So, no more internship imbalance?

[DynamicDidactic]

I was putting a lecture together and checked the latest match numbers and was surprised to see a 96% match rate. I am too lazy to do a deep dive, so what is this due to? Have the unaccredited programs been locked out now? Even if that were the case, the match rate is still much higher for accredited programs than it used to be. Has there been an explosion in accredited sites? Are there less poor applicants? If yes, have the traditionally poor-matching programs reduced class sizes? Or are there lots of applicants no longer going the APPIC route?

Also, should we be relatively optimistic for the future about the match system?

Any thoughts or insight are appreciated.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Unaccredited are locked out and there are more sites in general. The rest is relatively unchanged as far as I know. It's a good step forward but runs the risk of hiding poor training because of less differentiation on this outcome measure.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have not noticed a change in quality of the applicants year over year. We can still pretty easily eliminate 25-50% right off the top.

 

[CatsFan]

The 96% match rate includes both APA-accredited and unaccredited internship sites. While last year was the first year that there were more positions than applicants, there is still an imbalance with regards to APA-accredited sites. According to the APPIC match news listserv, for this year's match (as of December 31, 2018) there were 3753 registered applicants, 3902 total positions offered, but only 3436 accredited positions. Obviously this is still much much better than it was in the past, due to both unaccredited programs being locked out and a recent push to get more sites accredited. With regards to the usefulness of internship match rate as an outcome measure, I think if programs still continue to have poor match rates to APA-accredited sites despite the improvement in the imbalance, this is even more of a red flag now than in the past.

 

[Sanman]

Don't forget about the increase in captive internships at some programs.

 

[memedoctor]

Don't forget about the increase in captive internships at some programs.

Can you say more about this?

 

[WisNeuro]

Can you say more about this?

Some programs, generally those with traditionally poor accredited match rates, have chosen to create their own internships within the institution or through a consortium. They then funnel their own students into these captive internships. It's pretty much a fallback for their students to ensure a match if they can't match outside of the captive internship.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Don't forget about the increase in captive internships at some programs.

I don't really see these as a bad thing, tbh. I appreciate the diversity of training argument, but it’s a bit of undue burden for grad students to have to pay thousands of dollars to go on a national interview trail and then relocate for a single year of training.

 

[Sanman]

I don't really see these as a bad thing, tbh. I appreciate the diversity of training argument, but it’s a bit of undue burden for grad students to have to pay thousands of dollars to go on a national interview trail and then relocate for a single year of training.

Not saying that it is a bad thing. From a consumer perspective it was long overdue. From a professional perspective, APA has many ducks to get in a row. However, they do need to ensure a certain quality of training.

 

[deleted343839]

I don't really see these as a bad thing, tbh. I appreciate the diversity of training argument, but it’s a bit of undue burden for grad students to have to pay thousands of dollars to go on a national interview trail and then relocate for a single year of training.

Unless the captive internship is a means to some other end (eg, maintaining accreditation because of poor past performance in the match). I know there are exceptions to this, like UTSW, but not sure how many.

 

[Sanman]

Unless the captive internship is a means to some other end (eg, maintaining accreditation because of poor past performance in the match). I know there are exceptions to this, like UTSW, but not sure how many.

Well, even if that is the reason, I am not sure it is a bad thing. Many people from quality programs were getting hurt along with those that may not have been prepared. At this point, either put some real accreditation standards in place and make them live up to it or do a phased close out. Leaving internship committees to determine quality and burning many students who spent money and years of their life in graduate school at the finish line was a poor choice. I'd rather have the captive internships than go back to that mess.

 

[psych.meout]

I don't really see these as a bad thing, tbh. I appreciate the diversity of training argument, but it’s a bit of undue burden for grad students to have to pay thousands of dollars to go on a national interview trail and then relocate for a single year of training.

But that's only one of the arguments against captive internships. One of the other main arguments is that it allows for poor quality programs to cover up for their failings and avoid further scrutiny. These programs would otherwise have difficulty matching their students to internships, because they provide poor training, admit too many students, and don't exercise proper judgment in choosing students. The internship match rates are an important outcome statistic to communicate the quality of training and trainees, but captive internships obfuscate this. This then deceives applicants who don't dig deep enough to discover this, which puts them at an incredible disadvantage, especially if they do end up wanting more diversity in training than what the captive site offers.

Instead of trying to game the system, these programs should focus on improving themselves.

 

[bcliff]

I've recently noticed a couple of more research-heavy programs seeming to go the captive internship route. Here are two links to APPIC internships available only to Emory and UC Berkeley students.

APPIC

APPIC

 

[psych.meout]

I've recently noticed a couple of more research-heavy programs seeming to go the captive internship route. Here are two links to APPIC internships available only to Emory and UC Berkeley students.

APPIC

APPIC

Two years half-time? Oof.

 

[Tupelo_Honey]

Two years half-time? Oof.

It's my understanding that these were designed for students who are on a research/academic trajectory and don't want a full-time yearlong internship to get in the way of their research productivity.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Two years half-time? Oof.

I believe UTSW's captive internship (which has been around for a while) is also two years half-time.

I think there's something to be said for experiencing a heavier clinical load for one year (and just seeing lots of patients in general), but for captive internships where the programs can plan around the two-year time frame, I would imagine there are some pros for the half-time route as well. And for research-intensive programs where completing any sort of research project on a traditional one-year internship is nearly impossible, it makes some sense.