibility of placing students into internships should fall more on the training programs as opposed to each individual. Some programs have already begun this process by limiting how many students can apply to APA-accredited internships. To me, this seems like the path of least resistance (but most changes are bound to meet a great deal of resistance).

 

[psychRA]

Some programs have already begun this process by limiting how many students can apply to APA-accredited internships. To me, this seems like the path of least resistance (but most changes are bound to meet a great deal of resistance).

So these programs are accepting the same number of students, and then allowing a set number of students to apply for APA internships each year? Do you happen to know how this is being implemented? I don't know whether they're choosing those students based on their qualifications/career goals, or just drawing names out of a hat, but I would not want to spend 5 years in a grad program only to find out in the 11th hour that APA internships were not an option for me.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

So these programs are accepting the same number of students, and then allowing a set number of students to apply for APA internships each year? Do you happen to know how this is being implemented? I don't know whether they're choosing those students based on their qualifications/career goals, or just drawing names out of a hat, but I would not want to spend 5 years in a grad program only to find out in the 11th hour that APA internships were not an option for me.

I feel like that I read that information on this site. Some students have mentioned that their programs (don't know which programs) choose which students will be allowed to apply for accredited programs and others can only do APPIC.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I heard through the grapevine that the ThinkTank members have been selected--I'll be super interested to see what the panel/ThinkTank comes up with! I'm hoping that the fact that this effort originated within APA will help it get a lot of attention from APA leadership.