Comments about Imbalance - Page 2

This imbalance is completely unfair to the students and it is clearly driven by profits - for-profit Psy.D. programs entering absurd numbers of applicants into the match pool each year. This imbalance is particularly unfair for the students coming from these programs who typically have significantly greater amounts of debt due to graduate school There HAS to be a limit for each program of the number of applicants that can be entered into the match each year - this is the only realistic way this will ever get under control. There should be a 6 year process in which the limit starts off maybe at 100, then the next year 80, then 60, and so on until it gets to a reasonable number.

It's just frustrating that many individuals continue to submit applications to so many places-- I wonder if it is worth it to cap the number of applications people can submit? Many sites I heard from said they received a VERY large increase in the number of applications, which no doubt impacted their selection process. Not that I know of any programs who did this for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did not read the applications as well as they would if there were less of them. The online submission system is great in so many ways, but makes it easy for students to just say, "oh hey well, what's another 10 applications if all I need to do is write cover letters and pay a little extra money?"...

N/A

Personally, the imbalance has caused anxiety for me knowing that approximately 1 out of 4 prospective interns do not match in a given year. However, it caused my to be very strategic in my approach to training and the application process. I sometimes wish that training programs were a bit more selective in their screening processes for admitting new students into graduate training and more strict in regards to weeding out students that are not performing as expected.

I'm glad that you raised this issue, because it's clearly troubling for everyone. I truly believe that the increased number of professional schools providing PsyD's to an enormous number of future psychologists is a very concerning issue. Certainly, I've met many very talented students from these schools, but then again, these were also the few students who got accepted to similar training sites. I'm very concerned that there will be too many incapable individuals walking around with degrees, and though the internship process is certainly something of a weed-out process, I think that some truly talented clinicians get overlooked due to the sheer volume of applications. I certainly do not think that I'm the best, but I have gotten enough feedback from supervisors, teachers, and peers alike to feel that I am very good at what I do, and when I applied this training and talent to a very specific group of sites catering to my chosen population, I have to admit that I was very surprised not to match ANYWHERE last year, knowing that some of my peers who are highly unethical and (dare I say) untalented easily matched. The only solution that I can see to the growing imbalance is to find a way to put stronger guidelines and restrictions throughout the entire graduate school process, which would likely include schools not being permitted to accept 100 students per class. (Or further, not allowing 4 professionl schools to accept 100 students per class in a single city like Chicago, in addition to other PhD and university-based PsyD programs.)

The imbalance has required me to move about 2400 miles away (and I will be living 700 miles away from my spouse, who will also be on internship). This is both a negative and positive thing, as I now have the experience of moving across the country and living on my own. I have five or more colleagues with children, and I think it is much more difficult for them to move (and for their spouse to have to choose between living with them or keeping their career). I would have preferred to remain in my same geographic location, but moving will also provide me with invaluable experiences. I am also affected by financial concerns (the cost of moving across the country, the cost of long car rides to visit my spouse, and the cost of long airplane rides to visit my family). In other words, I will probably have a more stressful experience next year than I would have had if I had been able to stay in my same geographic location.

The imbalance is without question anxiety-provoking. However, I think many Psy.D. programs admitting hundreds of students each year (sometimes in one program) contributes to the increases in applicants. This certainly leads to a "crisis" for those looking to secure internship sites. Of course, I am biased coming from a Ph.D. program with a handful of students admitted each year. It is certainly emotionally rough for the many qualified applicants that do not match. However, I would not suggest simply opening several APA-accredited sites without careful consideration to "put a band-aid" on the situation. Doing so, I think, would bring down the value of an APA-Accredited internship. I recognize that the process is lengthy to become APA-accredited - so I think the regulations are fair. Also psychology is a very competitve field - and I think admission into doctoral programs in psychology should also be considered as part of the discussion. Often it seems so much attention is put on "what are internship programs" going to do - as opposed to what are doctoral programs going to do in the number/quality of students they admit? Bridging this gap would aid, in my opinion, how to best assist with this situation.

It has definitely made things more competitive but I am not sure that is such a bad thing.

I have 936 clinical hours, 185 assessment hours, 18 assessment reports, 4 positive letters of recommendation, received the United Way Volunteer Excellence Award, have work experience from a number of different clinical settings, and have a 3.95 graduate GPA. Tell me how I did not get a single interview in 16 applications. I was far over-qualified for every site I applied to. I applied to a fair mix of competitive and not-so-competitive sites. I had three program faculty and multiple students give me feedback on my essays. Tell me how I did not get one single interview in 16 tries. I am baffled. As much of a time-saver as the standardized application was, if the application process was more traditional, I have no doubt that I would have landed an internship, or at least a few interviews. Whatever it was, APPIC failed me. Waste of time, money, and emotional energy!

Oh, knowing about the imbalance was extremely, extremely stressful!!! When we first heard that there were 800 more applicants this year than the total number of positions, my cohort and I felt really petrified. This tremendously increased the anxiety, stress, and insecurity involved in the internship application process. I was also worried that if I don't match this year, I will not be able to find funding for an extra year in graduate school. As an international student, my sources of funding here in the U.S. are extremely limited, so this was a major source of stress for me. I think it indirectly impacted my family and my partner, because they could see how stressed and insecure I felt about the future. When I found out that I matched this year, I experienced a huge sense of relief and gratitude. I felt like jumping in the air from joy, as if a huge burden had been lifted off my shoulders. At the same time, I feel for the people who didn't match this year. The internship application process is so expensive, stressful, and time-consuming that I cannot imagine having to go through it for a second time. And at the same time, I know that there were people in my program who had to apply for internship for three consecutive years before finally getting matched. I strongly feel that something needs to be done in order to resolve this crisis. I do agree with the APAGS statement on the "internship imbalance". It is no longer an imbalance, it is a crisis, especially for people who don't get matched.

The imbalance between applicants and programs creates a stressful atmosphere for applicants, as we are fully aware that 1 in 4 do not match initially. I have colleagues that go through the internship match process more than once, as they are unable to find a match the first round. As someone who matched to their top choice, it is difficult to see close friends and colleagues not match at all. Many times, these individuals have worked just as hard to get to this point and they should be permitted to complete their training.

This is a frustrating concern for me as it seems that some schools are more concerned with the quantity of students they put through the program each year as opposed to the quality of the professionals they are training. It is uncomfortable for me to know that this discrepancy is not helping the field as a whole gain more respect, nor does it ensure that if the practicing psychologists are not of high quality, then they may likely add to the negative view many people have on mental health professionals. Along with this, it is disheartening to know that some of these individuals have placed and there are many extremely qualified students who did not match.

I am not sure if this is a result of doctoral programs accepting too many students or if the program is simply because there are not enough sites that are APPIC approved. I think sites should be provided with incentives for gaining APPIC approval so that we may increase the number of sites that are available. I think it can be really defeating to applications to know that there are a large number of applicant that will not match.

The imbalance affects me greatly personally and professionally. If I am good enough to get into a doctoral program then I should be good enough to Match the first time and have many internships wanting me. Personally, I am affected financially, emotionally, and my relationships with my family, friends, and significant other suffers. Professionally, I am forced to choose to apply to positions that I am not interested in, that do not provide training opportunities I need or want, and do not pay enough to live on. If there are not enough internships to go around of high quality than maybe there should not be so many doctoral programs accepting mediocre students who ruin it for the rest of us.

Like any other AAPI applicant, I was afraid and anxious for the results. Playing the numbers game is like a rabbit hole where you just go deeper and deeper without a desirable result. A piece of information that helped me was that I am familiar with the APPIC process. I have consulted with friends who have gone through it, and I am aware of what it takes to get an APPIC or APA internship. Of my cohort, approximately 7-8 students applied to APPIC without the proper information in what it encompassed. This is the responsibility of students and the DCT, but I felt that if only 1 of 7 out of my current cohort appears to be able to be offered an APPIC internship, then the numbers presented by the NMS Match and AAPI are unrepresentative of the type of eligible candidates for these viable positions.

The imbalance between applicants and positions increased the level of anxiety and stress for myself and other students in my cohort because of the worry that we would not all be able to find a match after applying to different programs. There was temptation on my part, and I am sure on some other students part, to apply to more than the recommended 15 sites just to increase the probability of being selected for an interview and eventually being selected by a program.

From a psychological/emotional perspective, the match is torture for students. While it used to be only tortuous for those from programs with poor match rates or with only mediocre training, now its tortuous for EVERYONE. Being part of a highly competitive Boulder-model university program is no longer a ticket to getting an internship. When 30% of the applicant pool doesn't match, EVERYONE BECOMES AN EMOTIONAL MESS, BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS A SIGNIFICANT CHANCE OF NOT MATCHING. TWENTY YEARS AGO, NOT MATCHING WAS SIGN THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU, YOUR PROGRAM, OR THE NATURE OF YOUR TRAINING. HOWEVER, WHEN WELL OVER ONE QUARTER OF YOUR APPLICANT POOL DOESN'T MATCH (OVER 600 CAN NOT MATCH AT ALL) THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE! AND I WOULD HOPE THAT PEOPLE SUCH AS EMPLOYERS, STATE LICENSING BOARDS, AND MOST OF ALL, APPIC AND APA, KNOW THIS.

The amount of weight that an internship position occupies far outweighs the amount of work and energy I put into my graduate studies, which is saying a lot because I worked hard and sacrificed a lot to get to this point. The idea of not matching put an inordinate amount of stress on me and my partner. Also, it really pains me to know that there are highly qualified individuals that did not match which sends the wrong message to those entering the field. I know students that worked hard both in their academics and on practicum and I was sorry to hear they did not match. It appears that programs use arbitrary means to weed out those who don't "fit" and offer interviews to those who look well on paper. More programs, both APA and non-APA, are needed to shrink the gap between applicants and internship positions.

The mismatch is less unsettling than the growing mismatch. Much like the human races discrepant birth-death rate, this problem could potentially become detrimental if unchecked. I cannot think of any viable solutions to this problem, though.

Not really. Was anxiety provoking, but our program in specific has pretty good match rate so I wasn't too concerned.

Last year during the internship process I had a very unfortunate situation happen in regards to my internship application. I had sent out 24 applications and kept getting all these rejections and on December 7, 2009 I got an email from one of the sites asking if this information was an error and to please clarify. Is this student currently on probation? Yes If yes, please explain: Are any complaints currently pending against this student, or were any filed in the past and found to be legitimate? Yes. By that time the deadline for the interview date was fast approaching and the Director of Clinical Training sent out emails but it was not until December 10, 2009 and by that time it was too late. It was very heart breaking when such a huge error is made. I did have a couple of interviews but they had the same information in my application. So then I had to go through the clearing house which was very chaotic and stressful knowing how many positions were left and knowing how many applicants were left. I didn’t end up with an internship last year, so I just tried to make the most of my situation and get more experience. I know there is no way to review the director of clinical trainings information on your application, so I do not know of a way that this can be prevented in the future.

I was fortunate enough to match on not only my first participation in this process, but also phase one; however, many students did not. I understand that this issue has been highlighted and it seems that people understand the critical nature of this imbalance, but it doesn't seem as though changes are being made quick enough. For many individuals that do not match this is not only a time of professional crisis, but also financial crisis. At this point, the imbalance does quite a bit of injustice to many qualified applicants. Delaying plans (for up to one year) puts a great deal of pressure on students. Questions of interest are: Is there any way to increase the number of accredited programs? Is it possible to separate internship sites for Ph.D. vs. Psy.D. programs? Besides acknowledgement what actions are being taken to remedy this problem?

The current imbalance makes the already stressful process increasingly more stressful, as not only are we worried about where we will match, but we are also concerned about not being able to match at all. Many students (like myself) are taking an additional year or two to gain more experience and make progress on dissertation. It is scary to think that after investing all of this additional time we might still have to take another year. If there is anyway to encourage the accreditation of more programs that would be great! Also, I think there should be a cap on the amount of students that doctoral programs are allowed to admit. Those programs that accept 75 students per class are contributing to the imbalance!

APA needs to pay closer attention to "for profit" programs. Students are being raked over the coals financially. Many students who attend "for profit" programs exit with a huge amount of debt. Given the currently glutted market, students should be advised that they make not secure financial return on their investment.

There is a serious disparity between the number of applicants and the number of training sites available. I think it is also misleading for a student to think that he or she will be able to complete a doctoral program in 5 years since matching at an internship training site is getting more and more difficult despite the quality of the student. Programs need to address this issue IMMEDIATELY by either cutting down the number of students they admit into a program or new training sites need to be available. Funding problems have only added to the problem. Also, given that preferential treatment seems to be given to couples, I believe that people who are limited geographically because they have a family/children and moving is not an option should also have some sort of consideration extended to them- not preferential treatment but recognize that not all students have the ability to pick up and move for one year of training. Personally, I am a parent of 2 children, my spouse has an established career and I was significantly limited in the number of sites to which I could apply. Unfortunately for me, I live in NYC and not only are there a number of local students applying for a limited number of positions, but students nationwide seem to gravitate to NYC for internship training.

I will have spent an extra $20,000 and out another potential $20,000 due to balancing loan debt, the cost to reapply/interview, and losing potential income.

The imbalance is a huge problem and I believe the responsibility rests with both APA AND for profit institutions like Argosy that are admitting more students than the system can sustain. (I say this as an Argosy student and graduate representative to my state's APA affiliate organization). Admission practices in for profit programs are a business model and are not in the best interest of the field in the long run, and, in my opinion, contributes significantly to the match imbalance. I was not able to obtain interviews or match with an APA site, which will limit my future work possibilities. This is somewhat problematic as I owe a tremendous amount of student loan money (200K), and will not be as competitive in obtaining positions that will offer salaries large enough to pay that bill. As well, I perceived significant bias from internship sites toward students from for-profit programs in the form of listing programs as "Scholar" programs and not extending interviews to qualified students from for-profit programs. Although I matched to an APPIC member site that was my first choice of the interviews I was offered, I am disappointed with the process in general. This seems to me to be a broken system with many different contributing factors -- all of which point to the other and say it is their fault without working to fix it. It is sad.

It has greatly increased my stress level from first year on. It is unfair to require an internship when there are not enough for every student. I have seen students who have not matched two years in a row and have had to take non-APA sites in order to graduate even though this may prevent them from their life goals, such as board certification.

this is obviously a major concern, though i am ambivalent about it. on the one hand, it seems reasonable that every applicant should have the opportunity to begin an internship "on schedule" given that it is a requirement for the completion of the degree. on the other hand, this assumes that all applicants are qualified and have received adequate training. stricter regulation and enforcement of certain "minimum qualifications" in order to apply for internships would be one way to reduce the number of applicants and ensure a more appropriate and competitive pool of applicants. however, this would likely just result in a more pervasive "fudging of hours" problem, and we all know that many applicants play fast and loose with their hours. something like this would also require more strict monitoring and validation of hours, which would be the responsibility of the individual doctoral programs.

There needs to be more sites across IL, not just concentrated in the Chicagoland area, especially more sites for health psychology and chronic pain/physical disabilities. I had to settle for something (outside of the Match) that is not related to my professional focus due to location and the lack of health psychology sites. The APPIC Match process is not user-friendly to people with physical disabilities who have to remain in their home area because there are not many local sites. At this point in my student and professional career, I should not have to settle for something that is not in my direct professional interest, especially since so often students have to settle for where we do our practicas. I had always thought that when it came down to internship, I would be able to be at a site that focused on clinical health psychology and chronic pain management. Now I have to put my passion on hold, again, and work with a population that I do not have an interest in working with, as I did not want to put my career on hold an additional year due to a lack of internship sites.

The current internship imbalance really scared me. It pushed me to get as much clinical experience in the setting that I wanted an internship (University Counseling Center) that I could, so that I would be more marketable. Doing the extra parcticum experiences I believe made me more marketable for internship, but limited the time available for me to work on my dissertation. I doubt I will be able to finish the dissertation during my internship year. I have never been an anxious person, but the awareness of the # of students who do not match caused a noticeable increase in my anxiety. The week before the results were released I had difficulty seeping through the night. I often woke up at 3 am and could not get back to sleep. The entire process was daunting. That said, I do not know of any ways to make the process less anxiety provoking. I like the availability of data related to the match and appreciated the friendly emails from Greg K. Applying for internships can be very expensive. Many of the sites I interviewed at did not offer in person interviews, which helped save me money (although i did go over my phone minutes for the month of January). In the name of social justice, I recommend banning on site interviews. Skype interviews wee a really great way for me to save money, while having a more personable interview than the ones on the phone. I like the changes that APPIC has made and believe that the process has improved immensely over the last few years. I am not sure what to do about the many qualified applicants who are left unmatched. I feel very fortunate to have a position at an APA accredited site.

I was extremely concerned about matching to an APA-accredited site. I think graduate programs, graduate students, and internship sites should work together to increase the number of internships available. This would likely require creative problem-solving approaches.

I was worried at first because I did not receive as many interviews as I would have liked in my top choices, however I matched to a site I wanted.

I think that only students from APA approved graduate programs should be allowed to apply to APA accredited internship sites. Also, I think effort needs to be made to get more of the internships APA accredited. I am not sure why all of the programs are not working towards this. Perhaps there needs to be an effort to help these programs get APA accreditation.

This imbalance is really unfortunate. As a result of it, this process is ferociously competitive and many good students and clinicians are being left without an internship spot. The match process was nerve-wracking for me, just as it was for my colleagues in my program and I had wished many times that there would be another way to obtain an internship.

Overall, the match was an extremely stressful experience for me. Although my graduate program has historically done very well with the match, the growing imbalance between the number of applicants and the number of available positions meant that the scary possibility of not matching and having to delay graduation and starting my career was always in the back of my mind. Unless the large graduate programs begin to limit enrolment or a significant number of additional internship sites are added, it seems that the problem will only continue to grow. I truly hope that APA and APPIC can come to a reasonable solution to the imbalance problem (e.g., graduate program accreditation status contingent upon a minimum match rate, limiting class sizes, etc).

The imbalance increased the amount of stress involved throughout the entire process (particularly within regional areas with highly competitive internship programs, like New York City). The tremendous amount of support and guidance (as well as internal preliminary deadlines established by my school's training program -The New School-, to ensure thorough preparation of application materials) was extremely helpful in this process.

The internship application process worked out well for me but, it was obviously anxiety-provoking to think that 1 in 4 people who completed 3-plus years of graduate school would not receive an accredited internship. It's something that needs to be addressed at either the front end (by preventing the accreditation of doctoral programs that may provide a marginal education) or at the back end (by increasing the number of accredited internship sites).

Although I am very happy to have matched at a great site, it is very clear that the system is broken at a larger systemic level.

It affects us because it is a constant driving fear regarding the field. And especially for individuals who get accepted into Ph.D. programs, we worry we are not competitive enough with Psy.D. applicants in terms of hours, since internship is a very practice-driven position, even though we all feel Ph.D.s are very respected in the field. With that, there is also a sense of resentment towards our field that gets built up over time. You put so much hard work and dedication into your field only to find that you have to prove yourself time and time again. You are so exhausted by your 4th or 5th year of graduate school, and in so much debt, its hard to find motivation at times, and not to lose hope about placing. I love my field, but I think this is one of the many barriers to my career, and the fact that it is not a guarantee only provokes more fear and anxiety. I often times wonder what its like to go up for the match in med school, and how it must be nice to not have to worry about matching, just where you're going. Not only that, but I also have a husband that is affected by the match, and this has not been the easiest process for him. In my program we have some people who do not place every year, and I know it concerns our training director a lot. It leaves those applicants with more questions about their abilities, and having a way that sites could give constructive feedback I think would be helpful for them.

Please see above for my suggestion. Again, I think this imbalance is horrific. I worked extremely hard during my first 3 years of graduate school, and was considered by peers to be the top of my cohort. I did not match to an internship last year. It is a horrific process, and the anxiety around matching is nearly unbearable, because even the most qualified people sometimes go unmatched. I am grateful to have matched this year, but I have close friends who I would consider to be highly qualified who did not match--2 of whom are going through this process for the second year. It impacts professional development and confidence, and it impacts personal relationships and self-esteem. It also forces those who do not match to either take a sub-par internship, or to extend their graduate training by at least a year, which interferes with hope of having a balanced "real" life. The whole process needs to be mended and my above suggestion about limiting the number of students admitted to APA accredited graduate programs, based on that program's match rate, would be an excellent solution if people would actually DO IT.

The fact that each student NEEDS to complete a clinical internship and there are not even enough internships for each student is ridiculous! I can't understand how some students are expected to complete their training and obtain a degree when there is such a huge disparity. Each year, there are way too many qualified applicants who don't match at an internship site. Another student in my lab didn't match and I did (because I had an extra year of experience) but it will most definitely put a strain on our relationship - both personally and professionally. The thought of going through this process again must be agonizing for her. I feel like you have to work harder, stay in school longer, and incur more debt just to be competitive and even then, there is no guarantee. Students NEED to be encouraged to apply to a wide range of programs (not just "the best of the best") and not limit themselves based on location. Something needs to be done about this disparity.

When I started my program I saw that we needed more internship sites and offered support to various individuals in putting a consortium together...although they never took me up on my offer, I still suggest creating other consortiums to psychologists that I meet who are interested in training. As for me personally, I did the best I could to not read articles and stay away from anyone who was caught up in the fear of it all. There is a lot of fear and fear mongering. The fear does nothing useful. I also did not talk much to current applicants because I did not want to land an internship and have one of my friends not...so, I did not talk to them for a few months...to much fear...too much angst...to much that could come between us and our friendship. I wish that there was more focus on what students can do...there is some of that...such as how to prepare for an interview...I know I told one friend (who called me riddled with fear when she was called for an interview) that she only needed one site and that she was interviewing THEM to see if they were a fit for her...not just the other way around...just like a job interview...looking at are "we" a good fit together. She was so scared that she had to get the site...because there were not enough. After our chat...she was much more centered...she now has a site!

While I had a good result in the match, it seems clear that the internship imbalance led me many qualified applicants to a no-match result. As it is doubtful that the 24% of applicants who remained unmatched were the 24% of applicants least qualified to attend internship, this is a considerable problem for our field. I unfortunately have no solution of my own but agree with the Stedman et al. proposal in which schools are consequated for their match results with proportional cuts to their entering classes such that they can invest appropriately in the students they are committed to training. In addition, it would be helpful to encourage a field-wide push to secure funding for more intern slots.

I am very concerned about the imbalance between the number of applicants and the number of available internship positions. Given that this phase of training is mandatory for completion of my degree, as an unmatched applicant, I will now incur an extra year of tuition costs and will place further financial burden on my family as I wait to apply for a second time next year. I am unclear as to why this large imbalance has occured and wonder whether the internship program has been opened to people from more fields/degree types than is manageable.

I wish wholeheartedly that Psy.D. programs would stop accepting so many students. I come from a Psy.D. program myself, so maybe that's hypocritical... but clearly doctoral programs are accepting too many students. The gap between number of students and number of sites will only grow.

It is unfortunate that psychology has this problem. Other disciplines, such as medicine, who go through the matching process do much better in placing their students with internship/residency positions. I think it is very important that we examine this problem in psychology and try to increase chances of matching. This is a very anxiety provoking process and something that may deter future students from pursuing psychology

While I was fortunate enough to match, I saw that the imbalance is only getting worse, which will affect next year's applicants as the applicant pool continues to grow. The increasing competitiveness due to a saturation of applicants who have now had a year's experience (i.e., those who did not match last year and have been working this year) makes it even more difficult for those who have been doing all they can to secure an internship on their first try. I know people who spent thousands of dollars, applied to over 30 sites, and missed class and other obligations to travel to all their interviews because they were so afraid of not matching do to the imbalance. I appreciate the two-phase system and hope it makes a difference, but there are still too many applicants whose lives are put on hold as they wait and hope that next year will mean an internship. Ultimately, it costs programs money if they have to provide financial assistance to these students for another year. It also creates hardship for applicants who need to defer loans but are done with coursework.

I wasn't matched so the cost associated with this process was wasted and this is rather frustrating. Small stipends from site to help cover the interview costs would be helpful. This may, however, limit the number of people the sites interview resulting in possible increases in unfilled positions after phase I. Maybe some guidelines around this could help. There are limited internships in the area that I live and hope to settle. Helping under-funded areas create accredited internship programs would be helpful.

It has affected me by heightening my anxiety levels due to the increased competitive environment. Inevitably, there will be hundreds of my peers who will sit out a year due to the lack of positions. It completely changes one's life course.

It impacted me greatly as I did not match last year and had to engage in the application, interviewing and matching process a second time. This is not a fun process and nobody should have to go through it twice. It has caused me a great amount of frustration, embarrassment, and anxiety. The imbalance between applicants and positions leads to accredited sites being so flooded with applications that being selected for an interview is basically a gamble. Luck is involved way too much with this process. If I had the ear of the education and training community, I would suggest that accrediting bodies provide more incentives for different sites to become accredited; therefore, increasing the number of accredited internships available to applicants. The future of psychology depends on current students getting quality, accredited internships, rather than having to settle for a non-accredited internship that provides lower quality training.

It is extremely stressful to know that many qualified individuals will not be matched. I do not believe an extra year off would have been beneficial in any way. The thought of the expense of another year and the emotional toll it would take was overwhelming. I am so grateful that I matched and feel disheartened for those who are qualified and did not match. Thankfully everyone in my program matched this year!

For me, the imbalance led to me spending much more money to apply to more programs and attend more interviews. It leads to a lot of stress because you know that good applicants, qualified applicants, are being turned down. I am not sure that the problem is with the training sites, I think we are producing too many PhD/PsyDs and it is going to be a problem on the job market as well. APA should consider not accrediting programs that have extremely low match rates.

TO have the ear of the community would be amazing. Honestly, this imbalance causes a LOT of anxiety in students and it is hard to disseminate if it's higher admit rates/less sites, or both. Regardless, I think more professionals in the community might be approached to help "give back" to the field of psychology. That sounds like a good idea to me. The imbalance is scary, but if we create incentives for professionals in the field to contribute mentoring to fledgling psychologists, that would do a lot for the imbalance.

It is unfortunate for the large numbers of applicants who will not find an internship this year. Surely, there are individuals who are not sufficiently qualified or desirable to the sites to which they have applied; however, the current discrepancy between the number of applicants and available positions means that far more well-qualified and skilled applicants will not match largely owing to the lack of positions. Given the current economic climate it seems prudent that academic programs limit the number of students they accept to provide students greater opportunity to complete their internship training requirements. This unnecessarily sets many individuals back one or more years in the attainment of their degrees and licenses.

Obviously, this is a stressful issue for all graduate students in psychology. To be honest, it didn't increase my anxiety during the application process, but instead influenced by choices throughout my graduate training. For instance, although my particular graduate program stresses generalist training, in light of the shortage of internship positions and the increase in applicants, I chose to specialize earlier than I otherwise would have in an attempt to increase my competitiveness for internship. I also made certain program-related decisions (e.g., adding an extra year to my program) so that I would be more competitive and complete other requirements (e.g., defending my dissertation prior to applications). Overall, I'd say the imbalance between applicants and programs led me to be more forward-thinking (and probably more anxious) than I otherwise would have been, but I felt fairly confident throughout the process that I would match, largely because I felt well-prepared by my program and practicum experience for internship.

Knowing such information made the interviewing process much more stressful and added the pressure to perform in the best possible manner. This might have affected my overall presentation due to the level of anxiety that I was experiencing.

I have been affected by not getting an internship position. My school is largely responsible for being one that has expanded its program considerably, but its not the only one. There should be large efforts toward increasing sites to meet that growth. There are significant areas of country with few sites, and working to build consortiums or other sites in these areas is a good idea.

Most graduate studenst are brunt out and just want to be done! To make matters worse we have to jump through tons of hoops just to get finished and when there are a shortage of spots available it makes it even tougher for us graduates students to complete our program requirments. There should be some just system in place that takes into account how many students are apply from each state/province and then allow for that many spots in those respective areas. To up root family and to make the graduate process even that much difficult, it pust most students over the edge. It's become so competitive just to get into a clinical doctoral program and for what purpose? It starts right at the beginning and then carries all the way through to the internship grueling stage - it's really just not fair! I feel like at this point I'm wasting my breath though because I know it really does just come downt to political power. I was fortunate enough to be "matched" and I'm still feeling overwhelmed, burnt out, and discouraged, I can only imagine what a student that did't get matched feels like.

Overall, even though I matched to an excellent program that was a top choice for me, I will always recall the experience in a bitter sweet way because many excellent applicants that I personally know have not matched over the years and nationally the match rate is pretty pathetic. First of all, I feel disappointed in the APA and APAGS for not doing more to address the match imbalance. I am less likely to pay for APA membership as a result. Secondly, this process took up almost a year of my life that I will not get back and prevented me from completing my dissertation in a timely manner. Third, most of my collegues and I are left feeling happy that we matched, but disappointed in our field as a whole and the low match rates overall, the APA, and those in leadership positions in our field for not doing more to address this problem. I tell people now that it is not worth going to graduate school in clinical psychology as a result of this experience. I think I matched because I was strategic, attend a top program, put in a lot of effort, and have excellent training experiences on my CV (about 5 externships and publications). I spent many months editing my application materials as everyone in my program does. Here are some suggestions for improving the match imbalance: (1) APA should not accredit programs that have low match rates (anything below 70-80%) (2) APA should not accredit professional programs that are not attached to universities (The american medical association takes care of physicians by not allowing professional schools to prop up everywhere. Why can't APA advocate for psychologists like this? (3) limit the number of students in each program to the number that get accepted into APA Internships over the past 5 years.

Clearly the imbalance is a significant problem. I also feel that as a PsyD applicant, my application may have been given less weight than other applications due to the influx of programs who are admitting close to 100 students in each class, decreasing the quality of training, and "flooding the market" (as it were). My program is not like that, but I think it continues to be a challenge for programs like mine that do not have national recognition to not be lumped into these For-Profit institutions. Specifically, I think it is very difficult for PsyD students (like myself) who have an interest in Pediatric Health Psychology to have any hope of getting placements that have a focus on Pediatric Psychology unless there is a change. The sites that are strong in Pediatric Psychology are also the sites that are looking for PhD students with a strong research background who can stay on to do research. I am doing my dissertation in the area of Pediatric Psychology (specifically patient compliance), and would have loved the opportunity to train at an institution where I could have explored my research further and in more settings. Ultimately, though, my program's focus is not on research and I do not have publications and presentations on the subject yet. If these major hospital setting were to change their approach to choosing applicants or consider having separate tracks (research and clinical) it would give individuals like myself a much greater chance of gaining a placement in such a setting. I would be very interested in knowing the stats on those who didn't match, if there were more PsyD or PhD candidates. I also think it would be very helpful for sites to fill out forms on all students that they DO interview but DO NOT rank to help people get a better idea of what people might be missing. It would be fantastic if sites could fill out information on students that apply that do not get interviews, but that is probably asking to much (it might not be asking to much to do it just for Match II). There is a lot of talk about not worrying about placement when you rank, but there is almost nothing said about how to use the supplied statistics from past years and other information to help guide if you are a good candidate for a given site. Though much of it is probably site specific, there is very little said about how to choose a good list of programs to apply to.

This process creates unhealthy competition amongst previous friends, colleagues, and classmates. Schools and students generate pressure to get APA sites when that might not be critical to a given student's success. Clarity is needed on this front. Also, there is suspicion that what allows a site to be APA might not make sense. These restrictions keep great APPIC sites from getting ranked (and keep other sites off the list entirely). Maybe these standards need to be looked at. Can the organization do more to increase the # of approved sites. If more locations were accredited, fewer students would need to travel as extensively for interviews or for the internships themselves. The financial and relationship burdens imposed by all of the travel are extreme. Without more sites, the problem will increase each year, as the pool is glutted with those applying for a 2nd time. 900 or so next year and more the next. Keeping new therapists (often working with some of the most fragile patients) in such a state of stress feels like it could do longer-term damage both to the profession - based on perceptions of therapists, and to the decreased level of care provided by over-extended burgeoning providers. To perpetuate such a lack of self-care is alarming. I think that professional schools contribute to the problem (I attend one), by admitting so many students. It is unclear to most students what makes a site APA, APPIC, or neither. It is also unclear what options a student will lack, if he or she chooses an alternate means of interning. Making this explicit somewhere might be useful, and might decrease the demand.

Perspective, in my opinion, has been lost when it comes to the psychological community and training young professionals. It is unreasonable to ask young people to go significantly into debt, complete years of education, write a dissertation, and then be denied a degree because of a lack of internships. With time, degrees are going to symbolize the ability to pay for dozens for applications and travel to 20 cities to interview rather than the expertise of the individual. The internship year is little more than intense, full-time participation in a paid practicum, and in my opinion should be treated as such. Options should be available for individuals to pursue their degrees through additional practicum hours at approved institutions if internships are not available. This is my opinion, and I matched with my first choice the first time I participated in the match.

I have been telling the earlier students in the doctoral program to prepare for the internship. Meaning to search for the sites they want to go to, plan appropriate practicum site, take comprehensive exam in an timely manner, and finish their dissertation. If I knew what I know about the process two years ago then I would have probably been a better candidate.

There is a lot of stress and pressure that circulates during internship application "season" that I feel is further exacerbated by the awareness of the imbalance between applicants and sites. It was also somewhat stressful to hear about APA accredited programs that lost funding or cut the number of positions during the process. It highlighted the imbalance even further.I think it is unfortunate that the imbalance will result in qualified students having to wait another year to complete training.

I think more APPIC programs that are not APA accredited need to push the extra mile to do what they need to do to become accredited. We have too many students working hard through grad school only to be disappointed during the final hurdle. My classmate has not matched two years in a row and this process has placed her professional career and personal life on hold.

I have accrued more clinical and research experience than at least 90% of all applicants based on the statistics from the past 3 years. I had 800 hours of assessment derived in part from neuropsychology, psychology, and school settings, 600 hours of intervention, presented 14 posters, 7 articles, 2 book chapters, and presented at 14 professional invited lectures. However, I did not match to a program. I believe this may be due in part because I am enrolled in a school psychology program. I believe that sites discriminate against school psychology students and this is completely unfair. I understand that close analysis of the qualifications of every candidate must be laborious and extremely time-consuming. But to dismiss school psychology students merely due to their training program, which is closely paralleled to that of child clinical students, is completely unjust. Sites need to make a better effort to include school psychology students as possibilities into their programs and give school psychology students a fair chance to show their qualifications and skills in psychology.

It's unnecessarily stress-inducing, this discrepancy of supply and demand. Doctoral students have already spent so much time, resources, and energy to make it through their programme thus far, and should be at least guaranteed a way to finish their internship year, perhaps not in the most prestigious internship site, but maybe through some form of mentorship or the like as in counselling programmes.

I find it extremely disheartening with the imbalance. Instead of wondering if we are going to be placed at a site we like more than others, we are actually in paralyzing fear of not fitting at all. I know that I applied to several due to this fear. It shouldn't be matching or not matching, but matching to a site I like more or less over another. Everyone who applies to an internship should be placed, bottom line. We work too long and too hard to find out that it goes out the window on match day. Personally, I don't think through my several years of graduate school that I have experienced anything more stressful or terrifying with relation to school. I was lucky enough to match on match day, but for a while when my email arrived I couldn't open it due to this fear. This one email was going to change my entire life. While I was celebrating throughout the day and sharing my good news I was also spending time helping a friend be positive about phase II. I'm sure with Monday coming around soon I will be talking with others that did not match. We may tell them that it's a numbers game, but everyone takes this match extremely personal. This imbalance is unfair to everyone who participates in the process. In the end, matching should not be an if, but where.

It's a terrifying proposition to know that no matter what your best efforts are, you may still not match, and will have to deal with all of the professional/academic/financial/personal fallout that accompanies that outcome. It's difficult to have to choose between applying well beyond one's preference or comfort area and risking no match, simply because there's such an increased pressure to increase the odds of matching as much as possible. The match process is stressful enough, and adding the complication of inadequate positions makes the worry even more consuming than it would be otherwise (and that's still exceptionally high). It's wrong and irresponsible to allow so many students to enter the field each year, while knowing that there are inadequate opportunities available for those who complete their share of the academic bargain to successfully complete their training without undue hardship. If the disparity between applicants and available positions isn't or can't be rectified, prospective students should at least be clearly and carefully informed of the very real and not insignificant risk of not completing their program as described. It isn't fair to allow students to enter expecting a very different experience than the current system allows them to receive, as some may choose other career paths with less time or financial investment knowing this hazard.

I believe that this is a serious problem. Although I matched in Phase I this affects many qualified applicants. The ratio of programs to applicants needs to be addressed

This was a very stressful process and I hope there are people seriously working to address the broken parts of the system. It is creating a climate of animosity among psychology professionals as well. For instance, during one of my interviews and in discussion boards, I heard negative comments about PsyD programs. It appears that some students/faculty/programs believe that the increase in psychology graduates is to blame for the shortage of internships, and they are pinning the responsibility on PsyD programs. Last time I checked, we have a serious shortage of quality mental health services in this country. I do not think it is fair then to suggest that an increase in volume of graduates is necessarily negative. Instead, I feel that our field is growing in response to a need and that the internship process needs to grow with it.

The imbalance made it a bit more nerve-racking to receive an internship this year. However, I do believe that we need some limits regarding how many professionals we send out to the field each year. It is concerning how many students some programs accept and train each year and it worries me that the supply of clinicians has become too high compared to the demand in the field. Whether programs should limit the number of students accepted or whether the number of internship positions are limited - I do believe that there needs to be limits placed on how many new professionals we create each year.

Although I did match and I am satisfied with my match I found the whole process to be rather disheartening. As a PsyD training in neuropsychology I felt that I was often turned away because I was not in a PHD program. I have high grades, great recommendations and solid clinical training, and I felt that none of this was reflected in the number of interviews I received. In talking with the other students at my school it appears that most of us received mainly interviews from the APPIC (not APA) sites that we applied to. It seems that there is still a strong biased against PsyD students when it comes to trying to obtain a APA internship.

The current imbalance has not affected me. I strongly believe that not everyone is qualified to have an internship and that students should work hard to become clincians. In my program, I have seen several students being catered to and "passed on" even though they failed a class or their qualifying exams. Yes, everyone should get a second chance, but we shouldn't keep lowering the requirements to become a clinical psychologist. Students who worked hard, studied, practiced their interviewing skills, and spent all summer working on their apps. are, in my opinion, the ones who matched. Individuals who didn't match didn't put in the work, have poor interviewing/social skills, applied only to very competitive sites, or were geographically restricted. Again, everyone should be given the chance to learn from their mistakes and apply again next year. But the imbalance and competition is what allows sites to select the "best" applicants. If there was a site for every applicant, some sites would have to take unqualified students who are not ready for the rigors of internship year.

One year during the practicum process, I was not placed on match day. This was a significant source of stress, and although I ultimately placed, I was very aware that schools have been expanding to the point where the number of applicants dwarf the number of training sites available. I believe that the schools need to be held responsible for their expansion. Often times it feels like these training institutions are concerned with their expansion and increasing the revenue they bring in, without any concern for how this affects each student throughout the training process or in their future career. Knowing that this huge disparity between applicants and internship sites exists made the internship application process even more stressful than it already is. There was always this fear that I would not place and what would that mean. Knowing that the next class is even larger than ours, if I did not match, delaying for a year would mean that I was competing in an even more unfair battle. Fortunately, I did not have to make a decision regarding this. However, I do have friends that did not match, and I feel very angry for them. It does not seem fair that after spending so much time and money, they may not get a placement, especially since each and every one of them is a phenomenal student and clinician. I know that the Phase II Match process will help with some of these problems, but as it stands, there are still 700 too few positions.

The imbalance between the number of sites/positions available and the number of applicants has been a large area of stress for all of us. I am lucky that I was placed in the first round of the match; however, I do not see how we can allow this trend of having more students than positions to continue as the problem just seems to compound when students defer and then compete with the up and coming cohorts. My thoughts on how to improve this situation which may or may not be feasible is that schools need to be more selective in terms of their students as well as providing honest information at the start of the program regarding the current state of affairs. It does not seem right to allow people to get four or more years into a program (and that much more in debt) only to find out that they cannot continue on to a career due to being unable to find an internship. I am hopeful that the economy will turn around eventually and that healthcare will receive the attention that it deserves, which will likely increase the number of sites available for internship. However, until then, schools should be responsible about their recruiting practices so that they are able to follow through on their promises (e.g., helping students to become professionals in their field).

I have invested almost 200,000 dollars in my education and to be forced to spend another year's worth of tuition, living expenses, and application and travel expenses for a second internship matching process due to the imbalance between applicants and positions is unthinkable.

The past six months have been extremely stressful. This process is not only time consuming and expensive, but also creates an amazing amount of stress and general unhappiness. In truth, I have felt like I had a dark cloud over me for many months (and I am generally a happy/positive person). It really seems like there needs to be a movement towards ensuring that there are enough APA internships to go around, even if that means changing the rules. For example, it is essential that interns are financially compensated by internship programs? We spend almost the same amount of money reapplying and paying tuition if we need to do this a second time. This would mean that some sites with less funding, but good training could become APA accredited. Of course sites that can pay more would be more competitive, but this still seems like a more reasonable option (better an unpaid or less-paid position with good training, than nothing at all). This has probably been one of the most stressful experiences of my life. We are asked to sacrifice a great deal to attend an internship (finances, moving away from spouse/family, relocating etc). The imbalance between applicants and positions should become the TOP priority for APA period. It must be possible to increase the number of positions!?

The current imbalance is a horrific problem, and has certainly affected me both personally and professionally. Unfortunately, I don't believe it is only the imbalance which is problematic - the entire system truly needs to be re-evaluated. It strikes me as an outdated model with real and unnecessary impact on people's personal lives. The fact that we, as supposed experts on human behavior, have not been more attuned to this is mind-boggling. Many people do have geographic limitations at this age range - young families or aging parents they cannot leave. Others are single but in their early 30s and hoping to find a partnership or to start a family soon. The argument that it is "only a year" does not hold weight at a personal level - try explaining to a two-year old that her father will be gone for "just a year." Which, of course, may be followed by just one more year of a post-doc in a different location. Successive year-long moves are uprooting. I believe we need to truly ask ourselves why we have this requirement. We are the only field that requires an external placement to be awarded an internal degree, and it is simply unacceptable for students to have completed all requirements for a doctorate and not be able to be placed. I also think we need to be aware of how the field is changing. My Clinical Director often speaks about how internship was her FIRST experience with clients! I, in contrast, have about 1000 hours of contact even before internship. And then will need another 2000+ hours post-internship to be licensed in some regions. If we believed 20 years ago that it was okay for clinicians to practice with a year of clinical training, why do we now believe they need 5 times that? Yes, we are learning more as a field, and the complexities of today's world may complicate practice. But there seems to be a serious disconnect. I do not see a reason we can't follow more of a medical model and make the internship year a requirement for licensure, but not for obtaining the degree. If, as a field, we somehow decide that the current number of hours is necessary for licensure, then make the requirement a two-year post-doc, which would still allow individuals and families a bit more stability in their lives. I'm already anxious about figuring out my post-internship step and I haven't even moved for internship. The system is broken. We need to finally acknowledge this.

The field is becoming flooded, less students/programs, more strict admissions. It was very anxiety provoking.

It made me extremely anxious. I personally am of the belief that the match system should be abolished completely and we should move toward a system in which graduate programs provide internships to their students.

I have not been personally affected given that I am a candidate from a competitive Ph.D. program. However, in theory, and perhaps eventually, we will all be affected by the shortage of positions for clinical psychologists. I believe APA needs to determine how to identify and then regulate for-profit graduate programs.

It is very frustrating to know that there are more applicants than there are slots. Sometimes I wonder why some doctoral programs allow so many students into their schools if the number of future interns far outweighs the available internship positions. I really feel for my fellow students who did not match. I have so much loan debt from my lengthy educational career that I cannot imagine having to wait another year to get my life on track and move a little closer to making a "normal living" with a career and a paycheck. It's incredibly difficult to be almost 30 and still waiting for your career to begin.

I think that the field should consider a expedited accreditation process through which sites that interns actively work to develop can be review in a manner that will allow their sites to be considered legitimate despite being self-developed. I love the idea of prospective interns developing their own sites, but want to make sure that doing so will not hurt their ability to be employed or licensed in the future.

I would recommend that programs not have 50+ students apply each year. The field is not growing as fast as training programs which presents a problem.

Not having matched last year, I would definitely say that I have been adversely impacted the current imbalance. I think that it is ethically questionable to accept students into a program knowing that at the end they may not be able to progress toward their degree. I had to take an extra year and I moved to another city in order to attend an externship that made me more competitive for the following years' match. I think to be accredited as a program, you should have a certain percentage of matched applicants.

It led to a great deal of emotional pain and disappointment in terms of not being able to obtain many interviews, and applying to a different geographical region than my current program likely exacerbated the difficulty (though my advisor mentioned that many of my peers also received fewer interviews than expected). It makes for a highly nervewracking process, even though I was able to match successfully. I would also mention that support from faculty and peers are crucial -- I was fortunate to receive tremendous support from faculty and peers, but there was one encounter with a faculty member that was quite negative and condescending. This made the process even more difficult.

With so many bright, educated, motivated and well-trained applicants, I am disappointed with the current imbalance between applicants and positions. Although many effective steps have been taken (e.g., requiring programs to disclose the matching statistics), more is needed. APPIC, APA and APAGS need to work together to create additional internship opportunities in collaboration with sites to make easier, but still strict and adequate, accreditation procedures.

The imbalance seems largely affected by the number of students graduating from professional schools and applying for the same internship positions as everyone else. I am not sure how this could be remedied, but something has to happen, and maybe this is an issue to be addresses when programs are considering how many applicants to administer.

The psychology pre-doctoral internship system is broken. The ratio of applicants to positions caused me great stress personally, and regarding the profession. These internships are required for the degree, therefore when 24% of students cannot obtain one, our field is in serious trouble. My understanding is that the substantially larger cohorts of non-Ph.D. programs has contributed significantly to the shortage of positions. Therefore, I believe they should be shouldering more of the responsibility and be actively developing new internship positions and getting them accredited. We either need enough positions for qualified students, or we need internship to not be a requirement for the degree, however, I think this later option would be a disservice to the profession, to students, and to clients.

The imbalance between interviews given and positions available was a bigger issue. It seems insensitive to extend interviews to applicants at a ratio of over 10:1 when the applicants have to incur great travel expenses with poor odds of matching (e.g., 3 positions and 50 interviews or 6 positions and 80 interviews). If grad schools can narrow down their interview selections more efficiently using the application materials(e.g., 10-20 candidates for 5 positions), why can't internship sites? This may make phase II of the match more important but save much time/expense for both candidates and interviewers.

I believe the current imbalance between applicants and positions is a huge problem for the psychology profession. It impacted me in that I felt a significant amount of pressure to apply nationally to internship sites while my prefernce was to remain in my home city. I feel that the issue is more on the side of too many students being admitted in professional psycholcgy schools (i.e., Psy.D. programs) as opposed to too few sites. I believe that such educational programs should be held accountable if they do not obtain a high program internship match rate by being limited in subsequent years as to the number of new Psy.D. students they can admit to their program.

I think that APPIC and the APA should be more vocal about the impact of for-profit degree mills on the field.

I felt compelled to apply to many sites and accept many interviews, despite the expense, to ensure that I would have more than sufficient chances of matching somewhere. I absolutely did not want to go through the process more than once, or end up at a non-accredited site. I also felt more tense and more competitive with other applicants than I would have if positions were not so scarce. I was in the mindset of "get a match, whatever it takes!" rather than, "find a place that feels like you'll like being there and they'll like you." I felt compelled to impress sites and interviewers, rather than being more open and genuine. I wonder, even, if it will be harder to abandon this feeling of being evaluated intensively, even now that I have been accepted by a site I like.

I believe that for the time and money invested by psychology students, programs (namely PsyD) do the field and their students a great disservice by over-accepting applicants.

I felt very stressed by the fact that there are so many more applicants than positions. This led me to feel as though I needed to spend a lot of time and money applying to and interviewing at programs in order to ensure I matched. I spent over $3000 traveling, and that was very difficult for me financially. I feel as though PsyD programs are flooding the field by taking in large classes of students and having so many students apply for internships. I think that each program should be limited in the number of applicants from their program that can apply for internship every year (perhaps 15 or less). This would keep the number of applicants down. This would also ensure that PsyD program do not take on too many students. The field of psychology does not need over 3,000 new doctoral level graduates a year.

I've had several friends who were competitive applicants not match, which was very disheartening.

The imbalance is extremely anxiety provoking. We have worked so hard to get where we are today and it is soooo unfortunate that many qualified and fantastic individuals go without internships. I am not sure how this can be improved. I know many think the back-up is due to the professional psychology schools and their high admittance rates. I come from a professional pscyhology school however, and can attest to the incredible education that we receive, and I feel that we can not be blamed and we all deserve spots too. I placed at an extremly competitive APA accredited VA hospital so I am fortunate that that VA saw the worth that PsyD's have. I am not sure this always the case and it saddens me that PsyDs get blamed for the imbalance mentioned in your question. (I heard this blame come from students from PhD universities while on interviews). We are all working very hard for the same thing, hopefully that can be universally recognized in the coming years.

The commitment to a particular site through the match process itself was difficult given my attempts to live once again in the same city as my partner, or in a city that he could move to. Not having much control over where I would be placed was stressful to my relationship, however, I'm not sure that could be avoided. Perhaps if it were possible to shorten the length of time applicants are in limbo between application deadlines and match day would help.