Comments about Imbalance - Page 3

I do not not have this information about this imbalance between applicant numbers and matched applicants but it is unfair because this process delays our graduation date and therefore, is stressful. We need enough available sites to all applicants or otherwise, the admission to these program at the Universities should be restricted or any University should respond for it creating places for internships,so, greater coordination between universities and internship program (APPIC)

This was a very stressful process due to the financial burden, requirements for in-person interviews, and the possibility of not matching.

I'm lucky to have not been affected by this--I got into grad school on the first try, I got an internship match on the first try. But this differential suggests that we should not be letting so many people into grad school (there clearly aren't enough jobs), and I suspect that PsyD programs (or other programs) that are making students pay for their own education are disproportionately creating/exacerbating this problem.

The imbalance adds additional stress to the process and is an issue that needs to be resolved. As a professional this imbalance and the ballooning number of psychologists in training can potentially devalue the degree due to supply and demand characteristics. The lack of internship positions is an illustration of supply and demand. Accreditation factors also affect the demand. In my conversations with others on this issue a few possible solutions have been discussed. (1) Program accrediting agencies could limit the size of incoming cohorts to balance out the internship discrepancy. (2) Degree requirements could change to not requiring an internship for degree completion for certain interests (but not licensure)- thus psychologists that may not be seeking licensure (organizational consulting psychologists, those entering academia and research) could graduate without an internship but perhaps require post-doc residency and supervision for licensure. The biggest fear is the loss of potential earnings for psychologists especially in light of the rising costs of education. It seems impractical to seek a doctoral degree given one can earn a similar wage and do similar things with a master's degree which requires far less time, costs a lot less money, and has less hoops to jump through. The imbalance of internship positions just adds additional stress because it comes at a time when lots of debt for the degree has already been accumulated. Since about 1/4th of applicants will not match because of the imbalance it becomes a very high stakes gamble.

While I understand the emotional strains of the current imbalance of students and sites, I found that the majority of well-qualified psychologists-to-be were matched. Part of the problem is that many programs (including my own - a school for professional psychology) are admitting far more students than the entire system and job market can handle. Unfortunately, this influx also decreases the quality of students entering the field. While it would be wonderful to have a sufficient number of internship sites for all the students, graduate programs must also take responsibility for the overload of students coming in on their end.

Schools need to continue to cap their programs regarding how many doctoral students they are willing to accept each year. A surplus of 700 students this year, and more programs growing and accepting more students puts people at a very unfair advantage. There should be a limit to how many people can apply for internship from each school.

It provoked a lot of anxiety. I assumed that I was more qualified than most people coming from an APA accredited progam that is highly respected, but I was still very nervous prior to the match. Something has to be done about it, I would exclude non-APA accredited graduate progams from the match. There are way too many unqualified psychologists out there many of whom come from these programs. We don't need to be creating more positions, just ensuring that those who get positions are qualified and don't just look good on paper.

This was my second time through the match process. I had specific geographical restrictions due to having two children, one with special needs, who would have had significant difficulty changing schools had I moved. This being said, I realize that my inability to obtain APA interviews my first year was largely due to that, and the fact that I come from a professional school. The imbalance in the Bay Area is particularly large. As I mentioned, I am from a professional school, and while I value my program, and the education I have received, I do believe that too many students are churned out through these institutions. Some professional schools are now limiting the number of sites students can apply to, but this does not, in itself, seem to be an adequate solution. Unfortunately, I don't have an alternative solution to this problem.

The competitive nature of this process is exactly why it was SO stressful throughout. I was continuously aware that MANY qualified candidates fail to match each year. I felt a high level of anxiety throughout the past 6 months during this application process, and noted similar levels of anxiety among other applicants I encountered along the way. There is no easy solution to the imbalance issue, but I do have a few suggestions: -All graduate programs (both PhD and PsyD) should be required to LIMIT the number of students admitted to their programs, so that the total number of applicants is in the same range as the number of internships available each year. -Graduate programs that have a poor record of students matching each year should be penalized in some way for this (ie permitted to admit fewer students in subsequent years; required to provide more assistance to their students to help with the application process and increase the odds of a match). -Limit the number of internships each applicant is allowed to apply to (ie 15). I encountered at least a handful of applicants who applied to nearly 30 internship programs to "beat the odds," which only makes it more competitive for all involved. It is likely there were others like them in the total applicant pool who responded in this way to the competition. Bottom line: the imbalance issue exponentially adds to applicants' stress during this process, and something MUST be done to rectify this!!!

I and every one of my classmates have spent a good deal of time and money to get this far in our graduate training. It is simply unaacceptable that there are so many highly qualified applicants who are left without internships. This process is extremely stressful and anxiety provoking. Many of my classmates have lost sleep over the internship process due to stress, and I believe this process has negatively impacted the well-being of many. Also, the travel costs associated with this process, when considered in conjunction with the high number of applicants who spent a lot of money only to be unmatched.

This is a sour topic for me. The first problem I think may be the lack of awareness that new graduate students have about this issue. When I applied to graduate school I knew I needed to get an internship to graduate. I did not know that every year about 1 in 4 applicants does not get a placement. This is a problem. I have accrued $40K in debt through graduate school, and I'm sure that I am at the low end of debt in comparison to others. Throughout this process, knowing that I have all of that debt, and potentially could never get my degree in order to pay it off was pretty scary. I was upset knowing that so many students go into graduate school without even knowing what a problem this is. The APA needs to make sure that students are aware. Additionally, I have read articles about ways the APA is addressing the match imbalance. My biggest problem is that none of the suggestions for addressing the problem actually address it. They require programs to publish their match rates. Okay, but it doesn't solve the fact that 1 in 4 don't match. All that does is tell people how successful individual programs are. Even if all applicants are perfectly prepared for internship, have identical experiences, and are equally good at everything, 1 in 4 still will not match. This should be viewed as unacceptable. Yet, it seems that while I hear talk about how unacceptable it is, very little has been done to turn this situation into a more acceptable one (i.e. more positions). It is irresponsible, unethical, and should be illegal for an organization to REQUIRE that well qualified students complete an internship that the organization is unable to provide. If someone requires me to do something, I expect to have the tools to pull it off. Students are not provided with the appropriate tools...something HAS to change. I truly believe that this ruins peoples' lives on a yearly basis. I have matched and am happy with the result. However, there were a couple students from my program who did not match this year. Additionally, they participated last year and did not match. Both are very qualified and passionate about what they do. Yet, despite getting a number of interviews, each failed to match -- not because they were unacceptable applicants, but I am confident that this occurred because there simply are not enough positions, and the playing field gets larger and more competitive each year. Watching the pain of others go through this process and fail to match is very difficult. Something needs to change. This system is not in need of repairs; it is broken and needs a complete overhaul. 937 unmatched applicants (just this year!) can attest to this. I had a great experience in the match. But, I could easily see a scenario in which I was left without a position, with a mountain of debt, and having spent 5 years chasing something that 1 in 4 fail to catch.

I would like to tell them to stop admitting so many students to their program. Clearly the imbalance is telling us that programs need to limit the number of students they allow into their programs. Also, I had the benefit of having a training director who was extremely encouraging throughout the process, which is a MUST esp. when the match is such a stressful process. In the past some training directors make attempts to scare you, or to tell you that you have not done enough to market yourself, which only makes the process harder on the student and in my opinion is counter-productive.

The imbalance between applicants and positions causes a lot of anxiety in the applicants. Even highly qualified applicants who receive interviews at many sites are worried that they won't match. This makes the process even more aversive than it has to be because we fear that all the time, energy, and money we spend will be for nothing. Not matching leaves us with a year in limbo - we don't really have a place in our psychology programs anymore because we are done with classes and often cannot do another practicum, and we can't get a "real job" in our field. The longer the process takes, the more we wonder if the years we've spent in graduate school have been a waste. I think training programs should seriously consider dropping the internship year as a requirement for graduation from the program. Currently, even students who plan not to do clinical work and do not want to get licensed are often required to complete a clinical internship. If these students could graduate without an internship, I suspect many would, which might partially alleviate the problem. Another option might be for APPIC to put a cap on how many consecutive years a given applicant can apply for internship. Perhaps after 2 or 3 consecutive years of applying and not matching, the applicant would have to wait a year before applying again. That could help prevent the applicant pool from ballooning to a completely unmanageable level.

Although I matched, the current imbalance is bothersome as I know well qualified people who did not match. As I see it, the number of applicants needs to be reduced. I see no easy answer unless APA steps in and limits the number of people that programs accept, especially PsyD programs. APA simply should not accredit programs that repeatedly bring in far more people than they match. Also, programs should stop accepting far more people than they could possible financially support.

I did not know of the huge supply-demand problem until I was pretty deep in the internship process. Once I learned more about it, I became extremely frustrated and disappointed with the process/problem. I think we are doing a complete disservice to our field to require internship for licensure, yet there are not enough positions to accommodate this need. I do not think other fields do this to their students. It is unacceptable. I have talked with friends in the medical field, and although residencies are competitive, there seem to be enough for everyone. I think this calls for some reworking of the system, such as admitting fewer students or excluding for-profit programs that churn out large cohort classes from the match process. I also think this supply demand problem is making the expectations for students completely ridiculous. Now it seems like in order to be competitive, you need to have several publications, 600 intervention hours, numerous integrated reports, and have significant progress on your dissertation. All this is expected to occur in a 4-5 year period in which you are also expected to take classes, complete research, and gain practicum experience. These "standards" all seem to just come out of the problem that the sites are overwhelmed with applicants and have to find some stringent criteria to help them get through the process.

I have gotten a lot of feedback that I am a very competent student, and expected to get many interviews based on feedback from faculty from my own, and other institutions. However, this was not the case. I ended up ranking sites where I did not wish to spend a year, simply because I had so few options. I spent three months worried that I would have nowhere to go next year, and that I would have wasted another year in graduate school even though my dissertation would be defended. I am very happy with the results, but this uncertainty of whether or not one will match, not just where one will match, is incredibly trying.

I was very fortunate enough to be offered a position at my first choice, and it was a great relief! I wasn't originally going to apply, however, because I heard that a student in school for a PsyD at a professional school had very little chance of even getting an interview, much less a position. I understand that this is probably not accurate in reality, but the belief that it is, is very real. I feel very lucky with my results, but I worry that other highly qualified students who earn numerous hours of valuable clinical experience are either not given a chance, due to the school they attend, or are too put off from applying, since they think they don't have a chance to begin with. For example, a fellow peer and applicant requested feedback from a site that did not offer her an interview. She was interested in finding out how to improve her CV for the following year. Their response included a statement that said the strength of the applicants school is a big factor. This does not make sense to me since the school we attend is APA accredited, and has actually been accredited for the max amount of years allowed. I just feel someone that has been in graduate school for 3-4 years, and has had to complete a supervised internship/practicum every year as part of their requirement for graduation, should be given the same opportunity and chances that a student at a more "name" school receives, when they have earned significantly less supervised clinical experience. Obviously, I am biased since I clearly attend a professional school, but I have these thoughts despite being placed at an APA internship for next year. I would just like to see more applicants get a chance to interview based on their clinical experience and work, rather than the school they attend. I think more people at my school would be more likely to apply if this were the case, and feel that profession would benefit greatly from this. I know this is a bit off topic, in terms of the current imbalance between applicants and positions, but I feel this is important as well. Thanks for reading.

It sucks. Knowing about the imbalance makes for a much more stressful process and raises the level of competition. I think there should be more feedback and accountability from sites/APPIC/NMS at every stage of the process. For example, sites should disclose more about why an applicant is not selected for an interview. In addition, students who do not match should have more feedback from sites about why they were ranked so low or not ranked at all. If students are to be allowed to keep applying for the match over and over, they should be given feedback that will help them improve for the following year or feedback that will help them choose a new career path that may be more suitable for their skills/abilities.

As one of the unlucky ones that was not matched, the imbalance has deeply affected my professional career. I am sidelined for another two years with mounting debt. I am extremely disappointed that the APA has allowed this discrepancy to continue, and I have no control regarding my future and subjective interview outcomes. The sites literally have all the power and the applicants are held to ridiculous standards for students at the beginning of their careers. The internship process currently eliminates unlucky applicants that have accumulated four and five years of debt with an unusable degree.

I don't feel like the imbalanace has affected me much personally. I come from a program where nearly every student matches the first time they apply, so my anxiety about not matching was minimal (although certainly still existed). As a professional, however, I do have quite a few reactions to the imbalance. One is that as the imbalance continues it will only increase, as students who did not match will apply again the following year. Another is that some students apply for internship before they are really ready - too few experiences, hours, etc - and if they do not match, this will likely lead them to increase their competence, which is a good thing. In some ways I think this imbalance acts as a gatekeeper - applicants who are not competent clincians hopefully will not match. I'm also aware, however, that some very competentent applicants do not match while other applicants - perhaps less competent - DO match. I wish that we had a better gate-keeping system.

I see the imbalance as a huge problem which creates undue stress and needs to be addressed by the field. While we seem to have been aware of and monitoring it for quite some time, the degree of imbalance is ever increasing, and something needs to be done. One potential solution I have heard is to limit the number of students entering a particular program to the number of students that program has been able to successfully match in prior years (e.g. if you have classes of 40 in which only 25 students, on average, match then you are only permitted by APA to accept 25 students/year, or you lose your program accredidation.) I am not sure if this is the best solution but it is the best one I've heard.

All along the process, I could not imagine the idea of having to stay here in my graduate program city for another year with nothing to do, as I have finished all requirements in preparation for internship. I would have been devastated to stay and lose another year in this long process. In the last two years, one person of the four or five applying from my program did not match and it was very hurtful to see them go through that. The imbalance also increased the stress and fear throughout the whole process. It seems like more positions could be created (as low as we are paid, getting an "almost psychologist" has to be an advantage at many institutions!), although I also feel that PsyD programs graduate so many people each year that I understand not having enough slots for everyone when they are included. It would not bother me as much if only a handful of people did not match - maybe they were underprepared - but 1000 is just way too many! I feel for those applicants and their families.

This issue is extremely stressful. It has been a HUGE source of personal stress as well as stress among my cohort. The process has become increasingly competitive and cut-throat - students in my group tended to keep to themselves and not feel that they could lean on each other for support. I am thrilled to have matched, and matched at a site that I am very excited about - and to not be able to celebrate and rejoice with my fellow students who did not match (and are talented strong candidates!) is saddening. I cannot even begin to explain how frustrating it is to get to THIS point in your graduate career, with this many years of student debt, and not even know whether you'll be able to go forward.

I think the highly competitive nature of this process, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area made it particularly difficult to find training sites that were a good fit for me in terms of theoretical orientation (psychodynamic) and population (varied interests). I also think that the requirement to HAVE to apply to APPIC this year gave me little time to prepare for all of the required documentation, essay writing, and allotting of hours. I felt rushed and pressured to apply to APPIC, even though I was very interested in CAPIC sites as well. The politics between the two consortiums and the bad timing in terms of deadlines cost me a lot of time and resources which affected my stress level in the midst of completing my coursework and training part time at my practicum site.

The imbalance is a terrible problem that I believe is testing the limits of highly qualified applicants. This year, over 900 individuals did not match, and are left to enter Phase II to compete for 256 unfilled positions, only 90-ish of which are APA accredited. This is unacceptable. I know a number of intelligent, productive, highly qualified students who did not match this year and I cannot for the life of me understand why they must now go through this process again, AND be concerned about having to complete yet another year in graduate school until they can try again next year. It does not make sense to me that an internship is required in order to graduate from a doctoral program, but the program is not required to provide this internship. Medical schools have similar training provided as a residency post-graduation, and this makes most sense if we students are to compete to such a great extent for positions. And perhaps most importantly, those programs which release 50+ students per year to apply for internship MUST be held accountable for providing just as many positions as well.

Okay, I am going to paste some of the above comments again... there is only so many times I can express my righteous indignation in new form! I would be happy to have this position shared because I would like to see change. The level of stress, expense, and time that I devoted to this application process is untenable and unreasonable given that the reward at the end is just one year of underpaid, exploitative "training". Moreover, I have never before seen a system that so systematically discriminates against people with families, with responsibilities, with personal lives. This process has soured me on the APA, perhaps permanently. This system is broken, immoral, and unacceptable and psychologists and the APA should be ashamed of themselves for tolerating a system that so thoroughly victimizes students. The thought of going through all of this only to do it all again in a second, accelerated match is horrifying. I am -very- thankful that I don't have to do this and deeply empathic toward the 1,000 students who are in this situation. Shame on us all for doing this to our most vulnerable members in a field which is, at root, supposed to help others. The financial and personal burdens of this process are an embarrassment to the field. I am terrifically relieved to be done with this all (except for the actual internship), and to be attending an excellent internship program. I was lucky and got to "win", if you consider relocating my family at personal expense across the country and then incurring significant personal debt in order to live while I work more than full-time a "win". That said, I hope the APA is ready for the lawsuit that they will doubtless be seeing one of these days. You cannot require a training experience that you do not provide. I will say that my experience with the APPIC staff, etc. has been positive. The listserv, the statistics, the websites, and the AAPI online have all been helpful. Still, these seem like fingers in the dike. This system needs to be changed and I am (as you can doubtless see) outraged about it, not least because I spent months of my life working on obtaining a training experience that was required and which will ultimately only comprise a relatively small portion of my training in the field. APA has sent me to the wolves and I will not forget it. Clearly this is not an organization that cares about me or my well-being.

Something has to be done about it. It impacts everybody. To go through this process year after year is a huge waste of energy, time and resources of future professionals. The fact of match does not evaluate future professionals on the basis of skills and knowledge that would define the best professionals. Wrong "breading" criteria for selection.

One of the biggest issues I've run into the the issue of hours. I have well over 1500 licensing hours, but the issue is the distribution. I do a lot of forensic work, which involves minimal client contact; once the assessment is done (which is usually no more than 5 or 6 hours), it's the 20-30 hours of time research journal articles, writing opinions, filing paperwork, etc. that rack up my time. I've been blessed with being good enough to have my supervisors and the lawyers working them request that I be in the courtroom to feed the lawyers questions when they're on the stand because I can make them both look good. Yet because I have significantly fewer direct client contact hours than someone doing therapy, I have had profound difficulty finding a placement. In fact, this is the second year in a row that I haven't matched. If the number of direct contact hours is being used as the primary way to cut for interviews, I am at a loss relative to other applicants. Because I have been unable to get an APA-approved internship, it's going to be that much tougher for me to get credentialed as an expert witness. I may have to change the emphasis of my future career, which is a shame on many levels. I love forensic work and apparently have a knack for it (my supervisor has invited me to join his practice when I'm licensed due to the quality of my work), but I may not be able to do so because I can't get the internship.

Need to limit the number of applicants from diploma mills. These programs are one of the major factors I believe that contribute to the current crisis. I believe that one way that could be used to address the issue would be to have a certain standard regarding internship placement in order to remain APA accredited as a training program (ex. 80% match rate). There also needs to be some discussion on signing off on student who despite their time in the program, are not ready to move on to internship and not penalizing programs for holding students back. Also making potential doctoral applicants aware of the current state of the profession and provide full disclosure regarding the process. Explaining to them that despite doing everything right (completing courses, research requirements, and clinical training competently), there remains a chance that one may not move on or graduate on time due to the current internship crisis. In hindsight, if I knew what I know now, I do not know if I would have returned for my PhD. I hated to realize that after sacrificed so many years and working so hard, there was a chance that I could not move on. SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE!!!!

I have noticed an influx of students applying for the match and a decrease in quality. It appears as though some institutions are concerned with quantity, not quality. While I understand the match cannot be at 100%, the number of applicants appears to be growing and the number of sites decreasing (albeit some are losing funding with economic crisis at hand). My strongest concern is the caliber of applicants who are younger and less experienced in the professional world. I would believe this would transcend into a possible reason for not matching.

It causes a lot of stress on applicants, and throughout the graduate school process - I think it makes within-program applicants more competitive with each other and less likely to help each other out throughout the application process. For some fields (e.g., school psychology), there are not a lot of internship sites, and although I think the match rate is a bit higher for school psych, it really limits the options geographically for students who do not want to move to the South (e.g., most school sites are in this location). I think the process for APA accreditation should be more accessible and expedient for a diversity of sites to access and there should be good TA to help sites get accredited so there are more options. Also, reaching out to school districts who have licensed psychologists who may want interns through professional organizations (e.g., NASP, APA Div 16, state school psych associations).

The imbalance is almost unethical. I'm not sure there's another profession where this sort of impediment to professional advancement exists year after year.

This situation creates a huge amount of stress for anyone that is applying for a psychology internship. With the shortage of highly qualified mental health professionals, it seems ridiculous to be turning away qualified students that are eager to pursue careers as licensed psychologist. I know there are many factors that have created this imbalance but it is serious problem that needs to be addressed.

It's frustrating especially since I haven't matched the past two years and again this year. It's tough to hear feedback from others in the field (including sites where I interviewed) saying I'm such a strong candidate but then I don't match.

I would encourage folks to take a long hard look at programs that fail to place a substantial portion of their students.

There are very few options for school psychology applicants.

Professional schools that allow 30 plus students in to their programs each year may be one reason for the disproportionate number of positions to applicants. It would be nice if there could be a rule which limits the number of students that can be accepted each year into a doctoral program, like no more than 8, so that we have less students going out on internship each year. It seems easier to do that that than to try to create more positions, since funding for those is probably related to the economy at large.

I was unable to find enough sites in certain locations to make it worth applying to the one or two that i did find. It also forced me to apply to certain locations simply due to the amount of sites in that area. Also I think it contributed to me not getting my top sites since there were so many highly qualified students applying and interviewing

The imbalance between applicants and positions caused a great deal of stress for me over the last six months. I have worked extremely hard for four years to prepare for this process and to be faced with the reality that there might not be an internship spot for me was frightening. I committed five years to this program and the thought of this length of time being extended, not because I was unqualified or ill-prepared for an internship, but rather because there just were not enough spots was extremely disconcerting. I am fortunate that I matched, but the effort to do so seems a bit ridiculous. Spending hours and hours on applications, spending thousands of dollars to fly around the country for six weeks, all to wait and see whether or not I had beaten the odds. Competition is not something that I have a problem with, however, it seems disrespectful to students for there to be such a gap between applicants and programs. In my opinion, programs that are accepting more and more students every year should be held accountable for adding to this disparity.

Well, it is throwing my life into a tailspin. As an older student, I do not have a "lifetime" worth of years left in me to build a career and every year I am delayed cripples my ability to plan for retirement, develop a sustainable income, etc. The schools, simply put, are switching from a model of higher education to a model of corporate greed in which they are accepting more and more students every term even though the number of internship sites barely changes from year to year. We are already feeling the effects of having far too many students applying for internship than sites are available. In addition, the APA site accreditation process is so difficult, yet so critical to the field that it makes matters even worse. We have several years of students who are just wasting money to remain "active students" even though there are no classes left for them to take and their degree has been put off for several years now as they struggle to get an internship. If nothing else, the degree should be modified to allow graduation without an internship, but before one can become licensed they would need to complete and internship and whatever post-doctoral hours they require. At least then students could move on with their lives, work in other fields if needed or whatever the case may be. Personally, I am on my 3rd semester where I am spending money on a "continuing dissertation" credit even though I am completely done with all academic requirements except the internship. Now it looks like I will have to wait yet another year before I can apply again and then wait even longer before I can go on internship and complete it. During this time I am stuck where I am at until this process is complete. Something needs to change and that change needs to be immediate.

It increased my anxiety about completing my program of study. From a positive perspective, I was motivated to get as many experiences as I could to round out my application in terms of clinical hours, experiences, research, publications, in order to make myself as competitive as possible. Additionally, I applied to a range of programs (more competitive and less competitive) to maximize my chances of being matched. I spent money traveling to schools I had less to no interest of attending for internship, only because my desire to match was more salient than my desire to have a positive, well-matched, training experience.

It caused unnecessary additional stress. I, like many students, have worked very hard to obtain a great internship, and the possibility of not matching just because there aren't enough spaces caused a lot of anxiety. The interview process is stressful enough. A fellow student remains unmatched for the second time this year. It makes it hard to celebrate my own success knowing that this student was a victim of unfortunate luck again.

Unfortunately, the state of training in the field of clinical psychology is quickly becoming unstable. As many are aware, there are more applicants than available APA-accredited sites. This may be primarily due to graduate admissions and the desire to enter an incredibly fulfilling and stimulating field. Approximately 1000 students did not get matched. This is unfortunate and devastating to many. I think as a field we need to reconsider who we admit to graduate schools and the standards of applicants. Since the field is becoming more competitive, sites and programs will naturally adapt by becoming more selective and enhancing their graduate training and preparation. As of now, I think that APPIC is doing what it can to accredit sites and accomodate applicants. I believe that the field will adjust, to the dismay of the applicants. But, this will be essential for the reputation of licensed, doctoral psychologists.

I did not match last year, despite being a strong canidate. This was devistating to me personally (i.e., I developed a depressive episode). Professionally, I had to wait an additional yaer to re-apply, which has delayed my graduation by a year, required I take on additional debt. Additionaly, while I recognize that there is an imbalance, my failure to match last year has made me question whether I chose the right profession, made me question my skills and abilities.

I think it has really negatively impacted PsyD programs and had me concerned for my ability to place; it also leaves the questions that always seem to remain unanswered- if APA accredited internships are necessary.

The match imbalance is a disgrace. Last year, a close friend received 13 interviews (out of 15 applications submitted) to well respected internship sites across the country. I was completely flabbergasted--as was everyone in my program--when she did not match. Her experience taught me that having an exceptional application, warm interpersonal style, and great interviewing skills couldn't guarantee a match. The experience was devastating for her. It was a wake-up call for our DCT and program. It was a wake-up call for me, too. How would I ever match if she didn't? Because of her experience, I began the process feeling that I had no control over what happened, and felt that way throughout. I am currently in my sixth year of a combined PhD program, and when I entered the program in 2005, I knew that the Match Imbalance was bad, but I had no idea how bad it would become. I feel so sorry for the students who will continue to have to navigate this broken system in the years to come. It seems that, despite long being aware of the problem, nothing is being done by the powers-that-be to come up with a solution that makes the least bit of sense. My solution is radical. Do away with the internship year as a requirement for the Ph.D. Consider its history as a requirement, and then consider whether having it still makes sense. If that's too radical, consider making it optional--where DCTs would make case-by-case determinations regarding whether students would require an additional clinical training year to meet program standards. Anything but continue to have the best and brightest doctoral candidates in the field continue to cannibalize each other for internship slots at the top programs. I haven't heard a solution yet that targets this problem. As it stands now, I will be moving literally across the country for my one year of intensive clinical training. This is despite already having spent thousands of hours performing clinical service and training over the last 5 years. And for what? I have not seen one well-reasoned argument anywhere about why the internship year is still necessary. Excellent opportunity, yes. Necessary, no. The internship should be about continuing to train the student. It should be about learning new things. Sadly, because of how competitive it has become, we are advised to play it safe--to apply to sites that are "good matches," meaning to apply to sites that are offering experiences we've already had. The whole thing just makes me frustrated and sad. And I'm one of the lucky ones, who matched to her top choice.

I continuously heard it is more competitive and there is a huge mismatch between number of applicants and positions. I was extremely worried I would not get placed. I wish I would not have heard this information. The stress caused from possibly not getting an internship led me to seek therapy.

I've tried my best to educate myself on the match imbalance and can't help but come to the conclusion that programmatic support (e.g., training directors who take the process seriously and are rigorous in their assistance to students) as well as the number of students being admitted to some doctoral programs are a huge part of the problem. Creating new accredited sites will undoubtedly help tremendously, but I am astounded by some of the stories I hear from friends in other programs who receive little to no support for internship applications. I might go one step further and say that Psy.D programs appear to play a large role in the supply and demand issue. These programs have tend to admit large numbers of students who in all likelihood can't all receive the same levels of support and guidance from their training directors as do students in smaller clinical, counseling, and school psychology programs. That being said, many programs suffer from similar problems. I guess what I'm trying to say is that students who don't match are more often than not victims of poor training directors and institutions who care more about their bottom line than the outcomes of their training.

I cannot say that the current imbalance between applicants and positions has effected me, either personally or professionally, aside from the stress caused by the prospect of not matching. Fortunately, I did match with one of my higher-ranked sites and am happy with the results, but throughout the process, I definitely contemplated the possibility of not matching. Unfortunately, a student from my program did not match, and this created an unnecessarily uncomfortable situation (e.g., Do I console this individual vs. give them time/space to "grieve"?). Obviously, if there were less of an imbalance (or no imbalance at all) between sites and applicants, this process would be a lot less stressful, both before and after match results become available. In thinking about this imbalance, however, I often find myself taking issue with the notion that there are too few internship slots available to applicants. In fact, I believe the real issue is that there are too many applicants, many of whom were not appropriately prepared by their graduate program. What's more, I feel that many of the programs that are disproportionately responsible for the imbalance between internship applicants and slots (by way of training a large number of underqualified applicants) "flood the market" by encouraging their students to apply to far more than the APPIC-recommended 15 sites. Not only does this needlessly cost their students additional money (which will sometimes be "wasted" when the student doesn't get many interviews or doesn't even match), but it also requires internship sites to wade through an unneccessarily high number of applications, some of which are likely of poor quality, thus distracting sites from the task of selecting competitive applicants to whom they wish to offer interviews. I strongly believe that APPIC, APA, or some professional body needs to take some action against graduate programs that produce applicants who are not competitive internship applicants. I definitely believe that the internship match rates of all graduate programs should be more widely available, clearly contrasted with normative/average match rates, and widely publicized to potential incoming graduate students. (I feel that many applicants to psychology graduate programs may not truly grasp the importance of internship, particularly as it is four, five, or more years in the future when they are applying to grad school. I also feel that, even if they are aware of a program's match rate, they may not know how good or bad it is.) I also feel that, if a program consistently has poor match rates, they should be punished in some way (e.g., receive a fine, take remedial steps to ensure improvements in match rates, or lose accreditation/the ability for their students to participate in the APPIC match). Because of the current financial climate, I do not believe that all of the responsibility for the intern/site imbalance can be placed upon internship sites. Instead, I think graduate programs should be held responsible for producing better, more competitive applicants, or they should be permitted to produce fewer applicants altogether. This is good not only for the inter/site imbalance, but also for the integrity of our field and the individuals who will receive services from future psychologists.

I got this in an email from the APAGS Internship listserv and it is very relevant: As a graduate of the 2009 class, I completed my internship through an APPIC accredited site. While I am glad to have had a placement, the placement was not in my area of interest. I accepted the placement because it was available and in context of this crisis, it was a financial decision to move forward and not into financial crisis. As a result, I did not complete an APA accredited internship. This fact is now an obstacle that I can not overcome. I am not eligible to apply for numerous positions in my community that require an APA accredited internship as part of an applicant's training. It is angering. One might say that the "best" candidates were selected for APA accredited internships and I should accept my distinction as a "second," but I beg to differ. I believe this explanation is a convenient way to disregard many qualified students with diverse backgrounds and histories that have been hurt by the internship system. I have followed the match statistics and there is a clear pattern of older students not matching to APA sites. I am such a student. My own program explained the match discrepancy as "older students are not willing to be placed in a broad geographic area." Again, I disagree. Four out of the five applicants that did not match at my school were over 40 years of age. We all applied across the country. I can not understand how it is left unchecked, which means it is allowed. While I will continue to bare the burden of this internship crisis for the rest of my career, I feel that advocacy is the path of rectification. I am advocating that the distinction between APA and other internship accredidation is eliminated. There should be one standard to be met that is consistently accepted for training competency. This would eliminate the two classes of graduates/professionals that our own colleagues have created and open job opportunities equally to all graduates. For a profession that hails itself to be the most ethical and committed to the welfare of every person no matter diverse conditions, it seems that we have committed the worst offense against our own colleagues.

We have too many applicants and not enough positions. For profit educational institutions flood the marked with clinicians, many of whom are subpar with their lesser admission standards. This results in increased applicants for internships. This did not affect me as I was able to obtain an internship, but others were not so fortunate. I do not see the problem reducing unless a cap is placed on admissions for doctoral students within for profit institutions.

I am a fifth year student with ample experience including two externships, glowing letters of recommendation, an above-average GPA, fluent in two languages, experience predominantly with minority and under-served populations including having worked overseas, and received 0 interview invitations out of 14 submitted. I am sure it's because my number of intervention and clinical hours were considered "too low", despite the spates of experience I could have brought to any internship site. I even had a Training Director call me to confirm my number of intervention/assessment hours. He said that he was "very intrigued" by my application, but couldn't even invite me for an interview because I didn't meet their minimum number of hours. When I asked him if my experience was lacking, he said "no" but that his program was holding strict to a 1000 hour minimum. I then asked if the number of clients I had seen was too few, and he said "no". So I asked him, finally: "So what you're saying is that if I had been less competent and needed more time to provide the same level of services and therefore accrued more hours, then I'd get an interview invitation?". He paused, and then meekly said, "yeah, I guess so". I'd chock this up to an isolated incident, except I got zero interview invites despite having specialities in the areas many of the sites I applied to said they were specifically looking for. While I understand that the number of applications each site received has increased substantially with the ease of the online APPIC application, I feel sites still need to be discerning in their selection process lest they discard qualified applicants based on singular criteria. I can't imagine I'm the only person this happened to.

After going through the Match process and Clearinghouse, I did not get an internship last year which, as you can imagine, was pretty devastating. At the time, I was pretty upset with APA for not doing something about the imbalance between applicants and positions. Looking back at it now after having gotten a really good practicum placement, I view things a bit differently. My extra year of practicum experience has helped me gain more confidence in my clinical abilities and clarity in my career direction. Now, I’m going into the internship year knowing that I can handle any situation that comes along and that at the end of internship I will deserve the title of psychologist. I know not everyone feels this way, but I believe that the competition that is created by having 600-800 more applicants than positions improves our field. If everyone was guaranteed a placement, I think there would less incentive to try hard.

This process is highly stressful and ultimately quite expensive. The timing of getting notification of interviews and when interviews is held is narrow which means travel arrangement costs skyrocket (and we all know it is better to interview in person). If I was not so aware of the imbalance, I might have felt freer to only accept phone interviews, but the competition seemed to steep to risk it. Likewise, the imbalance has created an environment in which 4 year programs are almost not enough time to get the experience required to be competitive. I had to take specialty practicum experiences above and beyond what would be required or expected by my program in order to ensure that my hours were sufficiently high (and my training program has an internal community clinic which allows us to begin direct service during our first month of training). I was successful in matching, but the science/practitioner balance becomes tenuous when direct service hours become the critical component in determining match success. I suppose I'm saying that the imbalance seems to be creating favor for non-PhD programs whose research demands are perhaps less.

It's just sad to see how many people didn't match, and it's a shame that students put so much time and energy and so many resources into this process, only to learn that 700 of them will be completely out of luck. That seems to be a bit of a raw deal. Things worked out well for me, but I don't think that I "deserved it" more than someone from a less prestigous program or getting a less prestigious degree. Seems to me like the education and training community should make this their top priority. I know also that this extends all the way to the top of the system - i.e., that the economic crisis and the general neglect of mental health care in the United States both contribute to the lack of positions. I could say more about this, but I would want to know that someone's listening - and I have doubts as to whether someone is. I appreciate APPIC soliciting this information from us.

Due to the impbalance situation I have applied to many more sites than was recommended. To assure the match I have spent significantly more time and money during this process than I would have in the more balanced situation. The incredible amount of effort I have put into this process and the high level of anxiety over 6 months caused by the uncertainty and high probability of not matching negatively affected my performance at my practicum site, along with my social and family relationships. I am happy that I did match, because financially I could not have afforded another year in graduate school. However, some of my classmates who also spent lots of effort and who are very qualified did not match. Students should not be punished like that and denied graduation because of the problem with the system. Worse yet that their lives are put on hold for another year without any explanations or reasons why. Here is my suggestion: I strongly believe that APA should have a control over this process and establish certain standards for Internship preparation process for each APA-accreditated school, just like it (APA) establishes criteria for accreditation. If APA sets the standards for both schools and internship sites for the quality of professional training, why same isn't true for internship application process? The level of intenrship preparation is drastically different from school to school. In one school I know the requirements for internship are considered from day one and the faculty is accountable for consistent monitoring whether students' practica and other activites are consistent with the professional goals of each student. In another APA-accredited school nearby students have their very first internship and professional goals-related discussion after they have completed first two years of practica and finalized the practicum choice for their third year. Therefore, those students who have not learned until it's too late about criticalness of assessment experience for most of the internship sites are not nearly competitive. Why? Because this part of their APA-accredited training fell through the crack. APA should enforce that this information becomes available to students in the beginning of their first year, just like APA requires schools to include certain course (i.e., assessment) in the program. Likewise, APA should enforce some accountability with the internship programs so that the disappointed Applicant A could have an easy access to sites' feedback or some kind of information indicating why this applicant did not match and what he/she needs to improve to be able to match the following year. Right now the process looks like the big black hole that consumes thousands of applications, months of hard work and interview traveling expenses, but reflects NOTHING back to appr. 25% of the applicants nationwide. The situation isn't the same as 15 years ago, and, for some reason, it's students who carry the entire burden of the imbalance, while schools and internship programs have no accountability in this process.

I chose a large school so that I could relocate with my military husband. Had I known the challenges that exist with acquiring an internship, I would have given up on my dream of becoming a psychologist and pursue an education as an MSW. I am too far in the program to turn around. My academic and professional evaluations have been exceptional - I wish that there were other opportunities for individuals whom are limited in by geographical area.

I think the Appic match process and the current imbalance between applicants and positions highlights the saturation of psychologists in the field and competition that is hampering psychologist from being as successful as possible. The number of students in each class and the number of psychology specialties that schools have artificially created to get around the former problem are leading to a decrease in the quality of students and making it more difficult for current psychologists.

This imbalance has been personally and professionally very anxiety-provoking and stressful for myself, my colleagues, and my friends and family. I have heard that this imbalance and the ease of applying to a very high number of programs with the online AAPI has influenced many applicants to apply to many more sites than in the past. This appears to have inundated sites with record-breaking numbers of applications which I believe has impacted each applicants chances of being selected for an interview. I think there should be a limit on the number of sites an individual can apply to so that they do not mess the system up for everyone else. I have heard people are applying to upwards of 100 sites, some of which they are not even a good fit for. This wastes time and energy of the application-reviewers and makes the process all the more competitive for those involved.

I think the process is too drawn out and overly melodramatic. I believe people should be able to get more than one result so that we have more decision-making power, which would lower anxiety levels.

I feel it is severely unfair to applicants and the pressure to hopefully and maybe recieve an internship is incredible. After completing the time, effort, expense, and dedication to successfully complete graduate training up to this point, each applicant should be provided an internship.

Professional schools should not be allowed to churn out dozens of students a year who are competing for the same slots as those of us in PhD programs.

Looking at the numbers of people that do and don't match, I find myself feeling VERY grateful and fortunate to have matched at an APA site. While the imbalance has not affected me in the match, it did cause me to apply to 23 sites and spend more money on these application fees. I also feel that the fear of not matching highly influenced my site selection, as I purposely did not apply to sites that were overly competitive (i.e. reach sites). I wanted to have as good of a shot of matching as possible and probably missed the opportunity to look at some of the best sites because I did not want to apply, interview, then not match.

I was fortunate to match at my most preferred site, but am very, very concerned about this. I felt I was a strong candidate, but recognized that so were 3000 or so other people involved (and found out that ultimately, it was closer to 4000), all of whom have the same basic training. Despite my belief in my competence, the fact that I received more interviews than I expected, and my ability to interview well, I was deeply concerned that I would not match, due to the very limited number of positions. I spent a great deal of time worrying over this, and spent a great deal of effort informing all those people who supported me in this challenge that there was a not inconsiderable chance I wouldn't match. Most of them were stunned to hear why, and one colleague mentioned that "there are more spots than people to fill them" in psychiatry residencies. Internship is a requirement for graduation, and fully one quarter of those who applied at this point won't be able to move forward with their lives. Clearly, with people re-applying, the disparity between people applying and spots for them is only going to get bigger. Perhaps encouraging places to expand the number of slots, or number of programs, or inviting new places to participate would be useful. Also, perhaps lowering the bar a bit for certification (ethically), or speeding up the certification process for new sites might be useful.

I believe it is unprofessional and unethical for an APA approved program to accept more students than they can reasonably assume will be able to secure placement for internship (and practicums). The reality that numerous students will be hindered from graduating for at least another year as a result of not being placed this year is disruptive to the lives of the students and reflects poorly on the institution training them.

Yes the imbalance has affected me both personally and professionally. First, the current imbalance meant that I was much more concerned with my ability to match at all, or to find an appropriate placement than I might otherwise have been. This increased my anxiety about the process to the point where it affected my sleeping patterns and increased my blood pressure to the point where my doctor was considering medication. Second, I am concerned with the quality of my colleagues in the profession. Each one of us is a representative of our profession, and with the large number of individuals who may be unabloe to get satisfactory internship experiences, I am concerned that there are a number of individuals who represent our field without the necessary training. Second, the imbalance in the ratio of internships to applicants concerns me because it may indicate that there are either 1) more individuals who are being trained to be psychologists than there are jobs or 2) the demand for psychologists is higher than the current system of internships is able to provide.

It has created some more anxiety. However, I'm confident in my abilities to match despite the imbalance.

i would recommend that it is better to wait another year to apply to internship in order to ensure that you are a competitive and attractive applicant. we have been in graduate school long enough, i did not see the difference with another year. i took a year without classes, completed an additional practicum and worked on and completed my dissertation. i felt that it was time well spent. regarding the imbalance - it heightened the amount of anxiety however that is something i feel us unavoidable with the process.

It has been horribly anxiety provoking, expensive, and caused enormous strain on my family being forced to leave my home for a year as well as drag them through the process of not knowing where we'll be, if anywhere. very unpleasant experience across the board...from someone who matched in phase I to an APA accred. site.

Continue the policy to reduce barriers to agencies to provide APPIC internships - reduce paperwork, fees, and definitely give agencies the flexibility to offer stipends that fit their budgets. Keeping sites open is paramount during this economic downturn. Please wait until the economy has recovered to introduce APPIC requirements that will reduce the number of slots.

Creates more pressure to match, personally, and within graduate training programs/faculty.

i think the accrediation process should be made easier so that more APA and CPA accredited sites can open up so more training opportunities are available.

The imbalance between applicants and positions led me to apply to far more sites than is suggested by APPIC, and in the long-run cost me a great deal of money. I made the decision to spend a lot of money because I very much wanted to get an internship. This decision entailed that I be prepared for my finances to be severely affected, and they were. By the end of this process, I had less money than I have had in several years and was seriously very much concerned about my financial situation (which was only rectified after I received my rebate check from loan money). It is disconcerting that in the field of psychology, one is not guaranteed an internship position after going through years of coursework, training, dissertation writing, etc. Changes should be set in place so that this imbalance is eliminated (ie, admit fewer people into psychology programs, or increase the number of internship sites available).

I feel that the process of internship application was extremely stressful, both to me and my family. Through the process, the prospect of having to relocate, due to a shortage of APA sites, placed enormous stress on my marriage, which has since ended in divorce. I think that there definitely needs to be more APA sites available and that some effort should be made to create more sites. In addition, I hope that schools will disclose how the internship process works and how competitive and stressful it can be to students and their families when students enter their chosen program. I believe the APA could facilitate this process by reducing the costs of APA fees for training sites and implementing some form of training workshops for students and families upon acceptance to a psychology program.

re: the match imbalance- it appears to be both a supply and a demand problem. since APPIC has had limited success addressing the problem through supply, i think graduate programs also need to be STRONGLY encouraged to take fewer students each year. it is truly a shame that graduate programs take on so many students with the knowledge that many of them will take on an enormous burden of debt/time/effort and then stall out on the path to a career as a professional psychologist due to the match imbalance.

Although I successfully matched my first time around, I believe that this issue is a current crisis in the field. Every year the imbalance between applicants and positions gets larger and larger, and hundreds of perfectly qualified applicants remain unmatched. In addition to the emotional impact to these applicants, this ends up being extremely costly both to the applicant and to their graduate programs which are forced to continue to provide time and resources to upper-level students who are taking longer and longer to complete their degrees. Certainly the economy is a major factor, as many sites either shutdown or lose funding for some or all of their positions, but I also feel that the growing presence of free standing professional schools that often admit 40-50% of new students each year is a major contributor to the problem. In addition, the increased emphasis on accruing more and more clinical hours in order to make yourself a competitive candidate for internship detracts from time that could be spent conducting research and producing scholarly publications. I recognize there is no easy solution to this ever-growing problem but APA must respond, and soon. While not ideal, perhaps some sites should consider decreasing their annual stipends in order to increase the number of available positions. I would rather have a low-paying internship than none at all.

The imbalance certainly made for a hellish few months while I was applying, interviewing, etc. I was so worried that even though I'm a strong applicant I wouldn't match. I don't know what you'd do about it, though. Either you make it easier for sites to get accredited or you get Psy.D. programs to cut back on all the graduates their pumping into the system. Maybe both.

The current imbalance is a problem I have a hard time wrapping my head around, especially considering the authority the APA has over both graduate and internship programs. If they are unable to provide the internship training necessary to complete the degree, it seems a bit like a financial and professional racket, especially for those students paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for their degree. Having the bottle neck of the training process at the very end means that people invest years of their and their families short lives and limited income, with potentially nothing to show for their efforts after 5 years. I would very much be in favor of limiting the number of graduate student positions in APA programs, as I would much rather be refused admission to a PhD after my MS than to continue my thankless position as a student for 4 years, only to be unable to finish my degree. For those who match a second or third year through the process, that is potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars they could be earning and a career they could be building at the masters' level. Even more important, it would provide people a sense of control. The feedback from others that so many qualified people did not match is NOT comforting--it just serves to highlight the powerlessness of the student in this process. I have a hard time explaining internship to others, but find some comfort in their flabbergasted reactions. The entire experience has left a poor impression of the efficacy, ethics, and professionalism of the APA--their approach to training seems short-sighted, lazy, and self-serving.

it's sad that we don't have more training programs and more school-based training options. some training sites explained that they are not APA accredited or APPIC members because it would cost their school district too much money and their school boards would not approve paying this fee

I think the imbalance is horrible and makes this process 10x more stressful. I don't understand why sites don't have more slots, we are CHEAP LABOR, already underpaid as interns for what we do. It's also frustrating as a PhD student knowing that the mass of PsyD students entering the field (themselves being financially gauged by the awfully high tuition they pay) have contributed to this imbalance. It even effect the availability of practicum assignments in my geographical area, because PsyD students are willing to work for free, while we need an assistantship to qualify for tuition remission. It feels frustrating to compete so hard to be in a PhD program, and then be at an equal playing field with students/applicants that often applied to PsyD programs because they couldn't get into PhD programs. I know it sounds horribly elitist, and that's really not my feeling about it. There is no lack of mentally ill individuals needing care. There are internship programs that don't really accept PsyDs, but perhaps it could be a separate process for each group, I don't know. I think that the theoretical differences between the PhD and PsyD training models are so disparate. The PhD program is one of the last apprenticeship models there is in higher education, while the PsyD schools seem to be degree factories. This process was so stressful and expensive. I matched at my number one slot, but I feel lucky that happened. I just wish that there were slots for everyone, it feels so insane that we work so hard to get into graduate school only to fear not being able to get an internship after spending thousands of dollars. It is biased against people who can't afford to travel as well. I hope that the students' training and experience is at the heart of APPIC, because it is in the sites' interest to NOT have enough spots because then they might believe that they can get the cream of the crop. That might be in part because there are students (both in PhD and PsyD programs) that are really not equipped to be psychologists, and psychology programs don't want to force out students for fear of having poor retention numbers. I hope that students' needs are at the heart of this process, but it's hard to know if we are just a commodity.

Receiving the news on match day that I was not matched was an incredible shock and very disaspointing to me. After completing 7 years of graduate education, working extremely hard on the applications and interviews, and feeling very positive about things and hearing postive feedback about my interviews...I felt really discouraged. I contemplated simply giving up on my PhD, not feeling ready to not be matched again in the second pahse...not ready to go through yet another year in my program just waiting for this stage. I suppose I will go on to Phase two to see what happens. I just hope that other people who are going through the same situation are finding ways not to take this personally, because I truly believe this situation is representative of a systemic, over-arching issue, and is not due to poor candidates. I would like to tell my academic program to seriously consider this issue - and to consider whether they could begin implementing their own residenc and reserve spots for our students. In addition (and sorry for the rambling as this is clearly unstructured and scattered :)), one of my friends and colleagues did not match this time around either. This does not only affect the students, this affects our families. This affects the credibility and quality of our discipline I believe. Finally, I would like to say how much I appreciate having the opportunity to voice my concerns on this matter and to complete the suvey.

The internship imbalance has been the most stressful part of my graduate study. The purpose of internship, which is to enhance one's training or fill a gap or learn new skills, has been overshadowed by a fear of not matching, as it boils down to a numbers game. As a result, applicants are applying to "safe" sites or "good fit" sites which sometimes leads to compromising on their training needs. For instance, If I want to seek out a new experience (e.g., neuropsych testing), my odds of doing this are slim because I am not a "good fit" for this experience. Although the outcome of the match has been great for me and I successfully matched at a prestigious site, I find that the cost of getting to this outcome is too high. And, all for a one year, time-limited internship.

My life has certainly been affected! I didn't match, and I certainly planned to match. I planned to graduate in August 2012 and was excited to get on with life. Now, if I don't match during Phase II (which seems likely that I won't match), I will have to wait another year to go through this stressful process. That means spending more money to travel and spending another year earning little money as a graduate student.

It is a very big problem for the field. I did not get matched during phase I even though it seemed as though my interviews went extremely well; the sites I interviewed at had 1 or 2 positions; I would not encourage other students to enter the field because of the imbalance. Medical school, or even nurse practitioner training, is a better option for entering the field of mental health care and guarantees good salary. I do not see why there are not several hundred more positions at agencies (prisons, schools, etc) that could attract candidates with barely a 10,000 stipend who then provide many tens of thousands of dollars of free work for a year. How can APPIC not have the ability to make this happen? If the for-profit PsyD programs that admit 40 students per cohort are diluting the field, just tell training directors to not look at apps from those students, don't create a shortfall of placements that cause the rest of us to suffer.

The match imbalance is something I feel APPIC is discussing and bringing to our attention, but not directly addressing. As there is no way to force more programs to choose to offer internships, it seems necessary to somehow limit the number of students allowed to participate and discourage schools from admitting so many students per year when the same schools have low match rates.

I had a very qualified collegue not match for the second year in a row (she even had her dissertation completed before submitting her internship application this year!). I am not sure why she didn't match, but I know that she is emotionally devasted by the news she received yesterday. In these two years she has collectively spent so much money and effort on just the hope of matching and finishing her degree - just to be utterly disappointed and left with the looming question, "why?" It seems very unfair, and we feel terrible for her. She's a good clinician and is passionate about her work - she deserves a slot, too.

In general, I think there is a huge problem with this system and inbalance. There are essentially 72 apa-accredited spots left for 930+ applicants who are probably required to have an apa-accredited position to receive their doctorate. I think the fault lies in programs that produce extreme numbers of applicants. I think this hurts other well-intentioned programs and is a burden on the system. These programs should not be allowed to participate unless they reduce their numbers. I'm sure this can be statistically determined - those programs that don't rank at least X% of their interns shouldn't be allowed in.

I believe that the current match imbalance is a severe problem in this profession. The fact that students can progress through their programs; complete all necessary milestones; and propose, complete, and defend a dissertation, but ultimately be told via email on a cold February morning that entry into the profession is in effect delayed (without feedback as to why) should not be considered acceptable. Ultimately, I lay the blame squarely on the fact that there are too many students, rather than not enough training sites. Looking at match statistics where some programs have 50 to 100 applicants seems ridiculous to me. I am not blaming the student here, but instead the academic institutions that find this state of affairs acceptable and don't seem to have much concern that significant chunks of their student body are not even competitive for APA accredited training sites. Sure, we need more training sites - this will be beneficial for everyone. But this is only part of the issue. What we really need are limits on class sizes in accredited programs and some sort of oversight on programs that cannot consistently prepare most of their students to be competitive for internship.

It has not affected me personally or professionally other than bearing witness to the experience of those who have not matched. I believe the mismatch could reflect a couple of issues: 1) Although admission into clinical psychology doctoral programs is known to be highly competitive, perhaps there is a need for greater attention to the size of incoming classes given the lack of positions available for students to complete their degrees. 2) In my preparation for applying to internship programs, I came upon and read a document on the Development of an Internship Program. Obviously, it would be ideal for more agencies of all types to develop internship programs. There are obvious pros and cons associated with this and one significant issue is cost associated with funding an intern and with supervision. The value of interns could be communicated to potential new sites. Indeed, agencies/hospitals may be encountering issues funding their practicing psychologists. Improvement in this regard could increase the opportunities for such agencies to take on interns.

My greatest concern is the imbalance. I feel that a large part of this is due to the fact that professional schools accept incredibly large cohorts, which inevitably floods the market. Although this is not APPIC specific, I can't help but feel angered that it appears as if no one is addressing this issue. I feel that it is unfair to everyone involved (the students accepted into those programs as well as those in other programs). I see many of those students struggling to match.

You know- this is a tough. While it has not affected me personally, it has several other HIGHLY QUALIFIED people, and it just hurts my heart. We all know that one of the major problems is the fact that these professional psychology schools are putting out 100s of students at a time - and I don't know what can be done about that. It's a mess though, and is pretty problematic in my opinion. But another thing is the number of accredited sites. I believe the stats said that 72% of unfilled slots were at sites that were unaccredited. That makes sense in the grand scheme of things because most programs require us to go to an accredited site! So if we can somehow get some of those programs accredited, that can help out a little bit. Obviously funding will always be a problem - but when it's not (if ever - lol), I just pray for an increase in slots.

The imbalance between internship applicants and openings greatly affected both myself and my family and friends. To be accepted to a doctoral program, spend 5 years working hard towards a goal, and then to be told that there is the chance you might not have the opportunity to complete your training has been damaging. The anxiety this aspect of the process caused has affected my health and my relationships with the people closest to me.

I think the problem is a little less of a concern for Canadian applicants applying to Canadian sites, but it did add a little more anxiety to the process. I didn't feel as though I was personally affected greatly by the discrepancy, which was reflected in my decision to rank only 4 sites (2/3 of those I had interviewed at).

I fortunately matched to a program of my choice and so I was not personally affected by this imbalance. But, I can imagine how frustrating it is to complete 5-7 years of graduate work and to remain unmatched. It is also extremely disheartening that over 900 applicants did not match to Phase I. I worry about the future of our field given that these numbers seem to increase each year.

It is of course extremely disheartening. I find myself also confused at the APA's efforts to de-legitimize CAPIC internships in California given this imbalance, as opposed to changing the APA accreditation process in a way that makes it more possible for low-resource community mental health organizations to become accredited. Anecdotally, more students in my program applied for APPIC (rather than staying with CAPIC) due to the recent pressures on CAPIC, which further increases the imbalance (assuming this is happening in schools all over California). The several types of accreditation/membership status (APA, APPIC, CAPIC in California) have caused undue stress during my education. I like the internship program with which I was matched very much and am confident I will get great training there. I am worried that it is not APA-accredited and what impact this will have on my future opportunities, but I also feel resentful that I should have this worry while choosing to pursue an internship that I know provides excellent training. The financial barriers to APA accreditation for sites like the one I'll be attending are unconscionable given (a) the emotional impact it has on students that there are not enough accredited internship sites for everyone, and (b) the underserved populations that are served by the type of internship site that will be less likely to have the resources required for APA accreditation, and the need for our profession to do everything it can to encourage students to include work with these populations in their career plans.

I think the issue is the large schools that release an inordinate number of applicants into the match. I fail to see how a school can adequately train over 100 students per year adequately. I believe the most qualified applicants generally match, provided they apply to sites well-suited to them and do not geographically limit themselves. I personally was confident in my training and qualifications, and was not overly anxious about the match. I am sorry that not everyone is able to match, but perhaps it is not reflective of an issue with the internship system per se, but an issue with the field in general. My program, and many others have match rates of about 85 percent, consistently. Generally speaking, one person per year is not able to match, but usually receives a placement via clearinghouse. I believe this is due to the training students receive, and if only well-trained students were included in the match, a higher percentage would match.

I applied two years in a row. The first year, I didn't match. The second year, I did. It was pretty devastating not to match the first time around. Fortunately, I was able to find a way to make ends meet for another year, so I could reapply. The second year, I was more emotionally prepared for the possibility that I wouldn't match, as I'd been through that before. At the same time, I don't know what I would have done if I hadn't matched, as I don't think I could have afforded to stay in grad school for another year without any chance of further funding.

The problem is simple...there are simply not enough sites and positions available for all of the applicants that are applying. We have small cohorts in my graduate program (4-6), and have experienced both the best and worst sides of this dilemma. This year, all four prospective interns applying matched. However, last year, and 2 years prior, 2 students out of 5 did not match, and it was really shocking. When you compare small cohort programs like mine to programs that admit 50-100 students each year, it is easy to see that this imbalance results in very qualified students failing to find a spot when all of those from much, much larger programs are flooding the applicant pool before positions have been established to accommodate their inclusion. Either the number of applicants has to be reduced, either by restricting the number of people who apply for internship, restricting the number of people admitted to large programs, or establishing about 800 more internship positions.

I have no idea how the problem will be fixed, but it is definitely a problem. I was fortunate enough to match on my first try, but I think the numbers imbalances will only make this harder to accomplish. You have your work cut out for you because you cannot deny students entry into the match, but you also cannot fund additional internship spots. Good luck!