What did you learn during the match process?

[psychanator]

Now that students have heard back regarding the match, I was hoping to start a thread about people's experiences during the match and get advice they have for more junior students in psych programs who will be applying for internship soon. Whether your matched or didn't match, do you have any thoughts, suggestions or reflections? What do you think worked? What didn't work?

Congrats to everyone who matched, and good luck to everyone who will be entering phase II!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[farfallastar852]

I think what I learned is that it is often difficult to read how well you have done at any given site - it's just a numbers thing with the way the algorithm works for the match - but even if you feel like you did well at sites, that doesn't mean that you'll end up there. My advice is to apply widely and be really realistic about the consequences of ranking sites. I ended up being matched at my last choice site - and will be forced to live away from my husband for the year....so although the chances of being matched there were really low - they were obviously not zero. If you have family or spouses, I suggest involving them in the process of ranking etc so that you have lots of discussion and it becomes a joint decision about things. It is definitely an intense process - but it is doable.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

1. There are many qualified applicants out there, so you need to bring your "A-Game." Mock interviews, etc.
2. Network. Network. Network.
3. Get your dissertation as far along (or done) before internship. Sites may consider you more of a risk if you don't have a clear and realistic path to defending by the end of internship bc it doesn't look good to have former interns "in limbo."
4. Fit is not just a Wii product, it is also one of the most important factors to a site. Can they work with you for a year? Do you fit into their existing culture?

 

[Neuropsych2be]

I was surprised about where I interviewed and where I did not. Places where I swore that I would get interviewed did not invite me to an interview. I was surprised how emotionally invested I was in the process and how hurt I was to be rejected over and over. The issues about geographic restrictions as a major limiting factor really rang home for me. I interviewed in Washington State, San Antonio Texas, Wisconsin, at two sites in Utah, at two in Kentucky, at one site in Tennessee and at one site in Chicago. If I had restricted myself to one region of the country, I may not have matched. I was surprised to learn how much I liked the APPIC only site I interviewed at and how the quality of the APPIC only site seemed higher than some of the APA sites. I was surprised how similar the interviews were at each site. I was also surprised as an older 40-something student how strange it was to sit in group interviews in which every other applicant was young enough to be one of my children and how old it made me feel. I learned that "fit" is everything and when asked about "why do you want to come here" its best to have lots of site specific facts to use in your answer. I learned that the questions you ask are as important as the answers you give. I also got the impression that there is an unspoken "good old boy" network at play in this process that influences who gets interviewed. I find myself baffled at how someone can get 12 interviews while other equally qualified candidates get just two or three. Finally I learned that our training system is very broken and my loathing of the APA is well founded.

 

[Rivi]

It was really cool to see a lot of different places and to meet so many psychologists who enjoyed what they did. It surprised me that I liked all of the sites where I interviewed. It definitely renewed a spark in me. I learned that my professors and most of the beginning grad students are completely unaware of the severity of the imbalance. I am walking away from this very happy that I matched, but still very frustrated for all those that didn't. I was also surprised at how emotionally invested I became in this process.

 

[PhDMiss2014]

I learned that you make the best of the interviews that you get. It really does only take one good interview to match. I applied to 15 spots and was shocked to only get two interviews. My cohort almost walked on eggs around me, pitying me, thinking my odds of matching were slim to none. But I went in there guns blazing for both of my interviews. Knocked it out of the park on both interviews, walked away feeling that I did the very best that I could have done. I was prepared, I was qualified, I was the perfect fit. I sold that with confidence and then I came home and prayed that I did a good enough job selling myself. Apparently I did sell myself because I matched to a consortium, my number one choice.

There were 8 applicants this year from my program. 7 matched. One person had one interview and he matched. One person had 8 interviews at top research sites and she did not match. If I had it all to do over again, I would not have applied to as many competitive sites and would have concentrated more on a good variety of sites. That's where I think a lot of people make mistakes. The highly competitive sites get so many applications, it's harder to stand out and make it to the top with that many other applicants.

 

[cara susanna]

I'm a little scared by how many people who didn't match appeared to be research-focused and interviewed at the top research sites. Maybe I should throw more clinical-only sites onto my tentative site list, haha.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

I'm a little scared by how many people who didn't match appeared to be research-focused and interviewed at the top research sites. Maybe I should throw more clinical-only sites onto my tentative site list, haha.

One thing that I heard from both faculty at my program and at clinical science internship sites is that if you're going into research, internship year doesn't really hold the same weight as it does for those going into clinical work. So if you end up at a research site, great (postdocs so you don't have to move the following year), but taking a year to live where you want and/or immerse yourself in clinical work is also not a bad thing. For me, the full time clinical work is scary but I actually found that clinical demands were sometimes heavier at the research sites than at some of the less-research oriented sites. Cue the massive confusion when deciding on rankings!

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, it's more a question of finding clinically-oriented sites that would be a good fit for me--all of the ones I'm looking into seem to want to train people who want to end up in clinical practice.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Yeah, it's more a question of finding clinically-oriented sites that would be a good fit for me--all of the ones I'm looking into seem to want to train people who want to end up in clinical practice.

Fit fit fit fit fit is the mantra for this process. Every site I interviewed really honed in on the whole "Why here?" question. From your cover letter to the CV you submit to the essays you write, you really need to communicate why you would be a good fit. The good thing about the APPIC application process is that the system gives you the ability to submit as many different versions of your CV and essays and cover letters as you wish to the various sites. The last thing you want to do is develop a "generic" cover letter and "generic" essays that you submit to the sites. Your cover letter in particular should not sound bland and it should stand out in some manner. The training directors will wade through a vast number of applications and the first thing they will read is your cover letter and then probably your CV. You need to ... yes I will say it ... *manipulate* the reader and the system to your advantage by writing a very specific cover letter and submitting a tailored CV. At the place I matched, my cover letter stated very clearly why I was interested in the site and what specific aspects of my educational and cultural background made me a good fit. Of course, manipulation goes only so far. You also need to review how you will appear on paper and apply to sites that fit your training experiences and background. .I would ahve loved an academic medical center but on paper I am not a good candidate for them. Instead I focused on clinics and hospitals.

 

[LETSGONYR]

Now that students have heard back regarding the match, I was hoping to start a thread about people's experiences during the match and get advice they have for more junior students in psych programs who will be applying for internship soon. Whether your matched or didn't match, do you have any thoughts, suggestions or reflections? What do you think worked? What didn't work?

Congrats to everyone who matched, and good luck to everyone who will be entering phase II!

I agree with some other posters... I took the entire process extremely personally, which I wasn't necessarily expecting. Every interview rejection I received was a big blow, even though I *know* in my mind that it's not personal. And not matching after the whole process was over was also incredibly hard.

As someone who is now working on cover letters for phase two, and who expects to be going through this process again next year... I'd DEFINITELY recommend not limiting yourself geographically. I don't feel that I did, necessarily, but I definitely nixed a few sites because "I don't want to live in Texas" or whatever. And now, I'm looking at the list of sites available in Phase II and applying to sites in places I never thought I'd consider... if I had applied in Phase I, I feel as though I'd (a) have a stronger argument as to why I like the site and am a good match there, and (b) have been able to be considered for more positions and/or more tracks.

Throughout my interviews, I met lots of great applicants, and all seemed extremely competent and nice. One thing that caught me off guard was the other applicants talking about the sites where they got/had interviews... I found myself not wanting to admit if I was rejected from one of those sites. Even though everyone knows how random this process is.

Overall, it's a stressful, expensive, disheartening process, especially if it doesn't work out as you'd hoped. And everyone saying, "I'm really surprised, you are such a qualified applicant!" doesn't really help.

 

[cara susanna]

.I would ahve loved an academic medical center but on paper I am not a good candidate for them. Instead I focused on clinics and hospitals.

What on paper makes you a good fit for AMCs? I have a few on my list, so that's why I'm wondering.

 

[PHD12]

I went through the match the previous year and just finished the postdoc process as well. One thing that stood out to me was that once you get to the interview phase pretty much everyone is very bright, articulate, prepared, enthusiastic and has good interpersonal skills. Don't let this discourage you. Keep in mind that solid applicants are also interviewing at 10-15 places so it will mostly work out at the end if you have enough interviews and can demonstrate fit. Supervisors also rank applicants sometimes based on overall "likeability" and how genuine you are as a person. They want someone they would enjoy working with for an entire year!

 

[PurplePants80]

FYI, I applied last year and didn't match, I re-applied this year and matched to my #1. Here are my experiences:

1) Great support system at home and at school. My cohorts are really supportive and wonderful and we helped each other out by reading essays, CVs, etc, to sharing interview pointers, traveling, etc.

2) We've got a great mock interview that I wasn't able to utilize fully last year, and did this year, and I think it made a huge difference. I got much better feedback and worked on many things that I didn't even realized I did.

3) I was a bit more vague with my goals and career by highlighting the opportunities the sites offered and how that fit into my career goals instead.

4) Not definitive regarding the dissertation status. I was very vague about when I will be done.

5) Being more open to many different type of supervision (i.e., non-EBT)

6) Better at balancing asking questions with making sure my interviewers got to ask me questions

7) Spacing out my interviews somewhat to give me breather room, and time to de-stress and enjoy the cities I was in.

8) Funny enough, the biggest difference that I saw this year compared to last year was the amount of familiar faces I saw at various interviews. I kept running into the same people over and over again, and even if we didn't interview on the same day, we'd have more overlapping sites, which helped I think in knowing that even though there are a lot of applicants for each sites, many of us are interviewing for the same ones, and we can only match to one site.

That's about all I can think of for now.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

It has been a number of years now, and it is a piece of advice that won't apply to everyone, but it is something I wish I had known: Don't expect to be considered at a counseling center without counseling center experience! A good portion of my sites were CC's because my research and my clinical interests were very related to diversity and gender issues. Many CC's do a good job of giving special attention to those issues, so I though I would be a great fit. However, my program didn't give us the opportunity for CC practica (we worked at a community clinic). None of the counseling centers offered me even an interview. DCT and I were really puzzled by this, so he contacted him for information on why I wasn't offered interviews. That was the single common factor. I'm sure some folks are able to get in w/o that previous experience, but it isn't the norm. Fortunately I applied to a few non-CC sites, got those interviews and got one. However, I would have changed the proportion of CC's to non-CC's if I had known about the nearly automatic disqualification. Hopefully my former DCT has passed this info on to later classes!

Dr. E

 

[PHD12]

4) Not definitive regarding the dissertation status. I was very vague about when I will be done.

Why would being vague be a good thing? From my experience, sites want to know that you are going to be done with your dissertation because it really helps their stats. You should try to have a defense date even if its in the works.

 

[PurplePants80]

Why would being vague be a good thing? From my experience, sites want to know that you are going to be done with your dissertation because it really helps their stats. You should try to have a defense date even if its in the works.

Because last year I told them that I wouldn't be done before the start of internship and was a bit too honest about it. This year, if they asked about my progress, I gave it and that was it. No one asked when I would be done, and so I didn't elaborate. I don't like to lie and I know people who stretch the truth about their dissertation progress. I will be done prior to the end of internship though because I'm going for a post-doc fellowship that is very strict about that, so it will get done.

 

[PHD12]

Because last year I told them that I wouldn't be done before the start of internship and was a bit too honest about it. This year, if they asked about my progress, I gave it and that was it. No one asked when I would be done, and so I didn't elaborate. I don't like to lie and I know people who stretch the truth about their dissertation progress. I will be done prior to the end of internship though because I'm going for a post-doc fellowship that is very strict about that, so it will get done.

I am not encouraging lying, but it may be helpful to give sites a timeline for when you think you will be ready (I said something like "I expect that my data will be collected by X date and that I will have a draft written by April").

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I am not encouraging lying, but it may be helpful to give sites a timeline for when you think you will be ready (I said something like "I expect that my data will be collected by X date and that I will have a draft written by April").

That's how I answered, but I have no idea if that ultimately helped or hurt me back when I went through the process a couple years ago. Seeing things from the other side, I can say that an incomplete dissertation is going to be a red flag to some degree regardless of what you say. In general, though, yes--I'd imagine sites would be more comfortable with at least some semblance of a timeline, assuming it's a realistic one (e.g., don't tell them you're planning on defending this April if you have yet to start collecting your data).

If at all possible, at least aim to try and have data collected before you leave your grad program. There are few logistical nightmares worse than having to remotely supervise data collection while also completing a full-time internship, particularly if the study is a complex one.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

What on paper makes you a good fit for AMCs? I have a few on my list, so that's why I'm wondering.

Publications, presentations and interests that pertain to the AMC's research programs are a huge plus. My publications and interests are not the sorts of htingslike psychoanalysis no one at an AMC would find interesting. But behavioral medicine research, neuropsych research is a different story.

 

[DocMom617]

For what it's worth, here is my background and what I learned. I am geographically limited to two regions, one involving a move to be near extended family. I am also married with a two year old. I entered with a masters before starting my PhD program. I applied to 18 APA accredited programs, got 11 interviews and matched at my first choice...one in which I had trained and worked as an RA for three years during grad school. So here is what I learned....

Don't rush your grainy if possible. Take the extra year for a second externship and to get your dissertation moving along. I used to think this was simply to play the numbers game with getting a lot of hours but it is more about the result of the training. That is more clinical death and breadth if you work that in. More cases and experiences to pull from for interviews. I also received feedbag that I came across as mature and knowledgable about areas that were more specialized (something developed during that second externship).

Practice speaking about your unique attributes, skills and experience in more general terms. For example, working with people with intellectual disabilities taught me how to use plain language, visual aids and concrete metaphors to convey abstract psychological concepts pertinent to treatment.

Take a full day off between interviews when you can.

When in groups, be careful not to jump in with an abundance of rapid fire questions in the silence. Nerves and excitement may be the likely culprits of this....completely understandable but seemed off-putting.

Bring snacks for yourself. Even after two 45 minute interviews I always needed some sugar of something to carry me through the next activity. Sites vary in what they supply.

In mock interviews, practice case vignettes. I did these more than actually describing a full case. Many times this would take the greater part of an interview.

Don't invest in a leather notebook. Just bring a simple notepad. I hardly used mine as many places provided folders and their own printed material. Maybe a way to reduce the cost?


Echoing others...personalize your cover letters, keep them succinct and clear. Bring a copy with you to interviews. I put so much work into researching sites and writing them that they were really all I read to prepare before interviews.

Indeed it is a stressful and taxing process. However, I truly refined my career goals through this process even though I thought I was all good on that front : ). In the end it was an intense developmental process personally and professionally in and of itself. Enjoy the gems of growth and insight that bubble up amidst this broken system and process. It helps make it more than simply about the Match and end result.


Oh, and practice in a relaxed setting with other applicants. Graded exposure...it works ; )


Good luck!!!!

 

[DocMom617]

Ha ha I said don't rush your grainy but I meant training. Sorry folks!

 

[Solipsism3]

Ha ha I said don't rush your grainy but I meant training. Sorry folks!

You also wrote 'feedbag' instead of feedback. Made me imagine being force fed hard to stomach criticism.

 

[Aileas]

As someone who did not match last year and matched to my #1 site this year, the biggest thing I learned was that not matching really isn't the end of the world. I was so anxious last year about not matching that I think I subconsciously focused more on less competitive placements rather than on placements I would genuinely be a good fit for. I also didn't have really clearly defined training goals last year other than getting placed and I'm sure my anxiety influenced how well I presented during interviews.

So, yes, this time last year I was devastated. But thanks to my amazing family, friends, and significant other, I remained positive and spent the past year gaining work experience as well as working on my dissertation. I also spent a lot of time reflecting on what I did and did not want in an internship placement and what I want to accomplish while on internship. As much as I would like to be graduating in a few months with my cohort, I'm thrilled with where I was placed for internship this year and the end is finally in sight! I honestly think I needed the extra year to self-reflect and just breath so I could figure out exactly where I wanted to go with my education and my career.

 

[farfallastar852]

I was surprised about where I interviewed and where I did not. Places where I swore that I would get interviewed did not invite me to an interview. I was surprised how emotionally invested I was in the process and how hurt I was to be rejected over and over. The issues about geographic restrictions as a major limiting factor really rang home for me. I interviewed in Washington State, San Antonio Texas, Wisconsin, at two sites in Utah, at two in Kentucky, at one site in Tennessee and at one site in Chicago. If I had restricted myself to one region of the country, I may not have matched. I was surprised to learn how much I liked the APPIC only site I interviewed at and how the quality of the APPIC only site seemed higher than some of the APA sites. I was surprised how similar the interviews were at each site. I was also surprised as an older 40-something student how strange it was to sit in group interviews in which every other applicant was young enough to be one of my children and how old it made me feel. I learned that "fit" is everything and when asked about "why do you want to come here" its best to have lots of site specific facts to use in your answer. I learned that the questions you ask are as important as the answers you give. I also got the impression that there is an unspoken "good old boy" network at play in this process that influences who gets interviewed. I find myself baffled at how someone can get 12 interviews while other equally qualified candidates get just two or three. Finally I learned that our training system is very broken and my loathing of the APA is well founded.

I totally resonate with your experience of the process!

 

[Fixyou1]

As someone who did not match last year and matched to my #1 site this year, the biggest thing I learned was that not matching really isn't the end of the world. I was so anxious last year about not matching that I think I subconsciously focused more on less competitive placements rather than on placements I would genuinely be a good fit for. I also didn't have really clearly defined training goals last year other than getting placed and I'm sure my anxiety influenced how well I presented during interviews.

So, yes, this time last year I was devastated. But thanks to my amazing family, friends, and significant other, I remained positive and spent the past year gaining work experience as well as working on my dissertation. I also spent a lot of time reflecting on what I did and did not want in an internship placement and what I want to accomplish while on internship. As much as I would like to be graduating in a few months with my cohort, I'm thrilled with where I was placed for internship this year and the end is finally in sight! I honestly think I needed the extra year to self-reflect and just breath so I could figure out exactly where I wanted to go with my education and my career.

After reading this, you give me hope and this is exactly my thoughts that I am having right now as I did not match. This was my first time going through the match process,...and now with my school demanding me to go through phase II, I have no idea what kind of training goals I am looking for during internship, and I think that came across in my interviews. Do you think waiting the year and accomplishing other things, such as completion of the dissertation and possibly getting my LCPC would be beneficial if I were not to place during phase II, which I think personally I would benefit from taking a break and figuring out what it is I want in an internship.

 

[HomeworkHelper]

I didn't match to my top choice (I matched to my third), and initially I had concerns: Would it be a good experience? Would it prepare me as well for my future career goal as my more preferred sites? Did not matching as high as I would have liked meant I was not a competitive applicant? Here's what I found, so at least I know it can happen for others: 1) I LOVE my internship site. Seriously, some days I was almost giddy leaving work feeling so happy about the experiences I was having. 2) I was surprisingly competitive for postdocs, so much so that... 3) I matched to an amazing postdoc, that in some ways I really don't think I would have been as competitive for had I been placed at my top 2 choices. So, I'm just putting it out there: you can not match to your top choices and still have a great experience on internship and beyond.

 

[SilverLinings2]

I have a random question. A graduate student in my program has a husband who is a very successful researcher and just received an offer in the psych department of a well-known Ivy League school (that also has a very in-demand internship). I heard through the grapevine that they are trying to negotiate his offer to include some "help" in getting her placed at the internship there. Having just come out of the internship process, this makes me so irrationally mad because it seems incredibly unfair given the stress, expense, and effort all of us expend to go through the system fairly to obtain an internship.

Has anyone ever heard of this happening? Can you really game the system like that? It may not be possible for them to guarantee a spot for someone like that, but I just wanted somewhere to vent my frustration....

 

[cara susanna]

Would this student be accepted for next year or the year after?

And I don't find your anger to be irrational, really.

 

[SilverLinings2]

She would be applying next year. He is currently trying to negotiate his offer for a faculty position for the coming year.....thanks for validating my frustration.

Would it be inappropriate to say the school?

 

[cara susanna]

I'm applying next year and my list of sites includes some Ivy Leagues. So I hope that isn't true!

 

[ResearchGirlie]

So she hasn't started graduate school yet but he's already trying to negotiate an internship spot? Or is she in grad school and she'll applying to internship. Not that it matters but just curious.

I totally understand why you're angry and frustrated but I think unfortunately this is just the way things are. It could be worse (well, I see it as worse but it's all relative) - faculty sometimes put stipulations that their spouse be given a faculty job as well.

 

[SilverLinings2]

She's currently in graduate school, about to apply for clinical internship. I guess that is just the way things are.....very unfair. This person would not normally be competitive for a spot at this high, highly-competitive internship site.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Can I just say that I've encountered the idea of "fit" since college applications, and I kind of hate it? As far as I can tell, it means "a group of nebulous and constantly shifting factors that change from program to program (or faculty to faculty) that no one will ever actually articulate to you in a useful way but that provide a lawsuit-proof reason for rejection."

Why can't it at least be operationally defined a bit more (e.g., match between prior clinical experiences and those at the site, good personality fit with supervisor, demonstrated desire to work in an area where a site places many of its alumni, etc)?

 

[Pragma]

I have a random question. A graduate student in my program has a husband who is a very successful researcher and just received an offer in the psych department of a well-known Ivy League school (that also has a very in-demand internship). I heard through the grapevine that they are trying to negotiate his offer to include some "help" in getting her placed at the internship there. Having just come out of the internship process, this makes me so irrationally mad because it seems incredibly unfair given the stress, expense, and effort all of us expend to go through the system fairly to obtain an internship.

Has anyone ever heard of this happening? Can you really game the system like that? It may not be possible for them to guarantee a spot for someone like that, but I just wanted somewhere to vent my frustration....

So she hasn't started graduate school yet but he's already trying to negotiate an internship spot? Or is she in grad school and she'll applying to internship. Not that it matters but just curious.

I totally understand why you're angry and frustrated but I think unfortunately this is just the way things are. It could be worse (well, I see it as worse but it's all relative) - faculty sometimes put stipulations that their spouse be given a faculty job as well.

Spousal hires are fairly common in academia, but usually that means some other form of faculty position, clinical placement, or other form of networking so that the spouse can work in the same city at least. Some high rollers can demand an actual faculty job for their spouse - although it may be adjunct or lecturer at first until a tenure-track position opens up. However, I have never heard of this done with the internship process. I'd imagine that they would be violating APPIC standards by guaranteeing one of their spots.

 

[PHD12]

I'm applying next year and my list of sites includes some Ivy Leagues. So I hope that isn't true!

Cara, you sound so worried about internship so far in advance (understandably so). I didn't start even looking at sites till June and I had plenty of time to come up with a solid list, write multiple drafts of essays, obsess and eventually send out a high-quality application by November (and I am not fast at getting things done). I don't know if it makes sense to try to mold yourself to be the ideal internship candidate so far in advance (aside from making sure you have enough hours, some variety in your clinical experiences and several good testing reports). I really do believe that if folks come from good programs and are strategic about where they apply, that they will match. I don't mean to put you on the spot, I just noticed that you seem very concerned about matching for a while now on this forum despite going to a good program and having many strengths.

There is also a ton of misinformation that circulates. For example, I was informed by supervisors/professors that I should get inpatient experience before internship. I ended up getting interviews everywhere I applied to (aside from 1 place) and many of these sites had inpatient rotations.

 

[Aileas]

After reading this, you give me hope and this is exactly my thoughts that I am having right now as I did not match. This was my first time going through the match process,...and now with my school demanding me to go through phase II, I have no idea what kind of training goals I am looking for during internship, and I think that came across in my interviews. Do you think waiting the year and accomplishing other things, such as completion of the dissertation and possibly getting my LCPC would be beneficial if I were not to place during phase II, which I think personally I would benefit from taking a break and figuring out what it is I want in an internship.

I definitely think waiting the year helped me to be more competitive this year. I spent most of the time working at a local social service agency as well as working on my dissertation. To be honest, I wish I had gotten further along in my dissertation than where I am now but I went through a few months where I was just generally angry and disheartened with the whole process (and wasn't exactly productive during that time haha). Last year I felt more like I would settle for anything as long as I matched but this year I was more motivated to find sites that would be a good fit. My perspective on internship was that I wanted to be at a site where I loved going to work every morning and in a location that I would be happy staying long term (rather than just being "okay for a year").

The one thing I think you need to consider for yourself is how important it is to you to place this year. The way I approached it last year was that I focused on matching Phase 1 and Phase 2 but then I decided to wait to apply until the following year rather than attempting to apply during clearinghouse. I will admit I regretted it a bit because a surprising number of my cohort who were in similar positions as I was ended up matching to sites they love in clearinghouse. And it still makes me a little sad to know how many of my friends are graduating this year. However, like I mentioned previously, I matched to my top choice this year and I couldn't be happier now. I'm in such a better place mentally after taking the year to relax and recharge... I was much less overwhelmed the second time around and I focused more on myself and my personal/clinical needs and goals when applying to internship sites rather than just applying to sites for the sake of matching. I think one of the reasons I felt so overwhelmed last year was because of the pressure the training department placed on everyone to match (and hopefully to an APA site). But I've learned that the bottom line is to find somewhere that makes YOU happy and, if it takes extra time to achieve that goal, it will be worth it in the end!

 

[cara susanna]

[ I don't mean to put you on the spot, I just noticed that you seem very concerned about matching for a while now on this forum despite going to a good program and having many strengths.

Thanks for the pep talk! I've seen the Match four times now and a lot of great applicants from my program haven't matched on their first try, so I guess it's scared me a lot. And I feel a lot of pressure since most of my cohort applied this year and all of them matched, even though I know that shouldn't matter. But you're right--I should be more confident.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Thanks for the pep talk! I've seen the Match four times now and a lot of great applicants from my program haven't matched on their first try, so I guess it's scared me a lot. And I feel a lot of pressure since most of my cohort applied this year and all of them matched, even though I know that shouldn't matter. But you're right--I should be more confident.

Plus, 3 publications is nothing to sneeze at, based on the APPIC publication statistics, and you have a good 9 months to garner more pubs and hours before submitting your APPIC application.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I think these are the most likely factors that help in match:

1. Having varied clinical experiences

2. Having some research stats (pubs, conferences)

3. Good letters

4. Good essays - have numerous readers

5. Applying to a range of sites, brand names and some that are less known. Some brand name sites are very disappointing and some no names places turn out awesome. I applied to VAs, Med Centers, and state hospitals and was interviewed at each type.

6. Mock interviews with different types of individuals. For example, I never did a Med Center prac but I contacted one of our adjunct faculty and asked to be interviewed. It was very useful.

I had no one to "network" with but that can be helpful if your faculty or supervisors know internship directors or faculty at sites.

Not sure any of that is a surprise.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Can I just say that I've encountered the idea of "fit" since college applications, and I kind of hate it? As far as I can tell, it means "a group of nebulous and constantly shifting factors that change from program to program (or faculty to faculty) that no one will ever actually articulate to you in a useful way but that provide a lawsuit-proof reason for rejection."

Why can't it at least be operationally defined a bit more (e.g., match between prior clinical experiences and those at the site, good personality fit with supervisor, demonstrated desire to work in an area where a site places many of its alumni, etc)?

Here is what I did to discern "fit" and to create "fit." Remember that to some degree "fit" is what you create on paper and in the interview. They involve both the facts of your experience and the image you create on paper and in personal interviews. I sat down and did a "content analysis" of my CV. That includes publications and prior professional experience, practicum experiences, and personal background stuff. I asked myself hard questions about how I would appear on paper.

I went through the appic directory and specifically sought out sites that would fit my background generally. I then decided to craft different images of myself depending upon where I applied. These images would be consistent with the parameters of my background. I am an older student whose practica and years and years of professional experience at the M.A. level was in hospital settings and community mental health. I have tons of experience in neuropsych and crisis intervention. I ahve a background in rural community mental health. I have no experience with children and limited experience with PTSD.

Remember that these sites all have a particular mission and goal, whether it is forensic or community mental health or whatever. After narrowing down a list of sites, I learned about the history and mission of each site I was interested in and the background of the staff. Remember, these sites get 100 applications for 2-4 slots. I crafted different versions of my essays, CV and cover letters to try and grab the attention of the reader first off. I created different sets of essays to try and appeal to the site.

After I got interviews, I made sure I knew a great deal about the site, its mission and most importantly why I wanted to train there. I made sure I knew what the facility is doing currently. I reviewed press releases and staff CV's if I could find them. I was able to articulate things about each site that showed I had specific interests and knowledge about the site. One clinic I interviewed at had recently initiated a particular set of outreach programs and community initiatives about 9 months ago. I made sure I carefully mentioned that during the interview. At a university counseling center where I interviewed I learned that the university was founded to help educate a populations who are entering the college experience for the first time and students who are limited in terms of time and geography. I made sure to weave that information into my answer regarding the "why here question." My knowledge of that made an impression!

Fit is the intersection between your background and the image you can craft about yourself and the needs of the site. Yes it helps to be a trad sociopathic .. remember you are selling yourself to the site and you need to manipulate the process to your advantage.

Eventually I matched at a hospital site that has a focus on rural mental health, community outreach behavioral medicine interventions with under-served populations,. Perfect fit for me actually.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

Spousal hires are fairly common in academia, but usually that means some other form of faculty position, clinical placement, or other form of networking so that the spouse can work in the same city at least. Some high rollers can demand an actual faculty job for their spouse - although it may be adjunct or lecturer at first until a tenure-track position opens up. However, I have never heard of this done with the internship process. I'd imagine that they would be violating APPIC standards by guaranteeing one of their spots.

The adjunct or lecturer positions don't really bug me as those aren't the super competitive positions, but tenure track positions given to a spouse who very clearly doesn't resemble other faculty hires really annoys me. I've seen it happen a few times (once undergrad, 2x during grad school).

 

[Pragma]

The adjunct or lecturer positions don't really bug me as those aren't the super competitive positions, but tenure track positions given to a spouse who very clearly doesn't resemble other faculty hires really annoys me. I've seen it happen a few times (once undergrad, 2x during grad school).

Yeah I hear you. I actually could see this practice dying out slowly. The market is getting so competitive that unless someone is a superstar, it might be hard to demand. I think departments will try to accommodate spouses but perhaps less often by finding TT placements.

But of course, much of this depends on institutional culture.

 

[paramour]

I have a random question. A graduate student in my program has a husband who is a very successful researcher and just received an offer in the psych department of a well-known Ivy League school (that also has a very in-demand internship). I heard through the grapevine that they are trying to negotiate his offer to include some "help" in getting her placed at the internship there. Having just come out of the internship process, this makes me so irrationally mad because it seems incredibly unfair given the stress, expense, and effort all of us expend to go through the system fairly to obtain an internship.

Has anyone ever heard of this happening? Can you really game the system like that? It may not be possible for them to guarantee a spot for someone like that, but I just wanted somewhere to vent my frustration....

I know of a situation where a previous site director for a fairly reputable internship site still has some pull there. This particular individual reportedly has been known to recommend students from their current doctoral program to get them interviews, acceptances, etc. However, I also now wonder how well the site just completely takes the previous director's word. Although it is my understanding that past students have been interviewed/accepted there, I know of a student who felt they were "guaranteed" that spot, had already been making plans on moving there, ... and never even received an interview. I must admit that I laughed. A lot. Yes, I'm a horrendous person.

 

[BorntoRun]

I have a random question. A graduate student in my program has a husband who is a very successful researcher and just received an offer in the psych department of a well-known Ivy League school (that also has a very in-demand internship). I heard through the grapevine that they are trying to negotiate his offer to include some "help" in getting her placed at the internship there. Having just come out of the internship process, this makes me so irrationally mad because it seems incredibly unfair given the stress, expense, and effort all of us expend to go through the system fairly to obtain an internship.

Has anyone ever heard of this happening? Can you really game the system like that? It may not be possible for them to guarantee a spot for someone like that, but I just wanted somewhere to vent my frustration....

Someone smarter and cooler than me once said, "the only problem more difficult than the mind-body problem is the two-body problem." Having known many wonderful, talented couples who are dealing with the two-body problem, I'm in favor of the field doing what it can to make things a little easier for them. Not in the APPIC process (a match system should be a match system, period), but as far as postdocs, faculty hires, clinical positions, etc. are concerned, I believe that reasonable efforts to help couples and families stay together are appropriate, responsible, and humane.

 

[Pragma]

Someone smarter and cooler than me once said, "the only problem more difficult than the mind-body problem is the two-body problem." Having known many wonderful, talented couples who are dealing with the two-body problem, I'm in favor of the field doing what it can to make things a little easier for them. Not in the APPIC process (a match system should be a match system, period), but as far as postdocs, faculty hires, clinical positions, etc. are concerned, I believe that reasonable efforts to help couples and families stay together are appropriate, responsible, and humane.

Well, one thing we psychologists could do is not date other psychologists (or academics) - in which case there may be more geographic flexibility depending on your spouse's career.

I think "reasonable" is your keyword, because making things "easier" and "humane" can be unfair to unpartnered applicants with great credentials. In an ideal world, the hiring process would be about taking the most qualified applicants, particularly with how competitive the field is right now. I'd hate to think that I could have lost out on my faculty gig by some spousal hire, and am glad that I didn't encounter that situation where I interviewed on the market (because I have heard of people who have and it sounds like it stings). It is almost like invoking the principles of Affirmative Action, but without any history of injustice towards couples.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Well, one thing we psychologists could do is not date other psychologists (or academics) - in which case there may be more geographic flexibility depending on your spouse's career.

I think "reasonable" is your keyword, because making things "easier" and "humane" can be unfair to unpartnered applicants with great credentials. In an ideal world, the hiring process would be about taking the most qualified applicants, particularly with how competitive the field is right now. I'd hate to think that I could have lost out on my faculty gig by some spousal hire, and am glad that I didn't encounter that situation where I interviewed on the market (because I have heard of people who have and it sounds like it stings). It is almost like invoking the principles of Affirmative Action, but without any history of injustice towards couples.

I agree, it'd definitely sting. Although looking at it slightly differently, I suppose that were this to happen, the university has essentially decided that the applicant they're attempting to woo is worth enough to them that they're willing to forego you (general "you" here, not anyone specific) if necessary. Thus, it's not that it's affirmative action-esque, but rather, it's that the person's credentials were so impressive, not only did they overshadow other applicants for their own position, they overshadowed applicants for other positions as well. I can at least understand that, even if I wouldn't viscerally agree with it.

After all, given the current job market (and as Pragma mentioned earlier), I have a hard time believing a site would agree to a spousal hire unless the applicant her/himself was astounding.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

Someone smarter and cooler than me once said, "the only problem more difficult than the mind-body problem is the two-body problem." Having known many wonderful, talented couples who are dealing with the two-body problem, I'm in favor of the field doing what it can to make things a little easier for them. Not in the APPIC process (a match system should be a match system, period), but as far as postdocs, faculty hires, clinical positions, etc. are concerned, I believe that reasonable efforts to help couples and families stay together are appropriate, responsible, and humane.

Giving special leeway to couples then hurts those of us that aren't married to other faculty. Or should I find some bigwig researcher to marry so that I can be treated humanely and appropriately by getting a tenure track position over those that may be more qualified?

 

[ResearchGirlie]

After all, given the current job market (and as Pragma mentioned earlier), I have a hard time believing a site would agree to a spousal hire unless the applicant her/himself was astounding.

It definitely happens in academia. Sure it doesn't happen a ton, but it does happen. Schools will do a lot to win over the biggest and brightest faculty.

 

[paramour]

Thanks for the pep talk! I've seen the Match four times now and a lot of great applicants from my program haven't matched on their first try, so I guess it's scared me a lot. And I feel a lot of pressure since most of my cohort applied this year and all of them matched, even though I know that shouldn't matter. But you're right--I should be more confident.

Cara, I wouldn't fret too much just yet. We've had a number of highly research oriented folks apply to primarily/solely research-focused internship sites. They had no issues matching. They also were beyond stellar applicants with kick-ass CVs to go along with it. If you've got the qualifications and that all elusive fit for those particular programs, then go for it and don't worry about what everyone else is doing. Do what's best for you and your training. G'luck!