Pre-Doctoral Intership Ranking Decisions

[libraryangel]

How do you make your decisions about ranking internship sites?
What is your ranking strategy?

For me, I am looking at the goodness-of-fit with the site for now...
My problem: the APPIC internship sites seemed more organized and intern/training oriented. Major obstacle to APA accreditation for these sites seem to be financial or they are relatively new APPIC member sites. They stood out more than the APA accredited internship sites! APPIC internships are OK in terms of license and types of jobs I want to get in the future... yet the whole "get an APA accredited internship" thing keeps running through my head. From what I read from this board and in others, those who went through APPIC training were able to get competitive post-doc positions. Any advice?

Any suggestions/words-of-wisdom is greatly appreciated!!

Here's my criteria for a goodness-of-fit:
* Training environment (e.g., nurturing and collaborative supervisors and interns)
* Training context (e.g., hospital, CMHCs, private clinic, VAs)
* Extensive evaluations of interns (both ongoing verbal feedback and formal evaluation process)
* Fit with theoretical orientation of supervisors
* Opportunity to work with populations of interest (e.g., urban poor, children/adolescents/families, diverse ethnically)
* Training seminars offered regularly and trains interns in various therapy modalities/assessment and in other relevant issues (e.g., ethics, safety, legal, and diversity issues)
* At least 3 hours of individual and group supervision
* At least 4 clients per week and no problems maintaining therapy client load throughout the year
* Optimal balance between therapy and assessment cases (e.g., therapy heavy emphasis or maybe 50/50 between therapy and assessment)
* Successful placement of interns to post-doc training
* APA-accredited preferred, APPIC internship sites acceptable
* Internship site emphasizes the training and personal development of the intern, not treat them as just "inexpensive labor"
* The overall intuitive feel (e.g., ability to imagine self working with site supervisors & staff)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[manko7]

Hello libraryangel,

Seems that the intern applicants have not been around lately to answer this question. I haven't been around myself. Your concerns about the accreditation are not trivial. Sadly, some APPIC sites that are not APA approved may in fact be better than those that are. Frankly, I'm not sure how rigorous the APA approval site process is. I know it's quite an ordeal, but I won't go into that. Suffice it to say its probably true that some sites cruise through on a reputation that proves to be unfounded. Its one thing to offer a seminar and quite another thing to really teach it effectively. Perhaps some of the best training experiences are not APA approved. Similarly, its possible that the best authors are not published because their work is not appreciated enough to gain traction.

I am done with my interviews now. But I distinctly remember some sites have a better reputation than was apparent to me. I was surprised to see that some of the best sites on paper were not the best in person. That happens of course.

Now as to goodness of fit, well, I do look at the list of criteria you mentioned. After each interview I took notes on the sites and when I go to rank I will look at the notes. Actually while I am on interview, I mentally begin the ranking process, usually while on the plane. By comparing the sites while they are still fresh in my mind I don't allow revisionist thinking to interfere with my choices. For example there are some sites that I wanted to like (and still do), but I had some reservations.

Some of the things you mention in addition: If I didn't get the impression that I am a top contender, then no matter how much I think I might fit there I will not risk giving a good ranking to a site that will not reciprocate. If they read my work or wanted to discuss my vita- that's a positive to me and a sign of thoroughness. I come from a small school, so I do not have the opportunities to participate in the diversity of experiences and networking possible in a large metro center. I'm very profficient within my subfield, but without reading my work or at least reviewing my vita this would not be apparent. If all they did was ask me my hobbies and what I like to do for fun, forget about it. When this happens I believe the site is just going through the motions. Bottom of the list.

If the site has consistently hired interns from the same city or state and I am not from these areas, I will probably not rank them highly unless they give me pretty explicit indication that they consider me competitive. Likewise, if they consistently take their former practicum students, they near the bottom for me. For example, I have a friend who interviewed at a university counseling center in South Florida and noticed that most of the interns were either from that school or from Florida. There was certainly a history of rapport between the faculty and these students, so right away there was a disadvantage for my friend (really, I do neuro so I am not self-referencing ) Others have pointed out the same issues as well with other places. To me this undermines the integrity of the match altogether, but that's another issue.

I also consider my performance at the interviews. If I blew an interview, that affects my ranking of that site. Yes, I know someone will probably disagree with me and state that they believe they did poorly in the interview and yet still matched. That's fine. I also believe that a site has a pretty good idea who they want beforehand anyway, so some performances are not gravely important in these cases. But with so many people in this process, there is little room for bad first impressions. Again, its one of many factors I take into consideration.

In ranking the site, I also consider the current interns. This is a perspective that cannot be appreciated until after the visit. If the interns looked exhausted and pessimistic, that speaks volumes to me. If the intern was too optimistic, I also take that into consideration. I like an intern that uses a critical eye when evaluating their program. Too often I hear the same glowing review. Such baloney. No internship site is perfect and the process of growing as a clinician has moments of discomfort, frustration, and limitations. When ranking a site I ask myself if I too want to become a "dittohead." I understand the need for professional courtesy, but I certainly appreciate candor as well and I reward it.

These are just a few of the supplementary issues I ponder when ranking a site.

 

[docma]

Libraryaangel's criterion set is a good one. My observation of the ranking process is that it works best if you rank from the heart for where you really want to be. The computerized process works to match you with your highest ranking site that wants you. Ranking a place you liked best below one you think will take you, but you like less, can definitely backfire because you will be matched there before the better choice.

There are so many variables in the process that it defies control through any strategy other than genuinely ranking your preferences and letting the process roll.
Yes, it is anxiety-making and the supply-demand imbalance is criminal but it is what we have for now and I am not aware of any better alternatives. Most students will match. Not matching hurts. Matching to a place you liked less is disappointing but might turn out great. I think the only real mistake is to highly rank a place you felt was definitely a bad fit because you think they will take you and you'd rather go there than not match.

 

[manko7]

I think the only real mistake is to highly rank a place you felt was definitely a bad fit because you think they will take you and you'd rather go there than not match.

I'm on the fence about this philosophy. Back when internships were more plentiful for applicants I would agree, why go with a bad fit? But if its that vs. unemployment I would "take the job." Not matching is like unemployment because you cannot practice one's trade. If you have funding from other sources perhaps deferment is acceptable. But internship is only 1 year. That's not very long. I would gladly hunker down for a year, even at an undesired site, if it meant receiving the doctorate and progressing with life. In the Great Depression, would it really be prudent for someone to actually decline a job that they didn't like in the hopes of getting one later (without any guarantees of even getting a job later)?

 

[aagman01]

{Some of the things you mention in addition: If I didn't get the impression that I am a top contender, then no matter how much I think I might fit there I will not risk giving a good ranking to a site that will not reciprocate.}

I am confused in what you wrote above, Manko. What does it matter if a site reciprocates? I thought you were not penalized if a site ranks you low? I thought the computer just moves on to the next site you ranked. One could apply to site A, which is the most competitive site in the country (in a pretend example), and rank list it #1. If site A ranks the same applicant #200, then the computer checks to see the #2 ranking of the applicant. The applicant is not hurt in any way, I thought.

Am I right on all that?

 

[cat22]

Hello libraryangel,

...Some of the things you mention in addition: If I didn't get the impression that I am a top contender, then no matter how much I think I might fit there I will not risk giving a good ranking to a site that will not reciprocate....
If the site has consistently hired interns from the same city or state and I am not from these areas, I will probably not rank them highly unless they give me pretty explicit indication that they consider me competitive. Likewise, if they consistently take their former practicum students, they near the bottom for me....

This is odd to read, especially given that one of the first things Greg wrote in his Jan 18 email to everyone about matching this month was:

"THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR APPLICANTS TO REMEMBER: Simply rank internship programs based on your TRUE preferences, without consideration for where you believe you might be ranked by these programs. List the program that you want most as rank #1, followed by your next most-preferred program as rank #2, and so on."

He explained, in detail, why that is the case. I'm curious, why would you ignore that advice?

 

[edieb]

This is odd to read, especially given that one of the first things Greg wrote in his Jan 18 email to everyone about matching this month was:

"THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR APPLICANTS TO REMEMBER: Simply rank internship programs based on your TRUE preferences, without consideration for where you believe you might be ranked by these programs. List the program that you want most as rank #1, followed by your next most-preferred program as rank #2, and so on."

He explained, in detail, why that is the case. I'm curious, why would you ignore that advice?

Because the poster wants to match -- IMO, greg k, as one of the chief archtects of the internship disaster, is NOT a good source to listen to

 

[psychanon]

Because the poster wants to match -- IMO, greg k, as one of the chief archtects of the internship disaster, is NOT a good source to listen to

What on earth do you mean?

To all applicants: Please read over the match process, and make sure you understand it before you submit rankings. Failure to do so is a huge disservice to yourself and benefits no one. Once you understand how the process works, you'll realize that ranking sites based on perceived reciprocity or anything else other than your true preferences makes no sense whatsoever, and is essentially shooting yourself in the foot. If you rank two sites (hypothetically, and for simplicity), and you prefer site A to site B, and somehow (breaking guidelines, but again hypothetically) you know that site B ranked you first, if you rank site B #1 and site A #2, you will definitely match at site B. If you rank site A #1 and site B #2, then you'll match at site A if they ranked you higher enough, and if not you'll just match at site B-- same worst-case scenario, same possibility of matching anywhere, but with the added possibility of being able to match at your favorite site. A good way to think about it is that the order of your rankings (assuming you rank everything) does not affect whether you match or not, only where you match.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, please read over the guidelines very, very carefully until you do, for your own sake.

Good luck with rankings/ matching! It is much better from the other side, trust you me.

 

[edieb]

What on earth do you mean?

To all applicants: Please read over the match process, and make sure you understand it before you submit rankings. Failure to do so is a huge disservice to yourself and benefits no one. Once you understand how the process works, you'll realize that ranking sites based on perceived reciprocity or anything else other than your true preferences makes no sense whatsoever, and is essentially shooting yourself in the foot. If you rank two sites (hypothetically, and for simplicity), and you prefer site A to site B, and somehow (breaking guidelines, but again hypothetically) you know that site B ranked you first, if you rank site B #1 and site A #2, you will definitely match at site B. If you rank site A #1 and site B #2, then you'll match at site A if they ranked you higher enough, and if not you'll just match at site B-- same worst-case scenario, same possibility of matching anywhere, but with the added possibility of being able to match at your favorite site. A good way to think about it is that the order of your rankings (assuming you rank everything) does not affect whether you match or not, only where you match.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, please read over the guidelines very, very carefully until you do, for your own sake.

Good luck with rankings/ matching! It is much better from the other side, trust you me.

sorry, should have clarified: Greg has been a member of the APPIC higher-up for many, many years and saw the internship imbalance beginning long before it got to its current state. However, as others on an APA listserv have pointed out, he did NOTHING about it until there were outcries from unmatched persons. Even then, all he did was put together a toothless resolution that he likely knew no schools who are flooding the marke would listen to.


There are a myriad of reasons for his inaction but, IMO, $$ is the most likely. Why? The more people who register,the more APPIC & NMS make. In addition, APPIC is now charging for each site applied to. THus, if the internship imbalance decreases b/c fewer prospective interns are applying (because they mached the first time throug), APPIC's revenue decreases (because each intern has to pay a registation fee every time they try to match). THus, where is the incentive to curb the imbalance?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

To all applicants: Please read over the match process, and make sure you understand it before you submit rankings. Failure to do so is a huge disservice to yourself and benefits no one. Once you understand how the process works, you'll realize that ranking sites based on perceived reciprocity or anything else other than your true preferences makes no sense whatsoever, and is essentially shooting yourself in the foot.

This is very solid advice.

In regard to the imbalance of applicants to available spots, we have a thread that talks about that. If people would like to discuss it further, I'd suggest bumping that thread. I'd like to keep this thread just about ranking.

RE: RANKING

The first criterion should be APA v. APPIC acred., as this more than any other factor can most impact your career path. I know I harp on this, but many jobs require the applicant comes from both an APA-acred program and internship site. I think there needs to be a sound reason why someone would rank an APPIC site ahead of an APA one. The most common reason I have seen is geographic restriction. As an aside, I agree with the poster above who said there are some APPIC sites that offer a better experience than some APA sites, but unfortunately the difference in status seems to matter more to people and employers.

RE: Post Doc Competitiveness

There are many great clinicians who come from APPIC internship sites, but because the competition, you have to come from an APA-acred internship if you want to be competitive for a post-doc.

I am currently going through the post-doc process and every formal program I have seen requires applicants to come from an APA-acred. program and an APA-acred internship site. I believe there is more flexibility in less formal positions, but with the glut of psychologists and mid-levels out there, it is still very competitive to secure one of those positions.

 

[docma]

Candidates from APPIC, non-APA programs DO find post-docs. Yes, they are ruled out of some positions, but definitely not all so in fairness I think it is better not to over-state the risk--not "every" formal program has this requirement and there are variations by specialty and region. Non-APA does narrow your choices, but it does not remove them.

What IS important is to talk with non-APA sites about where their students do go for post-docs. Training directors know this is an issue and, at least in my experience, will be happy to tell you where their students have secured their post-docs: just ask.

 

[cat22]

Ok, so Greg may or may not have incentives that affect the advice he gives applicants. Either way, what would the logic be NOT to rank sites in your true order of preference? I'm still wondering why people would do this - why do you think that would help you match? Can anyone give an example?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

What IS important is to talk with non-APA sites about where their students do go for post-docs. Training directors know this is an issue and, at least in my experience, will be happy to tell you where their students have secured their post-docs: just ask.

Very good point. EVERY internship site interview should include the Post-Doc question. I asked at every single on of mine, and it effected how I ranked programs. Most of the places I interviewed had solid placements and stayed in touch with their former interns, and a couple were less sure.

 

[manko7]

{Some of the things you mention in addition: If I didn't get the impression that I am a top contender, then no matter how much I think I might fit there I will not risk giving a good ranking to a site that will not reciprocate.}

I am confused in what you wrote above, Manko. What does it matter if a site reciprocates? I thought you were not penalized if a site ranks you low? I thought the computer just moves on to the next site you ranked. One could apply to site A, which is the most competitive site in the country (in a pretend example), and rank list it #1. If site A ranks the same applicant #200, then the computer checks to see the #2 ranking of the applicant. The applicant is not hurt in any way, I thought.

Am I right on all that?

Quick aside- Ok I knew this would cause a stir and I apologize if I have offended anyone. This is a stressful process for everyone including myself and I want to state clearly what I say does not represent the opinions of APPIC or APA. I've just been a graduate student for a long darn time and in all my education the one thing I've noticed is that sometimes the best man doesn't get the job and the match isn't always fair. But we all have to get through it one way or another in order to get the doctorate.

There is no "real" penalty to ranking a site highly. The problem is that you really have to consider how competitive you are for a site. If a site does not rank you highly, then your prized #1 rank is wasted. Remember that The majority of people really do match to #1. So its likely you will get #1. But the most competitive sites only have so many positions. First, if the computer detects a candidate who the site ranked higher, well, you get booted out of #1. Remember that most people match to either #1 or #2. Not saying you want match to #3 or #4, but chances diminish. By the time you reach #7 or #8, the chances of matching at those particular choices are around 1 or 2%. You see when you rank a site #3 or #4, someone else out there has probably felt that they were a perfect match. Consequently they have ranked that site #1 and will probably match there. In theory, its possible you might boot him or her out of that slot. But then again, the probability argues against that happening. When a site is competitive EVERYONE with a healthy ego believes they are #1. My view is that it's better to find a site to which you really feel you have chemistry- i.e. you feel you would enjoy the site, enjoy working with the people, and have clearly demonstrated interpersonal rapport with the faculty (The MATCH). Part of being successful if being able to read the faculty. If the faculty does not give you a very strong impression of success- we're not talking rank info here- why on earth would you risk one of your precious, prized ranks if there isn't a big flashing green light? The odds of you NOT matching are pretty good unless you come from a well-known adviser who can pull some strings.

To me, it is quite a naive and irresponsible for APPIC to put forth the message to only espouse the strategy to pick your "dream internship" and put you trust and future in the unimpeachable hands of APPIC's infallible computer.

 

[manko7]

What on earth do you mean?

To all applicants: Please read over the match process, and make sure you understand it before you submit rankings. Failure to do so is a huge disservice to yourself and benefits no one. Once you understand how the process works, you'll realize that ranking sites based on perceived reciprocity or anything else other than your true preferences makes no sense whatsoever, and is essentially shooting yourself in the foot. If you rank two sites (hypothetically, and for simplicity), and you prefer site A to site B, and somehow (breaking guidelines, but again hypothetically) you know that site B ranked you first, if you rank site B #1 and site A #2, you will definitely match at site B. If you rank site A #1 and site B #2, then you'll match at site A if they ranked you higher enough, and if not you'll just match at site B-- same worst-case scenario, same possibility of matching anywhere, but with the added possibility of being able to match at your favorite site. A good way to think about it is that the order of your rankings (assuming you rank everything) does not affect whether you match or not, only where you match.

This is a very oversimplified model psychanon, you are assuming that the ranking that a site submits for a candidate will be within 1 rank of your own. The problem is when you consider that 15-20 people are vying for that very same slot. So what are the odds that your site rank will be within 1 rank of the site's candidate rank? Here the model becomes much more complicated. In your example, if you do not receive site A, you assume that you will then receive site B. But what if another 15 people have ranked site B higher than you did? And let's say you're not #1, since it is improbable that you will be #1. Other candidates may match to the available slots before you did, because others ranked those sites higher than yourself. Therefore if the computer does not fit you into a slot within your first 3 or four choices, it's possible the slots may be filled before you match.

I think APPICS problem is that they provide a very simple example to explain their process. How confident are you in making conclusions in your own study with few data points? Also, there is no transparency in the rankings. So you just have to accept what APPIC says or tough luck.

Now as to invoking Greg's advice, Greg seems like a nice guy on the message board. I also mean no disrespect to Greg as well when I say that I think there is a conflict of interest in his administrative role and as author of a how-to book. He wields a great deal of power and influence in the process. He also has a book out on how to get internships. The more people seeking internships, well, the more people buy his book. If he were writing the book as a retired administrator that would be different. It might benefit the community if the proceeds used in the sale of the book be used to fund further initiatives to remedy the internship problem.

I still stand by my original advice to the OP however. In addition to the solid advice from Therapist4Chnge I think my suggestions should not be easily dismissed. If you really like a Florida site but you notice that nearly all their current interns are from Florida, all post-docs are from Florida, you look around and see former Florida practicum students interviewing beside you, with the rest being candidates from outside Florida, but who studied under mentors who are former Florida interns at the site, and you are not from Florida but you feel you gave a great answer to "what's your favorite hobby" or "if you were a pet what kind of pet would you be," well *catching breath here* you had better think twice about putting that site as your #1 choice just because you like the opportunities and therefore believe that is your "TRUE preference." To me, that is utterly unwise.

 

[psychmama]

Quick aside- I've just been a graduate student for a long darn time and in all my education the one thing I've noticed is that sometimes the best man doesn't get the job and the match isn't always fair. But we all have to get through it one way or another in order to get the doctorate.

To me, it is quite a naive and irresponsible for APPIC to put forth the message to only espouse the strategy to pick your "dream internship" and put you trust and future in the unimpeachable hands of APPIC's infallible computer.

Amen. The Match process just cannot be as straightforward at APPIC makes it out to be. Too many people I know matched to sites they ranked ##s 5,6,7,8, and I've always suspected it has something to do with being encouraged to rank according to true preference. I think only an advanced statistician would be able to explain the algorithm APPIC uses and all of its implications for applicants. At the same time, it would scare me to "game" the system too much, because it's also unclear to me how this actually affects the applicant's chances.

Bottom line: Any internship match can be a good match as a means to an end -- getting the degree -- and thankfully we're only interns for one year.

Good luck to all!

 

[PsychHeel]

Listen, this is not to be disrespectful at all, but manko clearly misunderstands the ranking/match process. PLEASE don't listen to this nonsense. The ONLY way to rank your sites is by order of your true preference. I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand here, but it is explained clearly by APPIC. Let's say you applied to 31 sites (ridiculous, but I'm making a point). Let's say you like 30 of these sites a lot, but are convinced you have no shot of being ranked by any of them. You don't like the 31st site at all, but are sure they will rank you highly. You STILL have nothing to lose by ranking the programs in your true order of preference (i.e., ranking the "sure thing" at number 31), because even if those 30 sites don't rank you, but the 31st site does, in fact, rank you #1 (or #2 or #3 if they have, for example, three positions), you WILL MATCH with #31. It doesn't matter that you ranked them so low.

I'm not sure if there are just some conspiracy theorists on this board or what, but there is a LOT of bad advice going on here. For the people saying, "I've known too many people who matched to their #5, 6, 7 programs," you clearly know a lot of people who unfortunately weren't the top choices of their top programs -- end of story. There is nothing more to it. Please, people, know what you're talking about before you post, because it could seriously impact other people's futures.

This is a very oversimplified model psychanon, you are assuming that the ranking that a site submits for a candidate will be within 1 rank of your own. The problem is when you consider that 15-20 people are vying for that very same slot. So what are the odds that your site rank will be within 1 rank of the site's candidate rank? Here the model becomes much more complicated. In your example, if you do not receive site A, you assume that you will then receive site B. But what if another 15 people have ranked site B higher than you did? And let's say you're not #1, since it is improbable that you will be #1. Other candidates may match to the available slots before you did, because others ranked those sites higher than yourself. Therefore if the computer does not fit you into a slot within your first 3 or four choices, it's possible the slots may be filled before you match.

I think APPICS problem is that they provide a very simple example to explain their process. How confident are you in making conclusions in your own study with few data points? Also, there is no transparency in the rankings. So you just have to accept what APPIC says or tough luck.

Now as to invoking Greg's advice, Greg seems like a nice guy on the message board. I also mean no disrespect to Greg as well when I say that I think there is a conflict of interest in his administrative role and as author of a how-to book. He wields a great deal of power and influence in the process. He also has a book out on how to get internships. The more people seeking internships, well, the more people buy his book. If he were writing the book as a retired administrator that would be different. It might benefit the community if the proceeds used in the sale of the book be used to fund further initiatives to remedy the internship problem.

I still stand by my original advice to the OP however. In addition to the solid advice from Therapist4Chnge I think my suggestions should not be easily dismissed. If you really like a Florida site but you notice that nearly all their current interns are from Florida, all post-docs are from Florida, you look around and see former Florida practicum students interviewing beside you, with the rest being candidates from outside Florida, but who studied under mentors who are former Florida interns at the site, and you are not from Florida but you feel you gave a great answer to "what's your favorite hobby" or "if you were a pet what kind of pet would you be," well *catching breath here* you had better think twice about putting that site as your #1 choice just because you like the opportunities and therefore believe that is your "TRUE preference." To me, that is utterly unwise.

 

[manko7]

Listen, this is not to be disrespectful at all, but manko clearly misunderstands the ranking/match process. PLEASE don't listen to this nonsense.

Psychheel,

I mean no disrespect to you, but it's important that I address this one . But your have supported your point with an improbable example. If 30 sites would not even rank you then it's unlikely that the 31st site would consider you their #1 choice- unless they had a very compelling reason to do so. Which the candidate would probably know- that is one of my points. It is easily verifiable to show that the number of people matching to their 7th or 8th choice is about 1%. So your example is highly improbable because highly competitive people would not remain "unranked" by so many sites and yet be the #1 choice at another site. Competitive people have traits that probably appeal to many sites. There are highly successful people out there who had 8 or 9 interviews who still did not match last year. I know those people followed the advice espoused by APPIC. Psycheel- people do not match. It happens. You assert they were not the top choices of their top programs. That is obvious. But beyond the first few slots your logic falls apart. Again, the chances of matching to choices beyond 1-4 is unlikely. So your example is incorrect.

I'm sorry if I violated your belief in a just world but nearly 25% of folks did not match. As I've stated before that is Great Depression levels of unemployment. For you to say the system is fine goes against the data that is readily available.

When you consider the data, I don't see how it's sensible to defend the status quo. Again, inferring from the data provided by APPIC, following the traditional strategy may yield non-match results for about a quarter of applicants. Of course, you may assume that those who did not match did not follow APPIC strategy, but given that APPIC has been adamant on this message I doubt it.

Can you be more specific about how my strategy of considering multiple factors besides the "dream internship" is nonsense?

Finally, no one said anything about a conspiracy theory. Many on this board simply believe that the advice of an organization that has done a poor job administering this process should not be accepted without a critical eye. I respect your decision to ignore my advice, but you don't have the answers either psychheel. Until the process is more transparent (i.e. more representative examples from APPIC would help here) I advocate a mature and critical approach to the match decision.

 

[mj215]

I don't think the problem is that the ranking strategy proposed by APPIC, essentially ranking them in order of your true preference, is the problem. The problem primarily seems to be that there are too few internships and too many applicants, but I don't think that ranking the sites any other way would change this.
Perhaps the reason some very good applicants do not match is because they apply only to sites that are considered quite competitive, or purely because of bad luck in the numbers involved in matching. Let's say someone has 7 interviews, and at each of those 7 sites they are interviewing 30 people and taking 3 interns. If the applicant does well s/he may be ranked relatively highly, like numbers 4th through 9th at each site. However, if the sites are highly desireable, the people who are ranked above this person at each site may fill the slots EVEN THOUGH this person did great on interviews and was highly ranked. So, while this is crappy, changing the order of the rankings would not have made any difference. So I totally understand and concur that they need to fix things so that there are fewer applicants in the pool or more high quality internships, I don't think that changing the ranking order will affect likelihood of matching.
So let's all hope that the above scenario doesn't happen to us (in the end the data seems to show that most of the time, but not all, people don't match for reasons such as geographical restriction and applying to fewer sites), write to the higher-ups about our concerns, and hope that we get the internship slots we truly want! At least that's how I'm going to do my list

 

[docma]

mj215 is right. The problem is number of applicants vs. number of positions and we should not lose our focus on addressing that problem--but it is also not the topic of this thread..

The ranking process really is the optimal and most neutral/fair way to solve this large-scale matching problem, which is why several professions use it and have for years. The alternative systems are way less fair and highly stressful; worse than the Match, believe it or not.

The observation that too many people only ranked at their mid-rank places may be a function of looking at a group of students who all were seeking highly competitive sites and no matter how strong they look from your perspective there were simply also a lot of equally strong or stronger students in the pool.

Remember that sites rank deep in their lists, because they know candidates may prefer other sites and if you match with them, it is because you were their preferred choice from among the students available to them (even if they were not your top choice) The system means you are going somewhere that wants you.

 

[psychmama]

Docma - perhaps you are right that matching to the middle of your rank list just means you were up against very steep competition. I think the point is that APPIC's numbers suggest most applicants match to their top three choices. I'd like to see a breakdown of this by geographic area -- do these match stats hold true if you're looking in NYC or San Francisco? I suspect they do not.

 

[docma]

I agree and think that a geographic breakdown of match stats would be very interesting.

 

[ClinicalTrainee]

Psychheel,

I mean no disrespect to you, but it's important that I address this one . But your have supported your point with an improbable example. If 30 sites would not even rank you then it's unlikely that the 31st site would consider you their #1 choice- unless they had a very compelling reason to do so. Which the candidate would probably know- that is one of my points. It is easily verifiable to show that the number of people matching to their 7th or 8th choice is about 1%. So your example is highly improbable because highly competitive people would not remain "unranked" by so many sites and yet be the #1 choice at another site. Competitive people have traits that probably appeal to many sites. There are highly successful people out there who had 8 or 9 interviews who still did not match last year. I know those people followed the advice espoused by APPIC. Psycheel- people do not match. It happens. You assert they were not the top choices of their top programs. That is obvious. But beyond the first few slots your logic falls apart. Again, the chances of matching to choices beyond 1-4 is unlikely. So your example is incorrect.

...

Can you be more specific about how my strategy of considering multiple factors besides the "dream internship" is nonsense?

I attempted to post something in this thread several days ago but my internet crapped out. I can't help but jump in now, though.

I feel, manko, that you are confusing the process with outcomes. That is, you're erroneously applying the statistics tallied post-match with the process that occurs in the Mighty Match Algorithm.

Psychheel gave an improbable example intentionally, I think, to point something out. Yes, of course it's improbable for someone to get ranked #1 at the 31st site and not ranked highly at other sites. Improbable yes, but not impossible. The essential problem here is that we have no real way to guess how a site is ranking us. Yes, I agree that faculty sometimes give off vibes, but who's to say they don't do that for other people? Or you end up with an externally cranky interviewer who actually is very impressed by you but doesn't show it? Responding quickly to your original post, there must be some interviewers out there who are asking questions about hobbies and such to ascertain personality fit and likability. If I were running a training program, these are things I would care about.

Anyway, every site is ranking *independently* of every other site. Different sites are looking for different things and won't have the same rank order list, even with an overlapping set of candidates. The computer algorithm is not "thinking" about probabilities when putting together the matches!

Considering other factors besides "dream internship" isn't nonsense, but incorporting those factors into rankings just doesn't make sense. Lets say you interviewed at 7 sites, and you rank order them by true preference (A B C D E F G). If you're high enough on A's rank order list (and other people A likes choose other sites as #1), you will go there. Why would you not give yourself that opportunity? Psychheel is right; if sites A B C and D don't rank you highly, and other students they like more also like them more, you'd get "bumped" from those sites and end up at site F.

Or you think that sites F and E liked you more, so you could rank them (F E A B C D G). If site F has 5 slots and ranks you #5, you'll go there. It will *look* like (according to match statistics) that you're ending up at your #1 ranked spot, but you aren't!!!!

I guess I just don't see the point in trying to say "Yes, I got the site I ranked #1 in the match" if that is NOT the same site that you would say "Yes, I got the site I most wanted to go to."

 

[PsychHeel]

No, no, no, no, no. Again, I'm not trying to be abrasive, but you're simply wrong, and I still don't know exactly where your confusion is coming from. Your primary issue seems to be that many ostensibly qualified people are not matching (this is true), but as has been pointed out by several others, that is a completely different issue. If those highly qualified people applied to every internship and were still not matching, then you'd have a point. But the fact is that they're not doing this. Lower qualified people are matching, and it's because higher qualified people are not applying to those internships. The issue I am addressing is how to best rank sites, and there is no sensible method other than ranking in order of your true preference.

You don't like my example, which was intentionally drastic to make a point. What type of example, then, can I give you to make you understand?

Each different site has a different ranking list (obviously). Thus, you could be number 1 on a bunch of different lists, number 2 on a bunch of different lists, or (most likely) ranked at many different positions by different sites. Thus, APPIC attempts to match you to YOUR TOP SELECTION. There is no other way to do it.

One final example. You have entered the match, and the computer first tries to match you with your top choice (let's say it's Site A), which has three internship spots available. As it turns out, you are 15th on Site A's list (here's an example in which you are not terribly likely to match, perhaps, but it is still your "dream internship"). In this situation, at least 12 of the people ranked ahead of you would have to match elsewhere (to places THEY had ranked higher) in order for you to get an internship at Site A. All of those people will get a crack at matching with Site A before you. Your second choice, Site X, happens to be a much more "realistic" choice for you. Many people from your program have matched there before, and you happen to have past experience working with the director of that site. Does this mean you should reconsider and rank Site X (the almost sure thing) higher than Site A (the "pie in the sky" choice)? NO. YOU LOSE NOTHING BY RANKING BY YOUR TRUE PREFERENCE. Let's see how...

The person ranked #1 by Site A (Amanda) actually has Site A ranked third. However, the sites Amanda has ranked #1 and #2 are filled by applicants THOSE PROGRAMS ranked higher than Amanda. Thus, the computer attempts to rank Amanda with Site A, her third choice (again, after first trying to match her with her top two choices). Let's say 3 other programs also have Amanda ranked #1 -- it doesn't matter, because the computer matches her with the highest available program on HER LIST. End result, Amanda matches with Site A (her third choice), and there are now two internship positions left at Site A.

Site A now moves to the person ranked #2 on its list (Beth) and sees if it has a match. Before this can happen, though, the computer will attempt to match Beth with the program she has ranked highest. As it turns out, Beth has ranked Site A #2 on her list. Beth's first choice (Site B, which has three positions open) had her ranked #4. Does Beth match with Site A, because they had her ranked higher than Site B? NO! The computer still tries to match Beth with her first choice (Site B). Before the computer can do this, however, the people ranked #1-#3 by Site B get the first crack at that internship. As it turns out, the person ranked #1 by Site B (Charles) was also ranked #1 by HIS top choice, and thus he is off the table -- he has matched. Site B ends up matching with its #2 and #3 applicants and has one position remaining, so Beth (Site B's #4 choice) gets an internship with Site B (EVEN THOUGH THAT INTERNSHIP HAD HER RANKED LOWER THAN SITE A -- it was HER preference that wins out).

So, Site A (your top choice) still has two positions remaining, and will attempt to match with 12 other people, starting with #3 on their list (you're ranked #15, remember) before giving you the opportunity to match. That will all play out, however, BEFORE you are matched to a lower ranked program.

As it turns out, you do not match to Site A, as two other people ranked ahead of you by Site A match there before you. The computer now attempts to match you to your second ranked program (Site X). Just as you thought, Site X had you ranked #3, and has four positions open. You match to Site X. You did not "waste" your top pick trying to shoot for the moon and get your dream internship. You tried it out, didn't get it, and matched with your second choice. If you had it to do over again, would you still rank Site A #1? OF COURSE. Because on the odd chance that Site A gets through the 14 people they have ranked ahead of you and still has an internship position open, YOU GET THAT LAST SPOT. NO ONE BUT YOU. It doesn't matter if a million other people had them ranked #1, if that site had YOU ranked ahead of them.

Please, please, please, for the love of God, look at what you are saying. There are no tricks here. You say there are "highly competitive people" out there who do not match with any of their choices, and that is absolutely true. I know people like that -- people with great experience, from a highly respected PhD program that regularly matches all of its students to their first and second choices. How does this happen? Often, it's because these people don't apply to a wide enough "range" of internships, in terms of their relative competitiveness. These people KNEW they were highly competitive, and thus, only applied to very competitive internships, thinking they would get one. As it turned out, that didn't happen. In fact, these people may, indeed, have been very competitive. They may have been ranked 4th or 5th by each program they applied to (out of, let's say, 200 applicants at each site). That's VERY impressive. But if these programs were so competitive, they may match to their top choices, even before getting very far down their lists. If they had three positions, their 4th or 5th ranked applicants might not get a spot.

Okay, that's about all I can say on this matter. Can anyone else explain this in a way that is clearer? I have clearly had no luck thus far.

Psychheel,

I mean no disrespect to you, but it's important that I address this one . But your have supported your point with an improbable example. If 30 sites would not even rank you then it's unlikely that the 31st site would consider you their #1 choice- unless they had a very compelling reason to do so. Which the candidate would probably know- that is one of my points. It is easily verifiable to show that the number of people matching to their 7th or 8th choice is about 1%. So your example is highly improbable because highly competitive people would not remain "unranked" by so many sites and yet be the #1 choice at another site. Competitive people have traits that probably appeal to many sites. There are highly successful people out there who had 8 or 9 interviews who still did not match last year. I know those people followed the advice espoused by APPIC. Psycheel- people do not match. It happens. You assert they were not the top choices of their top programs. That is obvious. But beyond the first few slots your logic falls apart. Again, the chances of matching to choices beyond 1-4 is unlikely. So your example is incorrect.

I'm sorry if I violated your belief in a just world but nearly 25% of folks did not match. As I've stated before that is Great Depression levels of unemployment. For you to say the system is fine goes against the data that is readily available.

When you consider the data, I don't see how it's sensible to defend the status quo. Again, inferring from the data provided by APPIC, following the traditional strategy may yield non-match results for about a quarter of applicants. Of course, you may assume that those who did not match did not follow APPIC strategy, but given that APPIC has been adamant on this message I doubt it.

Can you be more specific about how my strategy of considering multiple factors besides the "dream internship" is nonsense?

Finally, no one said anything about a conspiracy theory. Many on this board simply believe that the advice of an organization that has done a poor job administering this process should not be accepted without a critical eye. I respect your decision to ignore my advice, but you don't have the answers either psychheel. Until the process is more transparent (i.e. more representative examples from APPIC would help here) I advocate a mature and critical approach to the match decision.

 

[robinsena]

I've been lurking for some time now, but felt compelled to post in response to this since I'm concerned about how people may try to 'game' the system. I can't put it better than PsychHeel and ClinicalTrainee.

Before we blame poor match outcomes on APPIC's instructions on how to rank the sites, please consider the following and put the outcomes in context (some have been mentioned by other posters above):

1) There is a clear imbalance in the # of applicants per year and # of slots available.
2) Some applicants, DESPITE good advice, do not apply to enough sites. I know people in my program that ignored the advice to apply to a minimum of 15 sites, and now have only 2-4 interviews. Therefore, if they don't match, the ranking algorithm should not be blamed. (Also need to take into factor that there are probably geographical clusters where it is sig. more competitive.)
3) The horror stories you hear about people who get double digit interviews and no match... you hear them because they are usually the exceptions and not the rule. Thus, there can be a number of reasons why people did not match [e.g. bad interview style; inconsistencies in their application and what they say in the interview], and no one can definitively point the finger at the ranking algorithm for the lack of match.

I don't expect everyone to be convinced to just trust APPIC on this one, but personally, although I may not understand every mathematical intricacy to the MATCH, I do feel like I understand it enough to know that I really do need to put my #1 site #1 on the list. It's just not smart try to figure out how sites are ranking you based off the interviews - interviewers all have different styles. I've heard of plenty of applicants who felt they bombed the interview at a site, ranked the site high anyway and was matched there. Remember that at this anxious time people like to tell horror stories, and not the 'normal' stories of match since they're not as sensational nor feed into the paranoia we're all feeling. Besides, if you try to game the system, it will AT BEST become a self-fulfilling prophecy... you may get the site you ranked first, but it will most likely not be the site you really want. I would rather trust the MATCH process and really go for the sites I am truly drawn to, rather then spend the next year wondering what would have happened if I ranked honestly. I know this may not change some people's minds, but I strongly encourage everyone to follow their gut and rank based on their preferences AND NOTHING ELSE. Everyone I know now who are extremely happy at their internship have done the same.

I had a med student (they use MATCH too) explain this to me in dating terms (where the sites are the courters offering 'marriage' to the applicants, and applicants coyly say 'maybe' until they hear from their preferred sites, and then going down the list of their 'preferred bachelors' thus), but I don't know if it will be any more clarifying, so I don't regurgitate the analogy here. I just thought the image of internship directors getting down on one knee proposing a year-long commitment to applicants is amusing.

I guess we can all do what we feel is the right thing to do, and then check back afterward. Proof is in the pudding right?

 

[PsychHeel]

Okay, I was just struck by the simplest way to illustrate this. Manko, if you're convinced that ranking in terms of true preference ISN'T the best strategy, please give a concrete example that shows how it would backfire. I don't want statistics about how people don't all match -- I want a hypothetical example that goes through the process and shows how one could go wrong by ranking by preference. Several posters have given hypotheticals illustrating how this process DOES work, and you have not accepted these examples (though I've yet to understand why). Give me an example that makes sense, and I'm happy to concede the point.

I've been lurking for some time now, but felt compelled to post in response to this since I'm concerned about how people may try to 'game' the system. I can't put it better than PsychHeel and ClinicalTrainee.

Before we blame poor match outcomes on APPIC's instructions on how to rank the sites, please consider the following and put the outcomes in context (some have been mentioned by other posters above):

1) There is a clear imbalance in the # of applicants per year and # of slots available.
2) Some applicants, DESPITE good advice, do not apply to enough sites. I know people in my program that ignored the advice to apply to a minimum of 15 sites, and now have only 2-4 interviews. Therefore, if they don't match, the ranking algorithm should not be blamed. (Also need to take into factor that there are probably geographical clusters where it is sig. more competitive.)
3) The horror stories you hear about people who get double digit interviews and no match... you hear them because they are usually the exceptions and not the rule. Thus, there can be a number of reasons why people did not match [e.g. bad interview style; inconsistencies in their application and what they say in the interview], and no one can definitively point the finger at the ranking algorithm for the lack of match.

I don't expect everyone to be convinced to just trust APPIC on this one, but personally, although I may not understand every mathematical intricacy to the MATCH, I do feel like I understand it enough to know that I really do need to put my #1 site #1 on the list. It's just not smart try to figure out how sites are ranking you based off the interviews - interviewers all have different styles. I've heard of plenty of applicants who felt they bombed the interview at a site, ranked the site high anyway and was matched there. Remember that at this anxious time people like to tell horror stories, and not the 'normal' stories of match since they're not as sensational nor feed into the paranoia we're all feeling. Besides, if you try to game the system, it will AT BEST become a self-fulfilling prophecy... you may get the site you ranked first, but it will most likely not be the site you really want. I would rather trust the MATCH process and really go for the sites I am truly drawn to, rather then spend the next year wondering what would have happened if I ranked honestly. I know this may not change some people's minds, but I strongly encourage everyone to follow their gut and rank based on their preferences AND NOTHING ELSE. Everyone I know now who are extremely happy at their internship have done the same.

I had a med student (they use MATCH too) explain this to me in dating terms (where the sites are the courters offering 'marriage' to the applicants, and applicants coyly say 'maybe' until they hear from their preferred sites, and then going down the list of their 'preferred bachelors' thus), but I don't know if it will be any more clarifying, so I don't regurgitate the analogy here. I just thought the image of internship directors getting down on one knee proposing a year-long commitment to applicants is amusing.

I guess we can all do what we feel is the right thing to do, and then check back afterward. Proof is in the pudding right?

 

[GregK]

I have to say that, when one has dedicated his professional career to helping students navigate this process, it is quite disconcerting to read one's motives and ethics being questioned in a public forum.

I won't enter the debate on how to construct one's rankings, since y'all certainly know where I stand on that. And, some of the other charges that have been posted here are just plain inaccurate and insulting. However, since I've been publicly accused of substituting my ethics for financial gain, let me state for the record that I have never earned one penny from any of my professional activities related to education and training, including any books or publications. Any book chapters, articles, publications, etc. that I have written have not paid me anything. Didn't anyone notice that the "How To" book is sponsored by APAGS, which owns the book and reaps any financial profits, which means that those revenues go back to student activities? My time on that book, and others, has been on a volunteer basis. Furthermore, the workshop that I do for APAGS each year is on a volunteer basis (although a portion of my travel expenses are reimbursed by APAGS). In addition, I have never been paid one penny of salary by APPIC, or by any other professional organization, for anything that I have done for them. There is nothing that I'm leaving out here; I don't make any money in any of these professional activities. Period.

The only money that I make as a psychologist comes from my employment at The University of Texas at Austin and from my private practice.

Greg Keilin

 

[PsychHeel]

Dr. Keilin,
I think (hope) that most people can tell that the conspiracy theorists on here are just that. I (and many others) certainly appreciate the work you do for APAGS, and the only reason I've been posting on here is because I find it odd that people would still be confused about the ranking process, after how clear you all have made it.
Anyway, keep fighting the good fight!

I have to say that, when one has dedicated his professional career to helping students navigate this process, it is quite disconcerting to read one's motives and ethics being questioned in a public forum.

I won't enter the debate on how to construct one's rankings, since y'all certainly know where I stand on that. And, some of the other charges that have been posted here are just plain inaccurate and insulting. However, since I've been publicly accused of substituting my ethics for financial gain, let me state for the record that I have never earned one penny from any of my professional activities related to education and training, including any books or publications. Any book chapters, articles, publications, etc. that I have written have not paid me anything. Didn't anyone notice that the "How To" book is sponsored by APAGS, which owns the book and reaps any financial profits, which means that those revenues go back to student activities? My time on that book, and others, has been on a volunteer basis. Furthermore, the workshop that I do for APAGS each year is on a volunteer basis (although a portion of my travel expenses are reimbursed by APAGS). In addition, I have never been paid one penny of salary by APPIC, or by any other professional organization, for anything that I have done for them. There is nothing that I'm leaving out here; I don't make any money in any of these professional activities. Period.

The only money that I make as a psychologist comes from my employment at The University of Texas at Austin and from my private practice.

Greg Keilin

 

[manko7]

Okay, I was just struck by the simplest way to illustrate this. Manko, if you're convinced that ranking in terms of true preference ISN'T the best strategy, please give a concrete example that shows how it would backfire. I don't want statistics about how people don't all match -- I want a hypothetical example that goes through the process and shows how one could go wrong by ranking by preference. Several posters have given hypotheticals illustrating how this process DOES work, and you have not accepted these examples (though I've yet to understand why). Give me an example that makes sense, and I'm happy to concede the point.

Ok, I was under the impression that the participant’s rankings mattered quite a bit more than it does. It appears that they do not matter however if that participant is not ranked adequately enough to obtain a slot. They do appear to matter in cases of a tie-break and in the rare case of a ranking stand-still. Now I do think the thread strayed into a question of ordinal ranking, which I was wrong. However the original post referred to the qualitative criteria to determine the ordinal ranking. I think the confusion on this point stemmed from Docma’s statement that “the only real mistake is to highly rank a place you felt was definitely a bad fit because you think they will take you and you'd rather go there than not match.” I agree with this statement and was pondering whether to rank a site that was a bad fit at all. Given the competition out there, I would advocate ranking all sites unless the site was completely unbearable and waiting out another year was feasible. Remember, I’m not out to mislead anyone. But I’ve never seen research to suggest that a candidate who aligns the rankings with what they felt were their best prospects for matching would receive less than, equal than, or greater prospects for matching. If anyone has any research on this please let me know! I really only care about the truth, not about “winning” any discussion. One other concern is the claim that not matching results from the instance whereby “people don't apply to a wide enough ‘range’ of internships, in terms of their relative competitiveness.” This appears to be speculation. It appears to be a victim-blaming attitude. I await any actuarial confirmation for this statement.

Now GregK, thank you for taking the time to address some of the concerns posted in this topic, especially regarding the concern for conflict of interest. However, GregK, please do not be offended by this concern however. When there is a potential conflict of interest it’s crucial to address these issues, and it would be arrogant to assume that a person in a position of authority is exempt from inquiry. I and many others appreciate your efforts on behalf of students. GregK had done an excellent job answering questions in a prompt and friendly tone. It is readily evident you have good rapport with students and in my opinion the services you have rendered have greatly improved the image of the internship process.

That being said I must disagree with PsychHeel. The concept and execution of the internship match in psychology is a failure (nearly 25% unmatched capable candidates). Labeling critics of the process as “conspiracy theorists” is not conducive to constructive discussion. Whether or not to assign blame to GregK is immaterial. He is a representative of the system which effectively yields a “non-match” rate that is commensurate with the unemployment rate of the Great Depression during it’s worse period. That is unacceptable GregK. As it is unfair to place blame on Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression, I also would not directly place blame on GregK. But since GregK is a member of APPIC in a position of authority he unfortunately will hear criticism. I appreciate the efforts GregK, but all that matters are the results. I encourage GregK to continue the fight. But we have not reached a point that we can call it a “good fight.”

In the past I’ve advocated for more transparency in the process. For example, feedback should be mandatory for all students that do not match. I do not think this request is outrageous. Here’s why: Presumably all sites take notes on students who interview (for shame if they do not) and candidates would have an objective means to assess their potential and weaknesses. Students would be better positioned for the match during the subsequent year. Given the accessibility of web boards like this one, notes could be compared and sites would be held accountable for their choices. Folks, the internship is a training component required by our programs. We receive feedback for the thesis, comprehensives, and the dissertation. This milestone is no different.

There are other good suggestions that people have as well and I think APPIC should have a representative capable of addressing suggestions that may improve the internship process. APPIC should be more accessible to publicly address these concerns from anonymous posters. So GregK, please stick around!

 

[PsychHeel]

Just to be clear, I was not implying that all critics of the process were conspiracy theorists. What I was referring to were comments which seemed to suggest that APPIC was being less than transparent on purpose, in order to somehow mislead applicants, or the comments which directly suggested that APPIC and or Dr. Keilin may have a financial conflict of interest which may lead them to keep the match imbalanced.

You appear to somewhat more clear on the match process now, but there are still some statements that do not make sense. For example, you still seem to be under the impression that WHERE you rank a program has any impact on whether or not you match. WHERE you rank a program only has an impact on WHERE you match. That is to say, if you rank all the programs that rank you (for safety's sake, let's say all the sites you applied to), and you are highly desired enough by any of those sites (i.e., an internship spot is still available when they reach you on their list), you WILL be matched, one way or another. It doesn't matter where you ranked them, as long as you ranked them.

Finally, the idea that the match is inadequate because of the high rate of applicants who do not receive internships is, I believe, a fallacy. This is simply a situation where supply far exceeds demand (many would agree this is likely due to the LARGE number of professional schools putting out LARGE pools of applicants -- no disrespect is intended here, but I think the point is hard to deny). Does the fact that so many people don't "go to Hollywood" on "American Idol" indicate there is something wrong with that system? Does the fact that so many people apply to clinical psychology programs and don't get in signal that there is something wrong? I just think that argument is fundamentally flawed. The fault appears to lie with programs (PsyD or PhD) who continue to admit people when there is not always a way for them to finish their degree.

Ok, I was under the impression that the participant’s rankings mattered quite a bit more than it does. It appears that they do not matter however if that participant is not ranked adequately enough to obtain a slot. They do appear to matter in cases of a tie-break and in the rare case of a ranking stand-still. Now I do think the thread strayed into a question of ordinal ranking, which I was wrong. However the original post referred to the qualitative criteria to determine the ordinal ranking. I think the confusion on this point stemmed from Docma’s statement that “the only real mistake is to highly rank a place you felt was definitely a bad fit because you think they will take you and you'd rather go there than not match.” I agree with this statement and was pondering whether to rank a site that was a bad fit at all. Given the competition out there, I would advocate ranking all sites unless the site was completely unbearable and waiting out another year was feasible. Remember, I’m not out to mislead anyone. But I’ve never seen research to suggest that a candidate who aligns the rankings with what they felt were their best prospects for matching would receive less than, equal than, or greater prospects for matching. If anyone has any research on this please let me know! I really only care about the truth, not about “winning” any discussion. One other concern is the claim that not matching results from the instance whereby “people don't apply to a wide enough ‘range’ of internships, in terms of their relative competitiveness.” This appears to be speculation. It appears to be a victim-blaming attitude. I await any actuarial confirmation for this statement.

Now GregK, thank you for taking the time to address some of the concerns posted in this topic, especially regarding the concern for conflict of interest. However, GregK, please do not be offended by this concern however. When there is a potential conflict of interest it’s crucial to address these issues, and it would be arrogant to assume that a person in a position of authority is exempt from inquiry. I and many others appreciate your efforts on behalf of students. GregK had done an excellent job answering questions in a prompt and friendly tone. It is readily evident you have good rapport with students and in my opinion the services you have rendered have greatly improved the image of the internship process.

That being said I must disagree with PsychHeel. The concept and execution of the internship match in psychology is a failure (nearly 25% unmatched capable candidates). Labeling critics of the process as “conspiracy theorists” is not conducive to constructive discussion. Whether or not to assign blame to GregK is immaterial. He is a representative of the system which effectively yields a “non-match” rate that is commensurate with the unemployment rate of the Great Depression during it’s worse period. That is unacceptable GregK. As it is unfair to place blame on Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression, I also would not directly place blame on GregK. But since GregK is a member of APPIC in a position of authority he unfortunately will hear criticism. I appreciate the efforts GregK, but all that matters are the results. I encourage GregK to continue the fight. But we have not reached a point that we can call it a “good fight.”

In the past I’ve advocated for more transparency in the process. For example, feedback should be mandatory for all students that do not match. I do not think this request is outrageous. Here’s why: Presumably all sites take notes on students who interview (for shame if they do not) and candidates would have an objective means to assess their potential and weaknesses. Students would be better positioned for the match during the subsequent year. Given the accessibility of web boards like this one, notes could be compared and sites would be held accountable for their choices. Folks, the internship is a training component required by our programs. We receive feedback for the thesis, comprehensives, and the dissertation. This milestone is no different.

There are other good suggestions that people have as well and I think APPIC should have a representative capable of addressing suggestions that may improve the internship process. APPIC should be more accessible to publicly address these concerns from anonymous posters. So GregK, please stick around!

 

[robinsena]

Not to digress from the main topic at hand, but just wanted to wish everyone good luck since rank lists are due today. Remember to rank in your true order of preference... like people have pointed out, low match rates is not so much b/c of the ranking system but the imbalance of supply and demand. At this point we've done all we can, so don't forget to take a breather this weekend! Hope everyone gets matched!

 

[manko7]

Just to be clear, I was not implying that all critics of the process were conspiracy theorists. What I was referring to were comments which seemed to suggest that APPIC was being less than transparent on purpose, in order to somehow mislead applicants, or the comments which directly suggested that APPIC and or Dr. Keilin may have a financial conflict of interest which may lead them to keep the match imbalanced.

You appear to somewhat more clear on the match process now, but there are still some statements that do not make sense. For example, you still seem to be under the impression that WHERE you rank a program has any impact on whether or not you match. WHERE you rank a program only has an impact on WHERE you match. That is to say, if you rank all the programs that rank you (for safety's sake, let's say all the sites you applied to), and you are highly desired enough by any of those sites (i.e., an internship spot is still available when they reach you on their list), you WILL be matched, one way or another. It doesn't matter where you ranked them, as long as you ranked them.

No, I understand this. That's why I advocate ranking all sites at which one interviews unless they ardently did not want to match there (in the slim chance that the computer got around to their last choice). But thank you for the time taken to reassure clarification.

Finally, the idea that the match is inadequate because of the high rate of applicants who do not receive internships is, I believe, a fallacy. This is simply a situation where supply far exceeds demand (many would agree this is likely due to the LARGE number of professional schools putting out LARGE pools of applicants -- no disrespect is intended here, but I think the point is hard to deny). Does the fact that so many people don't "go to Hollywood" on "American Idol" indicate there is something wrong with that system? Does the fact that so many people apply to clinical psychology programs and don't get in signal that there is something wrong? I just think that argument is fundamentally flawed.

I would not say that the National Matching Service is to blame. But APPIC and APA are to blame. The analogy of American Idol is not quite a good comparison because the impropriety is not with matching, but with an internship process that is required for the doctorate without sufficient access. It would be like a training program mandating a class for graduation and then offering it only once, and then only offering it once a year. In addition, each year you do not get into the class, one would have to pay the costs (such as the matching fee, travel costs, etc.). For many, students who have met the criteria for doctoral degrees are blocked from receiving their degrees and are given no reason for the blockage other than "no room." That's fraud on the part of APA and APPIC. Blaming students in this situation (the demand part of your supply/demand analogy) is unproductive. The supply (i.e. internship sites and APPIC's collaboration with APA in the process) is the primary problem. There are 2 things: First, APA authorized those professional schools without regards to this eventual outcome. APPIC allows them in the match. Second, APA has put forth feckless steps to deal with the issue. I have suggested repeatedly that internship sites provide feedback to students that do not match so that they have an explanation for being denied their doctorate.

The fault appears to lie with programs (PsyD or PhD) who continue to admit people when there is not always a way for them to finish their degree.

No. I too lament the overflow of students from these schools. But APA allowed them to exist by not exerting sufficient controls over the education accrediting. This is not a new development at all. In fact, APA is currently considering distance-learning accreditation for doctoral education! That will certainly drive up applicants in the match. A greater awareness of the impact of these choices on the health and future growth parameters of the profession would have been welcomed years ago. The fact that they continue to disregard these imminent concerns is unsettling.

We brings us to today's issue. The issues brought up in this thread are germane for those submitting ranks. I am grateful for PsychHeel's time in providing detailed explanation. Likewise, I reiterated some concerns with the internship process because anumber of students will feel some anxiety in ranking. I just want to say to those folks to not worry- not everything is under your control, and (in many cases but not all) you are not to blame for the outcome in this process. May the wind be at your back and you secure a position!

 

[ClinicalTrainee]

I would not say that the National Matching Service is to blame. But APPIC and APA are to blame. The analogy of American Idol is not quite a good comparison because the impropriety is not with matching, but with an internship process that is required for the doctorate without sufficient access. It would be like a training program mandating a class for graduation and then offering it only once, and then only offering it once a year. In addition, each year you do not get into the class, one would have to pay the costs (such as the matching fee, travel costs, etc.). For many, students who have met the criteria for doctoral degrees are blocked from receiving their degrees and are given no reason for the blockage other than "no room." That's fraud on the part of APA and APPIC. Blaming students in this situation (the demand part of your supply/demand analogy) is unproductive. The supply (i.e. internship sites and APPIC's collaboration with APA in the process) is the primary problem. There are 2 things: First, APA authorized those professional schools without regards to this eventual outcome. APPIC allows them in the match. Second, APA has put forth feckless steps to deal with the issue. I have suggested repeatedly that internship sites provide feedback to students that do not match so that they have an explanation for being denied their doctorate.

Manko, First let me just say that I appreciate your willingness to concede a few points on this thread and that it hasn't degenerated into excessive flaming, as has occurred in other places.

That said, I'm unclear about your blame on APPIC here. I understand your criticism against APA, for accrediting graduate programs with low match rates and/or programs that flood the 'demand' side of the equation with applicants. But how is this APPIC's fault? APPIC is, from what I've been told, happy to expand the number of internship programs and has been working with sites to get accredited, which would add to the "supply" side. I also feel that APPIC has been great about putting out match statistics every year with a lot of useful information about geographic restriction, number of sites most associated with matching, etc. Information that some students choose to blatantly ignore when applying for internship.

APPIC is an organization of internship sites who are all interested (for a variety of reasons) in training psychologists. The sites are well aware of the match imbalance and are working hard--along with other training organizations--to do something about it. I don't think APPIC personnel or TD's are giggling to themselves about keeping students from graduating. I also don't know how they can mandate providing feedback to students. Training directors of internship sites don't usually (or always? unclear on this point) get paid extra for the gig, they do it because they care about training.

Also, although I agree that getting feedback would be great, there are some practical barriers. You've got TDs who have full time jobs, how are they to provide substantive feedback to all students who (interviewed and) didn't match? In what format? Again, great idea, but practically difficult.

Just my thoughts. Good luck to everyone with ranking decisions (both sites and students)!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

In fact, APA is currently considering distance-learning accreditation for doctoral education! That will certainly drive up applicants in the match.

I don't believe it will increase the number of total applicants to APPIC, as there are already a % of applicants who are encouraged to skip the APPIC process, and instead take state-acred. internship sites. I'm not sure if this is happening elsewhere, but I know in CA there are students who do not register for match, and instead seek local sites with the goal of getting licensed in CA. The issue is that they may or may not be able to get licensed outside of CA.

 

[ChldHosp]

I am literally bewildered after reading many of the posts on this board that some of these people here will soon have a Ph.D. after their name. While I realize that the match involves an algorithm and at least a basic understanding of math it is really not that complicated. PsychHeel, you explained the entire process so easily and clearly- to me it seems that people are getting hung up simply on the fact that they think if some "else" ranks a site more highly then they did (say their friend ranks Site A as their #1 and they rank it as their #8) that their friend would get the site simply because they ranked it #1. This is in no way possible, UNLESS their friend is ranked more highly by the site then them. If he/she is not, then they will get Site A, even if site A was their 8th choice (because they are the more desirable candidate to site A).

The way I think about it is this- if you don't match with your #1 rank, that one drops off your list and your NEXT site BECOMES your #1 rank. That way the system moves through and tries to match you to your NEW #1 rank.

Finally, THANK YOU GregK for ALL of your help in this process. For those who DID NOT attend the APPIC internship workshop and are still confused with the process, I beg of you to attend this year if you do not match. I was EXTREMELY impressed with how Greg worked SO HARD for students and is our #1 advocate to APA (all the while working full time AND doing a private practice? WOW!!!). Every question I had about the internship process was either explained or answered there... but only about 200 students attend and several thousand participate in the match....

 

[ChldHosp]

Ok, last rant... the BIGGEST kicker for me in this whole deal is that people who think they can "beat" or "figure out" the system and don't rank based on their true preferences are messing it up for the rest of us. By choosing to rank a site higher because they think they are "more likely to be ranked well there" or because they think they "interviewed well there" they could be taking MY true #1 site as THEIR #1, even if they don't really want that site!

When people mess around with the system, they ruin it for everyone, end of story. I'm done...

 

[manko7]

Ok, last rant... the BIGGEST kicker for me in this whole deal is that people who think they can "beat" or "figure out" the system and don't rank based on their true preferences are messing it up for the rest of us. By choosing to rank a site higher because they think they are "more likely to be ranked well there" or because they think they "interviewed well there" they could be taking MY true #1 site as THEIR #1, even if they don't really want that site!

When people mess around with the system, they ruin it for everyone, end of story. I'm done...

ChldHosp,

Actually if APPIC's process is correctly understood how someone else ranks their site will not impact you. Even if you rank a site higher than your competitor, if the site still prefers your competitor and your competitor's other alternatives do not match then your competitor will match at that site.

 

[manko7]

Manko, First let me just say that I appreciate your willingness to concede a few points on this thread and that it hasn't degenerated into excessive flaming, as has occurred in other places.

That said, I'm unclear about your blame on APPIC here. I understand your criticism against APA, for accrediting graduate programs with low match rates and/or programs that flood the 'demand' side of the equation with applicants. But how is this APPIC's fault? APPIC is, from what I've been told, happy to expand the number of internship programs and has been working with sites to get accredited, which would add to the "supply" side. I also feel that APPIC has been great about putting out match statistics every year with a lot of useful information about geographic restriction, number of sites most associated with matching, etc. Information that some students choose to blatantly ignore when applying for internship.

There is nothing that APPIC can do about the demand side of the equation. APPIC should promote more transparency in the process however by mandating that participating sites provide written feedback to unmatched candidates.

APPIC is an organization of internship sites who are all interested (for a variety of reasons) in training psychologists. The sites are well aware of the match imbalance and are working hard--along with other training organizations--to do something about it. I don't think APPIC personnel or TD's are giggling to themselves about keeping students from graduating. I also don't know how they can mandate providing feedback to students. Training directors of internship sites don't usually (or always? unclear on this point) get paid extra for the gig, they do it because they care about training.

Also, although I agree that getting feedback would be great, there are some practical barriers. You've got TDs who have full time jobs, how are they to provide substantive feedback to all students who (interviewed and) didn't match? In what format? Again, great idea, but practically difficult.

The TD probably does not interview everyone directly, and if they did the interview pool that such a site is probably small. The task of written feedback would be distributed among the interviewers. You have a concern about the practicality of the task being an inordinate expenditure of time. However the the task is already completed! Consider that the interviewers already take notes of each candidate during the interview. Therefore where is the expenditure of time? Transcribing these interview notes can be managed by secretary personnel.

I also believe that the task of thoughtfully considering each candidate would improve efficiency. The number of candidates interviewed at the internship sites varies substantially. Some interview a total of 30+ while others interview over a hundred. It is simply beyond human capability to adequately and fairly consider these numbers for such a small number of slots. The task of providing feedback would focus the interviewers' questions, and increase the likelihood that each candidate is adequately considered. Too often, many sites focus on irrelevant factors in selection. Requiring sites to justify their choices would theoretically provide some oversight against these sources of human error.

Second, it just makes sense. This is a training process. How can a student learn without feedback?

 

[4N6Psych]

ChldHosp,

Actually if APPIC's process is correctly understood how someone else ranks their site will not impact you. Even if you rank a site higher than your competitor, if the site still prefers your competitor and your competitor's other alternatives do not match then your competitor will match at that site.

Say you and your competitor have ranked Site A #1. However, you ACTUALLY PREFER Site A while your competitor just ranked Site A #1 because they thought Site A liked them. In fact, your competitor prefers Site Z. Site A has ranked competitor #1 and you #2 (for one slot, for the sake of argument). In this instance, competitor would match to Site A, and the computer moves to your next choice (say Site B) and tries to match you there. Sure, competitor has won an internship slot, but it is not what they had originally wanted, and you have lost out on a slot you really wanted to someone who doesn't really want to be there!

Here's where ppl not ranking according to true preferences screws other people up- In the latter example, if Site Z had, in fact, ranked the competitor #1, and competitor had remained true to his/her preferences (and ranked Site Z #1), competitor would have matched to Site Z. Site A would have then moved down their list to their #2 choice, which is you! Everyone has won in this hypothetical case because they have stuck to their true preferences.

OK, done procrastinating. Time to go obsess over my rank list yet one more time (FYI this is because I don't know what I truly prefer!!!) Good luck to everyone.

 

[ChldHosp]

ChldHosp,

Actually if APPIC's process is correctly understood how someone else ranks their site will not impact you. Even if you rank a site higher than your competitor, if the site still prefers your competitor and your competitor's other alternatives do not match then your competitor will match at that site.

Right, I understand that. But if my competitor is say #3 on the site's list and I am #4 (and they only take 3) then it is unfortunate if they picked the site just because they thought they interviewed best there/had the best chances and NOT because it was their TRUE preference. If they would have ranked their true preferences they could have possibly gotten another site first (THEIR true #1) and thus I would have gotten my #1 site too. Instead, they now have the spot I wanted and the computer goes to my #2.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The TD probably does not interview everyone directly, and if they did the interview pool that such a site is probably small. The task of written feedback would be distributed among the interviewers. You have a concern about the practicality of the task being an inordinate expenditure of time. However the the task is already completed! Consider that the interviewers already take notes of each candidate during the interview. Therefore where is the expenditure of time? Transcribing these interview notes can be managed by secretary personnel.

I never realized how much time this process takes for internship sites until I went through it this year. Unfortunately there is not a feasible way to give feedback because the logistics are sticky at best. Let's say a site gets 100 applications and interviews 30 people. Of those 30 people, 20 get ranked. That leaves 10 people who aren't ranked. 10 seems easy enough, but multiply that by 3 interviewers (conservative estimate), and then add on the time it takes to organize and distribute the information. We have a phenomenal support person at our site, but that is asking a lot after already spending the last 4-6 months organizing everything.

Imagine if a site interviews 40 people and each applicant has 4 interviewers and 20 are ranked. Now you have 80 unique sets of data to collect and organize. Speaking of the data, often it isn't that there is a glaring issue with an applicant. If they made it to an interview, they most likely have a desirable combination of skills, and the final ranking is splitting hairs. Every once in awhile you may run across a personality difference or a glaring issue, but most applicants lose out on a spot because someone is slightly better and not because there is a deficit.

Some interview a total of 30+ while others interview over a hundred. It is simply beyond human capability to adequately and fairly consider these numbers for such a small number of slots. The task of providing feedback would focus the interviewers' questions, and increase the likelihood that each candidate is adequately considered. Too often, many sites focus on irrelevant factors in selection. Requiring sites to justify their choices would theoretically provide some oversight against these sources of human error.

Second, it just makes sense. This is a training process. How can a student learn without feedback?

For sites that offer 3-5+ spots, these numbers are necessary because of the competition. As for "adequately and fairly consider", many times the vetting process is extensive before the applicant walks through the door. The interview portion is less about metrics and more about feel. I don't believe sites interview "borderline" people, because it is a waste of time for applicants and sites. As for justifying choices....I don't believes sites should have to do this. The process is overly involved already, and I'm not sure adding another layer will help anyone. Imagine what would happen if sites were forced to provide feedback for people they don't rank....one consequence would be they rank everyone, and that doesn't help the applicant or the site. Another option is they send generic feedback, "The other applicants were more well rounded/a better fit/etc."

 

[TheIceman79]

I was initially not going to chime in on this but I feel compelled to do so now. I am getting really sick and tired of people comparing the current internship difficulties to the "Great Depression". My grandfather lived through the Great Depression and his family lost their home and had to live in a shanty town or Hooverville. They ate “Hoover Stew” (food served in soup kitchens once a day) and “Hoover Hogs” (rabbits for food), and used “Hoover Blankets” (newspapers as blankets). Perhaps I am missing the current mass devastation that my doctoral brothers and sisters are going through but I don’t think the two equate that much. Sure 1 in 4 of us will not match on match day but there are many factors that are involved with that, too many to write out.

Also, there seems to be this notion that "everybody has won, and all must have prizes." Unfortunately there are not enough slots for the number of students. This is how people with more power and influence then us have created, for better or worse. We don’t have to agree with it but we do have to accept it. The only way that will change is when either schools take less students or more sites are created. Neither of these appears to be happening anytime soon.

Finally, it is all fine and well to question someone’s integrity but as future professionals in the field I think we should have hard evidence before we start throwing mud around and hinting that someone is violating their ethical code. This type of behavior makes one appear to be bitter and is not productive in solving the systemic problem the internship process has. I wish everyone the best in the match process.

 

[psychmama]

Iceman - While I agree with much of your post (e.g., not equating the Match imbalance with the Depression, and not impugning someone's ethics without a strong basis) I do have one point of disagreement.

This isn't about "everyone wins and all must have prizes." Every doctoral applicant who was admitted to an APA accredited program has a right to expect that if they do what's expected in grad school they'll be able to match to an APA accredited internship. To suggest this is a "prize" is, in my opinion, insulting. This is part of our training and a requirement for becoming a psychologist, after all. I feel that the schools who admitted us, the professional community, and APA, owe us this much (assuming we've held up our end of the bargain, that is).

 

[TheIceman79]

I agree with you that if you do what is expected in grad school it would make sense that one should get an APA accredited internship. We have invested our blood, sweat, tears, and money to this process and we truly deserve it. However, my CBT training urges me to reflect and ask "Where is it written that we have a right to an APA internship?" If we reflect on the way that the APA has created this mess we call an internship process that thought doesn't equate with the reality of our current system. It is not possible to have 3000 applicant have an APA accredited internship each year.

It was not my intent to suggest that an internship is a literal prize. The quote is from Alice in Wonderland. Essentially it implies that all must win and get what they want. However, the harsh reality of the internship system in place is that there are winners and losers. I don't particularly like it but it is what it is, we live in a competitive society. A person gets a particular job and others do not get it. However that is not the end of the story. Vince Lombardi once said "The greatest accomplishment is not ever failing, but rising every time we do fail."

Iceman - While I agree with much of your post (e.g., not equating the Match imbalance with the Depression, and not impugning someone's ethics without a strong basis) I do have one point of disagreement.

This isn't about "everyone wins and all must have prizes." Every doctoral applicant who was admitted to an APA accredited program has a right to expect that if they do what's expected in grad school they'll be able to match to an APA accredited internship. To suggest this is a "prize" is, in my opinion, insulting. This is part of our training and a requirement for becoming a psychologist, after all. I feel that the schools who admitted us, the professional community, and APA, owe us this much (assuming we've held up our end of the bargain, that is).

 

[manko7]

I was initially not going to chime in on this but I feel compelled to do so now. I am getting really sick and tired of people comparing the current internship difficulties to the "Great Depression"...Perhaps I am missing the current mass devastation that my doctoral brothers and sisters are going through but...

Yes, you are missing the current mass devastation. Cultivation of appreciation for the economic realities of the Great Depression is not the point of the comparison. I respect the hardships of my great grandparents during that era as you do. However the descriptive statistical comparison is valid in terms of illustrating the magnitude of injustice in our field's system of according the doctorate. That is, it is valid in terms of the similarity of the percentage of capable students who, like your grandparents before who were rewarded with a broken covenant for upright participation in a system, and have also received a fraudulent deal. The comparison also illustrates the gravity of the imbalance. This is of paramount importance in the field of psychology right now.

Unemployment hits nearly 10% and you'll hear it in the news. Why not with our 25% imbalance? Perhaps your future is secure. Mine is as well since I have a grant to support me. But I know people who have in fact gone into debt, lived in their cars, and shower in the school gym all so that they can continue to do free externships to "market" themselves to for internship. The Iceman, you really cannot say what defines hardship to others.

 

[manko7]

I agree with you that if you do what is expected in grad school it would make sense that one should get an APA accredited internship. We have invested our blood, sweat, tears, and money to this process and we truly deserve it. However, my CBT training urges me to reflect and ask "Where is it written that we have a right to an APA internship?" If we reflect on the way that the APA has created this mess we call an internship process that thought doesn’t equate with the reality of our current system. It is not possible to have 3000 applicant have an APA accredited internship each year.

By virtue of paying for their doctorate, Students have a right to a doctorate if they successfully demonstrate full competence, education, and achievement of doctoral curriculum. The field has a responsibility to provide clearly defined criteria to ensure this right. A school which establishes a stipulation without clear means to achieve this stipulation would be fraud. That the entire field now has such an ambiguously clarified path to the doctorate is incredulous. But even the APA has formally recognized this ethical conundrum. I have advocated for transparency in the internship process through feedback to students, in much the same way that a student receives feedback for the thesis, etc. Simply put the internship is an educational requirement and should be treated as such.

Also, yYour statement should not be "It is not possible to have 3000 applicant have an APA accredited internship each year." It should be amended to read "It is not possible to have 3000 applicants because APA, our foremost governing authority in the psychology, forbids it."

It was not my intent to suggest that an internship is a literal prize. The quote is from Alice in Wonderland. Essentially it implies that all must win and get what they want. However, the harsh reality of the internship system in place is that there are winners and losers. I don't particularly like it but it is what it is, we live in a competitive society. A person gets a particular job and others do not get it. However that is not the end of the story. Vince Lombardi once said "The greatest accomplishment is not ever failing, but rising every time we do fail."

There are no winners or losers in this process because there is no transparency. Without feedback, no one knows for sure why they matched and why better qualified people do not. The speculation is endless.

Your comparison of this process to a job is not quite analagous as well for the key reason that this is an educational component. Unlike in medicine, the internship is required before the conferment of the degree. In other words, you are not deemed competent at the doctoral level until you get the internship. Yet the lack of transparency makes getting your degree a mystery. In a job hunt, you will receive feedback from the site.

 

[manko7]

I never realized how much time this process takes for internship sites until I went through it this year. Unfortunately there is not a feasible way to give feedback because the logistics are sticky at best. Let's say a site gets 100 applications and interviews 30 people. Of those 30 people, 20 get ranked. That leaves 10 people who aren't ranked. 10 seems easy enough, but multiply that by 3 interviewers (conservative estimate), and then add on the time it takes to organize and distribute the information. We have a phenomenal support person at our site, but that is asking a lot after already spending the last 4-6 months organizing everything.

I sympathize with the workload and this may seem curt- but no one forces a site to have interns and interns can be construed as cheap labor. I understand many administrators enjoy the role of educator also. Well providing feedback is a source of education.

Imagine if a site interviews 40 people and each applicant has 4 interviewers and 20 are ranked. Now you have 80 unique sets of data to collect and organize. Speaking of the data, often it isn't that there is a glaring issue with an applicant. If they made it to an interview, they most likely have a desirable combination of skills, and the final ranking is splitting hairs. Every once in awhile you may run across a personality difference or a glaring issue, but most applicants lose out on a spot because someone is slightly better and not because there is a deficit.

That's fine. But student's still deserve a response. It is in the best interest of students' education to know where they may need improvement to be competitive.

The interview portion is less about metrics and more about feel.

That's a big, big problem Therapist4Chnge. If this is the case then the internship attainment is not a good way to confer the doctorate. Feedback would ameliorate this problem.

I don't believe sites interview "borderline" people, because it is a waste of time for applicants and sites. As for justifying choices....I don't believes sites should have to do this. The process is overly involved already, and I'm not sure adding another layer will help anyone. Imagine what would happen if sites were forced to provide feedback for people they don't rank....one consequence would be they rank everyone, and that doesn't help the applicant or the site. Another option is they send generic feedback, "The other applicants were more well rounded/a better fit/etc."

It doesn't matter if they rank everyone if the slots fill up. Not sure how providing feedback would have any effect on the ranking outcome. No offense, but the concern that people are already busy is a weak excuse. Everyone is busy. Again, comments would theoretically already be available. Perhaps sites should do a better job vetting out interview candidates before they mandate interviews.

 

[mj215]

I'm not sure that I agree that receiving feedback would be all that helpful. I know the strengths and weaknesses of my CV as well as my personal strengths and weaknesses, and while I feel as though I am a good candidate, I know the areas I would work to improve on next year if I do not match this year. I think that my personal insight is much more valuable for improving my future performance, if needed, than more generic feedback from sites.

In addition, I think that interviews SHOULD take into account the "feel" of the interviewees. Interns work very closely with people at the site for a year so I think it is incredibly important that the site and the intern "click." If it was all based on numbers, why have interviews at all? Numbers aren't enough. After all this is a clinical experience so I understand that sites want to meet people and feel out their poise and interpersonal style.

Overall I absolutely agree that this is a stressful situation and that something should be done to reduce the %age of unmatched applicants, but I don't feel as though the sites I applied to "owe" me anything. Especially when it seems like the feedback would be something like, "He's great. We ranked him. But we just liked some other people even more." Fair enough. Of course I'll be bummed if I don't match, but I'll also have to look at my CV and reflect on my interview experiences and figure out for myself where I think I can improve.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I sympathize with the workload and this may seem curt- but no one forces a site to have interns and interns can be construed as cheap labor. I understand many administrators enjoy the role of educator also. Well providing feedback is a source of education.

Many sites have to push to have interns, because while interns can be seen as cheap labor, a great deal of resources need to be dedicated to an internship program.

As for providing feedback as a source of education....I agree with you, but I'm trying to voice the challenges with implementing a formalized feedback system.

That's a big, big problem Therapist4Chnge. If this is the case then the internship attainment is not a good way to confer the doctorate. Feedback would ameliorate this problem.

I don't believe feedback would improve the liklihood of attainment for most applicants. Many times the reason a person didn't get match to a site has to do with another applicant being just a little bit better.

The relationship between completing internship and being granted a degree *IS* something worth examining. I am actually putting together a manuscript related to the internship process, and that is an area that has been discussed before.

It doesn't matter if they rank everyone if the slots fill up. Not sure how providing feedback would have any effect on the ranking outcome. No offense, but the concern that people are already busy is a weak excuse. Everyone is busy. Again, comments would theoretically already be available. Perhaps sites should do a better job vetting out interview candidates before they mandate interviews.

My point about having a site rank everyone they interview was in response to a possible outcome if a site was forced to provide feedback to interviewed but unranked applicants. I'll concede that a site that interviews 75 people and only ranks 25 of them can be a tough sell for being "fair". Of course, if that was my top site and I received an interview, I'd want to have a shot at the spot, even if I wasn't high on their list going into the interview.

Many sites have an idea of how many applicants they need to rank to avoid going to the Clearinghouse, based on previous years of ranking applicants, so they often shoot to rank that many people. For instance, there are some sites out there that only need to rank 10-12 people to have a very good shot of matching a spot, while other sites may need to rank 30.

As for the time commitment, I know it sounds harsh if you are on the applicant side, but it is a legitimate issue. Most if not all of the internship programs are in existance because the staff wants it there, and many sacrifices have to be made for it to stay there, so it is a hard sell to add another requirement to the list. I have a whole new respect for psychologists and support staff that are involved with internship, because it takes up far more time than I realized.