PSYCHOLOGY INTERNSHIP APPIC PHASE 11(2015)

[adsekhon]

nope have not heard from them either. I DO know that they are participating in CAPIC- I wonder if they decided to only do CAPIC (since they don't have to give huge stipends). Just a guess though.

Can they do that? Isn't there some sort of agreement with APA to fill spots?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psychtalk1274]

I would also remind you that not all people are on sdn. Therefore, some sites may have notified their interviewees they just happen to not be on sdn

 

[drgator219]

I've heard from Rutgers but not University of Tennessee consortium.

 

[PitPsych]

Personalized rejection email from Astor

 

[Childdoconeday]

Hoping for some last minute interviews... I hope we will be able to relax soon

 

[smmpsychstudent]

Rejection email from VA Orlando

 

[gigigirl]

Hi guys has anyone heard from Livingston County Special Services Unit (ISPIC)?

 

[soccercat]

Hope everyone's interviews are going well and they aren't too stressed!

 

[PHDme]

Personalized email invitation to interview at OhioGuidestone

 

[psychrat]

Just dropping by to say hang in there. I applied in phase II last year and was feeling such a mixture of emotions. Remember to self care.

 

[adsekhon]

Just dropping by to say hang in there. I applied in phase II last year and was feeling such a mixture of emotions. Remember to self care.

Thanks. My email account has been blowing up today, but none having to do with Phase II lol. >_<.

 

[soccercat]

Just dropping by to say hang in there. I applied in phase II last year and was feeling such a mixture of emotions. Remember to self care.

Thanks. Facebook = a great distraction. But I think you've already seen that.

 

[last2ndshot]

Has anyone heard from Denver Children's Home or Wasatch Mental Health?

 

[idkagoodname]

Has anyone heard from Denver Children's Home or Wasatch Mental Health?

Did not apply to DCH, but haven't heard from Wasatch either

 

[last2ndshot]

Did not apply to DCH, but haven't heard from Wasatch either

Thanks!

 

[Tny8]

Has anyone heard from Wyoming State Hospital?

 

[Childdoconeday]

Has anyone uploaded their rankings? I'm planning on submitting them Friday night.

 

[adsekhon]

Has anyone uploaded their rankings? I'm planning on submitting them Friday night.

Still have one interview tomorrow, but I know my rankings at this point.

 

[gigigirl]

i have submitted my rankings. i just want this process to be over

 

[NeonNoire]

Has anyone uploaded their rankings? I'm planning on submitting them Friday night.

I have interviews tomorrow and Monday so I'm not submitting until Monday evening most likely. Trying not to mull over them a ton (like picturing myself at each site) like I did with phase i rankings because I think that made not matching more painful.

I totally agree with the "just want this to be done" sentiment!

 

[adsekhon]

anyone hear from either ucla or imces?

 

[soccercat]

I have one interview left tomorrow as well and will probably submit on saturday night. I have a pretty good idea on where most places lie, it's just my 1 vs 2 and 3 vs 4...so basically the most important ones. Haha.

 

[Childdoconeday]

I really hope this is the end of a long road. This has been a long and taxing process (August-March=7 months!!) of uncertainty, distress, and anxiety. I really hope that everything works out. I'm just physically and mentally tired at this point...and I feel like i've aged so much in the past year! Well, good luck! For those with interviews-finish strong!

 

[soccercat]

I'm just physically and mentally tired at this point...and I feel like i've aged so much in the past year

Ditto. I'm also 9 months pregnant right now. This is so not what I wanted to be dealing with 2 weeks from being due.

Good luck to you as well and to everyone else! While the stats are not great they are better this year than they have been in the past. Positive juju to all!

 

[Childdoconeday]

Ditto. I'm also 9 months pregnant right now. This is so not what I wanted to be dealing with 2 weeks from being due.

Good luck to you as well and to everyone else! While the stats are not great they are better this year than they have been in the past. Positive juju to all!

Oh wow Congrats!!!

 

[last2ndshot]

Ditto. I'm also 9 months pregnant right now. This is so not what I wanted to be dealing with 2 weeks from being due.

Good luck to you as well and to everyone else! While the stats are not great they are better this year than they have been in the past. Positive juju to all!

I agree that the stats are not great. However, I do not find any comfort in the minor improvement.

 

[soccercat]

Oh wow Congrats!!!

Thanks!

 

[FranklinSchoolPsych]

Did anyone ever hear from the Oaklawn 218 ISPIC site, other than the ambiguous still under consideration email sent out in the middle of the week?

 

[Childdoconeday]

Just submitted my rankings. I really hope that this will soon be a thing of the past!!!

 

[adsekhon]

Welp submitted my ranking!

Only did one site. The other site I interviewed at was a good fit, but just too far away.

 

[DocSquishy]

My Phase II stats: Applied to 47 sites, 52 positions within them. Received 3 interviews, with a 4th site saying they were going to rank me despite not having time to interview me (yes you read that correctly). About 10 sites were nice enough to send rejection emails. So, that leaves about 30 sites that just couldn't be bothered to tell me that I wasn't good enough for them. This process has not been great for my self esteem.

 

[Childdoconeday]

My Phase II stats: Applied to 47 sites, 52 positions within them. Received 3 interviews, with a 4th site saying they were going to rank me despite not having time to interview me (yes you read that correctly). About 10 sites were nice enough to send rejection emails. So, that leaves about 30 sites that just couldn't be bothered to tell me that I wasn't good enough for them. This process has not been great for my self esteem.

I'm sorry to hear that. You still definitely have a great chance! Were all of these sites APA?

 

[last2ndshot]

My Phase II stats: Applied to 47 sites, 52 positions within them. Received 3 interviews, with a 4th site saying they were going to rank me despite not having time to interview me (yes you read that correctly). About 10 sites were nice enough to send rejection emails. So, that leaves about 30 sites that just couldn't be bothered to tell me that I wasn't good enough for them. This process has not been great for my self esteem.

It isn't you. Only 61% of students who applied to sites in phase 1 matched to an accredited site. This matching system is a failure - year after year. It works well for some - but not for all who are qualified. I hope you match in phase 2 - and when you do, please remember to advocate for those who did not!

 

[soccercat]

I feel pretty fortunate that there were quite a bit of sites this phase that I was a good fit for (and thus received a lot of interviews). I just hope it works out because after all of the effort and stress, going through this again next year will be really hard...But not much to be done about any of it now...Rank list submitted. Time to just sit and wait.

 

[Phipps]

I'm sorry to hear that. You still definitely have a great chance! Were all of these sites APA?

I think the system is broken and while it is good to hope for the best outcome, it would be better to advocate for a change of the process. The old fact that some psyd schools admit tons of students each year and that they flood the 'market' does not help either.

 

[NeonNoire]

Can anyone explain to me why the people who match are more likely to match at their top 2 choices than further down on their list? I am trying to make sense of that stat but I feel like I am missing something.. For example, are the people who match very desirable candidates and they could have matched anywhere on their list? Or is it that both the applicant and the training site perceive a particularly strong fit? Or is there some other reason(s) that people typically match to their top few choices?

 

[soccercat]

Can anyone explain to me why the people who match are more likely to match at their top 2 choices than further down on their list? I am trying to make sense of that stat but I feel like I am missing something.. For example, are the people who match very desirable candidates and they could have matched anywhere on their list? Or is it that both the applicant and the training site perceive a particularly strong fit? Or is there some other reason(s) that people typically match to their top few choices?

I'm under the impression it is related to perceived fit and that the preference goes to the applicant.

 

[last2ndshot]

Can anyone explain to me why the people who match are more likely to match at their top 2 choices than further down on their list? I am trying to make sense of that stat but I feel like I am missing something.. For example, are the people who match very desirable candidates and they could have matched anywhere on their list? Or is it that both the applicant and the training site perceive a particularly strong fit? Or is there some other reason(s) that people typically match to their top few choices?

The preference goes to the candidate. The system is designed so that candidates will match to their top choice. So if you think of it that way, it is to be expected that a large percentage will match to their top choice. If a site is offering 2 positions, the candidate is guaranteed a position at their #1 ranked site as long as they are ranked 1st or 2nd by that site. They will also match to their #1 if the site ranked them 3rd, but one of the candidates higher on the site's list matched somewhere else. And so on. (And remember, the site is only ranking approximately 10 candidates per position.)
In addition... My theory is that the very desirable candidates (from prestigious schools, many pubs, many hours) are applying to a large number of sites and getting interviews at places they don't really desire to be matched to. I think that is how some sites end up in phase 2. Of course sites are looking for best fit - but I think they also want candidates who make them look good.

 

[erg923]

With respect, I think your "theory" is wrong. APPIC survey data suggest the opposite. Applicants with lesser academic credentials tend to apply to larger number of sites (more than 20).

 

[Phipps]

I'm under the impression it is related to perceived fit and that the preference goes to the applicant.

Yeah. I think it is a complex process that involves several variables. I might be a good ex.: I have many hours, a good mix of varies training sites for externships, many posters and paper presentations, applied to 12 sites, had only 3 interviews! and matched to my no. 1 ranking. I was teachable during interviews, somewhat myself, erred on the humble site, and was genuine. I felt that my no. 1 would provide me with the training I need and sort of played all interviews at that site back and forth and came to the conclusion that I felt like this is a good site and fit for me. I did not present myself as "I know it all or have it all together" - was just myself. I think that gets factored in as well. I felt a connection with interviewers; I made mistakes; there were things I did not know; but I felt okay about it. Just my 2cents

 

[NeonNoire]

Yeah. I think it is a complex process that involves several variables. I might be a good ex.: I have many hours, a good mix of varies training sites for externships, many posters and paper presentations, applied to 12 sites, had only 3 interviews! and matched to my no. 1 ranking. I was teachable during interviews, somewhat myself, erred on the humble site, and was genuine. I felt that my no. 1 would provide me with the training I need and sort of played all interviews at that site back and forth and came to the conclusion that I felt like this is a good site and fit for me. I did not present myself as "I know it all or have it all together" - was just myself. I think that gets factored in as well. I felt a connection with interviewers; I made mistakes; there were things I did not know; but I felt okay about it. Just my 2cents

Yea, I guess I kind of figured there probably wasn't a straight forward answer, given that there really doesn't seem to be a simple answer to any of this internship stuff. That is good to know though about interviews because I think there can definitely be some pressure to 'have it all together.'

 

[NeonNoire]

The preference goes to the candidate. The system is designed so that candidates will match to their top choice. So if you think of it that way, it is to be expected that a large percentage will match to their top choice. If a site is offering 2 positions, the candidate is guaranteed a position at their #1 ranked site as long as they are ranked 1st or 2nd by that site. They will also match to their #1 if the site ranked them 3rd, but one of the candidates higher on the site's list matched somewhere else. And so on. (And remember, the site is only ranking approximately 10 candidates per position.)

I get that the matching process favors the applicant, so it does make sense that since the system is trying to match you with your top choice, people who match are going to be more likely to match higher up on their list. But with things being so competitive and ambiguous, I just wondered if there is more to it. As phipps suggested, there's probably a variety of factors involved.

 

[heartdignan]

I get that the matching process favors the applicant, so it does make sense that since the system is trying to match you with your top choice, people who match are going to be more likely to match higher up on their list. But with things being so competitive and ambiguous, I just wondered if there is more to it. As phipps suggested, there's probably a variety of factors involved.

It definitely can be confusing, I agree with you. My #1 choice I knew was a risk for me but they tell you "go with what you want." My #2 choice I felt I had a great interview and was an amazing fit, and my #3 I felt like I had bombed one of the two interviews I'd had that day. I ended up matching to my third, and it didn't make sense to me at first. Which is why I think people who match to anything but #1 struggle a bit with accepting the outcome. Now that the initial confusion has worn off, I'm stoked about my match.

Also, I'd like to add this bit of logic as well - These numbers include everything from people who interview/rank 1 or 2 sites to people who rank 10-20 sites. If you only ranked 1 or 2 sites and matched, of course you are someone who "ranked in your top 2." And there are a ton of those folks out there. But the statistic reads more anecdotally as "Of the X many sites where I interviewed, I'm most likely to match in my top 2."

 

[PhDToBe]

Yeah. I think it is a complex process that involves several variables. I might be a good ex.: I have many hours, a good mix of varies training sites for externships, many posters and paper presentations, applied to 12 sites, had only 3 interviews! and matched to my no. 1 ranking. I was teachable during interviews, somewhat myself, erred on the humble site, and was genuine. I felt that my no. 1 would provide me with the training I need and sort of played all interviews at that site back and forth and came to the conclusion that I felt like this is a good site and fit for me. I did not present myself as "I know it all or have it all together" - was just myself. I think that gets factored in as well. I felt a connection with interviewers; I made mistakes; there were things I did not know; but I felt okay about it. Just my 2cents

I also agree that being yourself and not coming off as over-confident helps. I think sites like to see that you can admit that you don't know everything and want to be at that site to fill in your missing gaps and learn things. It looks good to appear teachable and that you WANT to learn from them.

 

[futureapppsy2]

With respect, I think your "theory" is wrong. APPIC survey data suggest the opposite. Applicants with lesser academic credentials tend to apply to larger number of sites (more than 20).

Source?

I've spent a lot of time with APPIC data, and I've never seen an analysis by academic strength (unless you're using PhD and PsyD as a proxy for that).

 

[erg923]

Source?

I've spent a lot of time with APPIC data, and I've never seen an analysis by academic strength (unless you're using PhD and PsyD as a proxy for that).

proxy

 

[PhDToBe]

I have to say that anecdotally (and admittedly based on a small n) I have noticed students from more competitive programs/with more competitive stats apply to fewer (~10-15) sites than those from less competitive programs/with less competitive stats (~20+).

 

[psychrat]

I don't know what the stats say, but I go to a university based PhD program with a 100 percent match rate most years, and after not matching the first year I applied (I only applied to sites in NYC that year), I not only applied more broadly but also applied to a lot more sites the second time around. I matched at my number 2, so in the long run it probably wouldn't have mattered if I did not apply to so many, but it made me feel better.

 

[ShellsBells]

I know that others have contemplated what factors might predict someone not matching... And going into this I believed them but I think its important to post that it is possible to be in a phd program, have 1200+ hours, have VA experience in and out patient, 10 pubs (4 first author), receive 8 interviews at strong sites, have good letter of recs (as told by sites I interviewed with), not very restricted geographically, and I tend to get along well with others. Also I was told i was a strong candidate and they were surprised I didn't match when I asked for feedback from sites. So now I'm not sure what to believe and just have to hope next year I come out on top.

I know exactly how you feel!! I've co-authored 6 pubs (3 first author, including 1 in the top journal of clinical psych), have 1200+ direct hours, was not restricted geographically, and had stellar letters of rec. I know my application was well-received and got compliments during interviews on the high-quality writing and tone of my application materials. I received the highest number of interviews in my cohort (5 interviews), but was the only one to not match (bittersweetly thrilled that 5 matched to accredited sites, 2 to pre-accredited sites!). Our faculty members and site directors I contacted gave me similar feedback--they were shocked I hadn't matched, this is a broken process, it has nothing to do with my qualifications. To some extent, I believe those sentiments. But deep down I think that, if the sites at which I interviewed had perceived me as a better candidate or stronger fit, they would have ranked me higher than other candidates and I might have matched. Though it's hard for me to admit, I believe it's important to take a step back and critically assess my CV, as I prepare to reapply in the fall.

Some days I think, "Sure, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger...but it also ALMOST KILLS YOU." Other days I think, "Well, the worst thing that could happen did happen, and I'm still doing really well." In case it helps anyone on here, the NYT printed an article a few days ago entitled "How to Survive the College Admissions Madness" about the nature of rejection, and I found it oddly comforting. OK, time to stop avoiding dissertating...GOOD LUCK to those of you participating in Phase II today!

 

[sf0135]

Just certified my rank order list! Wishing the best for everyone involved. Even if it's not good news, I am just ready to know so I can proceed with life!

I see that Match day is "10 am eastern"... I presume that's the earliest we'll hear about match results?