The Match Process

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

TenaciousGirl

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
263
Reaction score
0
I think it's great. I wish they used it for grad school applications.

Think about it: John's first choice is UND. He's waitlisted there but got into CUNY. Beth wants to go to CUNY but is waitlisted, though she got into UND. So, now they're both holding their offers for their second choice when they COULD have their first choice, if they knew. They'll end up going to their second choice schools even though they coud have both gone to their first choices.
 
actually, I don't really like the matching process, although I understand it. I guess I prefer getting multiple offers, and being waitlisted. I guess this allows more wiggle room for us once our offers come in on where we want to go. It's a little scary to think once you turn in your rank list, you basically have no control over where you end up.
 
actually, I don't really like the matching process, although I understand it. I guess I prefer getting multiple offers, and being waitlisted. I guess this allows more wiggle room for us once our offers come in on where we want to go. It's a little scary to think once you turn in your rank list, you basically have no control over where you end up.

Having gone through the match process over this past year, I'd agree. I understand why they do it, but I found the whole process very annoying.
 
I've heard it's even worse than applying to grad school, which terrifies me.

Btw, how do you know which internship sites to rank first? Do you just look for the best clinical match, or what?
 
Last edited:
Well I imagine it will be similar to deciding on anything like this - a lot will go into it.

Best clinical match, best research match (where applicable), a supervisor you get along with, likelihood of a post-doc there if you want to stay, other opportunities available to you, location, etc.
 
I've heard it's even worse than applying to grad school, which terrifies me.

Both processes suck. I'd venture to say the Match process is MORE stressful and MORE work, though the ultimate impact is less than getting 1 program over another (as long as you get an APA approved internship site).

Keep in mind the match process for 2009-2010 is different than the previous years because the APPI is online. There was a lot of speculation on the APPIC Listserv when the transition to online was announced, but not much hard info came out. I'd assume in the coming months more information will be released. Keep in mind that this is the first official run going online, so expect issues. START EARLY!
 
Btw, how do you know which internship sites to rank first? Do you just look for the best clinical match, or what?

You don't. So you have to think through how each site interview went, how you feel about the site, and a bit of gut intuition to come up with your ranking list.

Just an FYI - it's against the rules for a site to tell you in advance how you will be ranked.
 
One piece of advice I'd give: Think clearly about the pros/cons of every site you interview at when ranking. While the majority of applicants match to their top 3 ranked sites, a number of people get matched to 4th, 5th, 6th, even 7th choices. I'm not sure if not getting your top ranked choices is more common if you're applying to popular areas, like NYC. I suspect that might make a difference because the competition is so intense there.
 
I think the match process is a lesson in humility and flexibility!
 
I know a grad student who openly admitted to crying for 2 hours after not matching to her 1st choice site, though she still matched a very solid, funded, APA-accredited site. Found that a bit odd, but if I were in the same situation, I might act the same way, so who knows?
 
Just to clarify.... You get interviewed (or not :/) before you submit your list, right? So... when you make the list should you only put down sites that you interviewed at, right?
 
A friend of mine applied at 15 places, all spread across the US. You can apply to as many places as you want and you can also put as many on your match list as you want (from my understanding of what I've read). The more places you apply, the more the likelihood is that you'll interview somewhere, hopefully! I think the tricky part comes when it's interview time because that's time and money that you have to come up with. And to add to the anxiety, internship sites take EVEN LESS applicants than grad programs... i.e. only 2 spots available. It doesn't surprise me when I hear people say the match process was more stressful than getting into grad school.
 
^
Yeah.

How many sites to people usually apply to?

I applied to 19 sites. One person I know applied to like 26; on the other hand I know someone who only applied to 7 places. I think the average is about 14-15, but it varies a lot.

P.S. - In all of the above cases, the applicant matched to an APA accredited site.
 
^
Yeah.

How many sites to people usually apply to?

I applied to 13, received 6 interviews. Apparently the average for interviews is about 40%, though some people in my cohort were closer to 70 or 80%. My program only allows you to apply to about 18, citing that the quality of your applications goes down (i.e. more likely to make mistakes) and your chances don't increase much after you pass that number. I limited myself geographically and only applied to APA accredited sites. I ended up ranking 5 of the 6 because 1 site I just did not like. I would have preferred to take the year off versus go there. Thankfully I matched to my #1. I'm not sure if I would have cried for 2 hours if that didn't happen, but I certainly would have been disappointed 🙂 But I can understand that in a way as it's such a nerve racking and emotional process.
 
A friend of mine applied at 15 places, all spread across the US. You can apply to as many places as you want and you can also put as many on your match list as you want (from my understanding of what I've read). The more places you apply, the more the likelihood is that you'll interview somewhere, hopefully!

With the changes to the application process this year, there is a cap of the # of "free" applications, and after that number they charge a fee per application. This was as of a few months ago, so it could have changed....but I remember that being a point of conflict because of the increased #'s each year. APPIC based this decision on the average cost of previous years, combined with the average number of applications for those who match. At some point the number of applications will effect the quality and "fit" for the applicant.

I applied to 19 sites. One person I know applied to like 26; on the other hand I know someone who only applied to 7 places. I think the average is about 14-15, but it varies a lot.

P.S. - In all of the above cases, the applicant matched to an APA accredited site.

I think I was around 18-20, as I pulled a few at the last minute. I received 8 interviews for 10 positions (2 of the consortiums had distinct programs within). I applied to a couple reach programs, a few "back-up" programs (lower application #'s at least), and then the rest were solid APA accredited academic/VA hospitals.

People often make the mistake of applying to too many programs, which typically means they aren't a good "fit" for some of them. Looking back I received interviews at the places I was the best fit..except 1.

As an aside, "fit" doesn't mean that you *must* have prior experience working in the area, though it definitely can be a factor. I matched to a VA with no prior VA experience, though I had a lot of substance abuse, sexual trauma, and SPMI experience.

I limited myself geographically and only applied to APA accredited sites. I ended up ranking 5 of the 6 because 1 site I just did not like. I would have preferred to take the year off versus go there.

Limiting of geography is the #1 cited issue for people not matching. A common example is someone who wants to work in NYC, so they apply to 20-something places in NYC, with less of a focus on fit. NYC sites have higher than average application numbers, so there are no "back-up" sites.

I found that NYC sites interview more people than other sites (on par with Boston and some CA sites), though that is most likely because of the over-representation of NYC-only people. I interviewed at a solid placement at a hospital in NYC, and the vast majority of students there knew each other from the other NYC interviews. I believe there were 48 of us interviewing for 2-3 spots, which seemed to be about average across the various placements.
 
Last edited:
Limiting of geography is the #1 cited issue for people not matching. A common example is someone who wants to work in NYC, so they apply to 20-something places in NYC, with less of a focus on fit. NYC sites have higher than average application numbers, so there are no "back-up" sites.

I found that NYC sites interview more people than other sites (on par with Boston and some CA sites), though that is most likely because of the over-representation of NYC-only people. I interviewed at a solid placement at a hospital in NYC, and the vast majority of students there knew each other from the other NYC interviews. I believe there were 48 of us interviewing for 2-3 spots, which seemed to be about average across the various placements.

I was limited to applying in NJ and NYC -- not because I was so interested in being in New York City, but because I can't move my family. T4C is right that NYC and maybe a few places in Boston & Cali are more competitive. Lots of places I applied to get like 300+ applications for just 4-6 slots. However, it's important to keep in mind that once you've been granted an interview your chances go up considerably -- most sites only interview about 10 applicants for every available spot they have. And don't forget that just like grad school, it's the same group of people applying to the same cluster of schools. I saw the same faces several times during my interviews.

If you can expand your search geographically, by all means consider this. It will make things easier for you. Also, fit is important, as T4C said. Above all. remember that it's just a year of training. It doesn't have to be your dream internship. It's a hurdle towards graduation and licensure.
 
Limiting of geography is the #1 cited issue for people not matching.

I used to think this too, but look at this APPIC data:

22. Geographic restriction on internship search:

None Match rate = 83% n = 1265
Due to significant family, Match rate = 70% n = 514
financial, and/or health
considerations
Due to personal preference Match rate = 85% n = 745
(from http://appic.org/match/5_2_2_4_10b_match_about_statistics_surveys_2008b.htm)

That doesn't seem too bad. People with a personal preference actually came out way above the average match rate, and slightly over people with no preference. But, this question is odd. "Geographical restriction" could be interpreted as "I must live in Lubbock" or "I'd like to live somewhere in the midwest."

(sorry, I couldn't make this bolding turn off after I pasted that in...)

 
Jock Nerd - I also wondered about this. I was thinking that many of the applicants restricted geographically due to family also likely have other restrictions due to their families, and this might have something to so with their overall lower match rate. If you look at some of the other APPIC data, it tends to support this. For instance, the overall match rate for applicants with children and applicants who are older is also lower.
 
My geographical limitation was the midwest. I live in Chicago (which is quite competitive) so I did a bit of a circle around here and applied in Milwaukee, St Louis, Detroit, Cincinnati. What I didn't do was just apply because a site was in Chicago. There were many sites here I didn't apply to because the fit would have been bad. Most of my practicum experience was in health psych so I didn't apply to college counseling centers because they'd be like "ummm....why are you applying here?" I knew I had to be willing to move but I wanted to make it at least tolerable in terms of traveling back home since my husband wasn't going to come with me.
 
Jock Nerd - I also wondered about this. I was thinking that many of the applicants restricted geographically due to family also likely have other restrictions due to their families, and this might have something to so with their overall lower match rate. If you look at some of the other APPIC data, it tends to support this. For instance, the overall match rate for applicants with children and applicants who are older is also lower.

That's probably a part of it, though I think a lot of it might be an artifact of the question (come on now - we're psychologists! We should be better at survey design than this...)

"Geographic restriction due to family" probably means "I need to stay in this city" or "I need to stay in one of these 3-4 cities where my spouse can transfer their job", etc.

Geographic restriction due to personal preferences probably encompass a broader range, from "There's a world outside NYC?" to "That site in Hawaii was a good fit, but I wanted to limit myself to the continental US".

Obviously there are exceptions on both ends of that, but I would wager that in general, geographic restrictions for family probably had to be more restrictive than geographic restrictions for preference.
 
Yup, Ollie.

Man, do I want to get my hands on APPIC's data sets.
 
Ollie & JN, maybe you're right. "Geographic Restriction" can mean a lot of different things. What I don't get are the people who are young and singlw who steadfastly refuse to look outside of NYC. Come on people, Manhattan is not the center of the universe.😕

What I meant by suggesting a possible intercorrelation with age -- older students often cannot move away from their spouses and children, and it's really hard to uproot one's family for just a year for internship. One of my kids is going into his Jr. year of high school. No way would I ask him to change schools at this point. Older students often have other restrictions which may result in them not being as attractive to internship sites. For instance, I sometimes got the impression that training directors had a bias that I would not work as hard or be as dedicated as a more traditional-age intern. I didn't feel this everywhere I interviewed, but at a couple of major hospitals (known to work interns very hard) it seemed to come into play.

Then again, older students sometimes aren't as competitive for internship because their other obligations have prevented them from doing as much during grad school (e.g., taking on more research, getting more clinical hours, publishing and attending conferences). There's not much to be done about that, really. DIfferent life circumstances sometimes mean having to make compromises. 🙁 I'm just thankful I matched to a good site and didn't have to worry about relocation.🙂
 
Oh, I don't disagree with anything you've said in the slightest, there are definitely a number of different factors at work in those situations. Some of them unavoidable (compromises with regards to grad school workload) others of them unfair (training director bias). I also don't get people who are completely unwilling to leave an area, even for a year, when they have nothing in particular tying them there. It seems like NYC and Cali are probably the most frequent perpetrators of that (at least from what I've seen here and elsewhere).

I just wanted to point out the general crappiness of the survey question. Maybe breaking it down was deemed too "burdensome" (though after the application and match process, I can't see how THAT could be labeled "too much") but I don't think the question provides very useful information as it is currently written. Again, artificial dichotimization = bad.

I do wonder what APPICs policies are regarding its datasets. I imagine its restrictive though I can't say I completely understand why that would be the case, but if they're willing to release it we should form an SDN research team and get to writing😉
 
Last edited:
I asked them about it a few months ago. Because some schools only have one or two applicants some years, the data sets aren't considered completely confidential, so they aren't given out for research. They said they were trying to figure out a way to make the data sets available, though.
 
I do wonder what APPICs policies are regarding its datasets. I imagine its restrictive though I can't say I completely understand why that would be the case, but if they're willing to release it we should form an SDN research team and get to writing😉

lol. I'm with you. The data is murky and I bet there's plenty more to be learned if the methodology were better. I think you're just the person for the job!😛
 
With the changes to the application process this year, there is a cap of the # of "free" applications, and after that number they charge a fee per application. This was as of a few months ago, so it could have changed....but I remember that being a point of conflict because of the increased #'s each year. APPIC based this decision on the average cost of previous years, combined with the average number of applications for those who match. At some point the number of applications will effect the quality and "fit" for the applicant.

I can't find the source at the moment, but the rules/fee structure is changing this year with the online APPI. According to the research (2007 APPIC survey), there is no appreciable benefit to applying to over 14 places, so the fees per site jump considerably per application. I think it's something like a general fee and then $10 per site up to/including 14 (for a total cost of around $175). After that, the fee per site jumps up to $25, and it gets even higher into the 20s.

But let's not quote me on this, because I can't find where I saw this (either on an internship listserv or on the APPIC site, but I'm running out the door right now and can't search).
 
I did a quick search of my e-mails and found this:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Keilin
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009 2:18 pm
Subject: [intern-network] APPIC and Fees
To: APPIC Intern Network

APPIC INTERN-NETWORK
---
Before people go too far with too many assumptions about how APPIC is "profiting" from students, let me provide some specifics about how the various fees get distributed.

MATCH: 95% of applicants pay a fee of $120 to register for the Match (the 5% that pay $150 are from doctoral programs that have chosen not to maintain "Subscriber" status with APPIC). That consists of a $100 Match fee, which goes entirely to National Matching Services. The additional $20 is a "Directory Online" fee, which does in fact go to APPIC and supports that service.

AAPI ONLINE: Like the Match, this type of service is expensive to operate. APPIC has an agreement with a company to administer this new service, and this company runs the Centralized Application Services for a number of professional organizations (e.g., dental students, physician assistants).

Let me begin by telling you how the fees came to be set as they are, since I was prsonally involved in those negotiations. Here are the fee structures for five of their larger customers, including APPIC:

APPIC: $35 for first application, $10 per additional. Cost per app increases after first 15. Total for 15 = $175.

CASPA: Physician Assistants: $170 for first application, variable amount per additional. Total for 15 = $510.

PASS: American Dental Education Association: $175 for first, $45 per additional. Total for 15 = $805.

CSDCAS: Communication Sciences: $100 for first, $45 per additional. Total for 15 = $730.

PTCAS: Physical Therapists: $120 for first, $30 per additional. Total for 15 = $540.

For many organizations, the Centralized Application Service serves as a significant revenue generator for the professional organization.

The APPIC Board specifically decided that was not their goal, and thus negotiated a dramatically lower fee structure. It is my understanding that, for applicants who submit 15 or fewer applications, APPIC will receive exactly $0 of that money, since 100% will go to the company to support the service (I told you it was expensive). For those who submit more than 15, I do believe that APPIC will receive some portion of that money, but I don't recall the exact amount. Thus, overall, the vast majority of the fees are going to the company that is providing the service, similar to the Match, and not to APPIC. Any amount that does go to APPIC will be paid by those individuals who submit a larger-than-average number of applications.

On applicant surveys from previous years, students told us how much they spent in the application phase of the process. In our negotiations, we were clear with the company that we would not enter into an arrangement that would increase students' costs, at least for those who submit a reasonable number of applications. While hoping that I don't contaminate the current survey that is "in progress," the average costs reported last year to submit applications (including printing, mailing, costs of transcripts, etc.) was $218 for an average of 14 applications. Yes, I know that some of you planned ahead and didn't use overnight delivery services and thus spent less, but that's the average. Under the new system, 14 applications will cost $160. And, in addition to that $58/student average savings, we are hoping that we are providing a much more convenient service to students and to programs (e.g., no more fighting with Microsoft Word and formatting nightmares). Not to mention saving probably 2 million pieces of paper that get printed each year.

I hope this clarifies how these fees are used and distributed.

Greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I don't really have a problem with that fee. Clearly effort is being put into maintaining the databases and processing the data.

I'm really surprised by how many people are down on the match process! It makes so much sense to me. You just rank places in the order you want to go, and go to your top choice that wants to have you. I actually don't get the point above about wiggle room or waitlists--that seems like needlessly spending resources, time, energy, and anxiety when the match just gets everyone one choice that was the best offer they had.
 
I don't really have a problem with that fee. Clearly effort is being put into maintaining the databases and processing the data.

I'm really surprised by how many people are down on the match process! It makes so much sense to me. You just rank places in the order you want to go, and go to your top choice that wants to have you. I actually don't get the point above about wiggle room or waitlists--that seems like needlessly spending resources, time, energy, and anxiety when the match just gets everyone one choice that was the best offer they had.

ummm... I agree that on the surface of things the match process seems orderly and logical. All I can tell you is that I hated it and so did a lot of other applicants I've spoken with. Maybe it's the loss of control over the process? Once you've ranked your choices, anything can happen. Not everyone gets their top choice, after all. Maybe others who've been through the match on these boards will have a different opinion, but that's my $. 02.
 
I haven't even had my first grad school classes, and the match is already terrifying me.
 
The reason I don't like it is because they try to make it "fair", but that requires everyone to play by the rules. I'd rather they augment the system to allow people to "sign" with a site before the match. Anyone who doesn't sign goes into the Match system, and then anyone who doesn't match goes to CH. The most frustrating part of the process was not being able to talk at all about where a program ranks. I come from the business world where "fit" was really important, so while there would be search committees, rankings, and the like....it could be superseded if there was a natural fit.

I understand why they do not want the above system, but I think it would be more realistic.
 
Top