Comments about Imbalance - Page 4

APA should look into sites that are not yet APA-approved and try to help with getting more sites APA accredited.

Our program had a 100% match rate this year. However, it seems that our average number of interviews has been decreasing because of the large number of applicants to each site, decreasing each individual's likelihood of matching. It was extremely stressful this year knowing that the competition is growing each year. I hope that the APA and APPIC will institute some sort of a solution to this, such as the suggested link between number of students programs are allowed to accept and their match rate.

Well, like many others I've heard already speak on this topic on the listserves, I believe the professional schools and PsyD programs are much to blame for this problem. They accept too many students each year and pump them out into the system. These professional programs have much poorer training (not all programs, many PsyD programs I have great respect for, but there are lots that give PsyD programs a bad name). For those of us who have put in the time and training (and money) into a serious and demanding PhD program, especially those that are scientist-practitioner programs (i.e., lots of time spent conducting research, attending conferences, receiving intensive one-on-one supervision for EBT's), it is frustrating to end up "losing" to someone with half the training, but lots of "hours".

The imbalance has affected me and close friends directly, as very qualified individuals at a top-tier institution who did not match -- a first for our program in many, many years. While this drew attention to a growing gap in our program's training approach and broader changes in the field (which will hopefully instigate positive change), it has also been an unexpected burden, both financially and emotionally. This imbalance, including the anticipatory fear of and occasional reality of not matching, even within the top echelon of institutions, makes the long, difficult process of graduate school even more unsettling and arduous. Radical changes in how the whole internship process is handled and in expectations for predoctoral training are needed, and they need to happen soon. Particularly disheartening was the utter surprise and helplessness exhibited by top scholars and administrators when faced with negative effects of the match imbalance -- at best, faculty could offer condolences and tips for a second attempt at the process, but they could no nothing to actually control or aide students' fate. At worst, misguided attempts at being "helpful" or understanding the situation imparted blame and criticism on hard-working, high quality students who had been lulled into thinking the name and quality of their institution would be a significant advantage in their future prospects. One significant step toward fixing the system would be to allow these high-quality institutions more control over their students fate, by creating internal consortia among universities and affiliated institutions which would automatically hold internship positions for students of member programs. If students wished to compete for positions outside home consortia, they would have this option, and internship programs could offer a number of non-allocated positions. However, a student admitted to a degree-granting program could be guaranteed a similar quality internship experience under their program's purview. This type of system already exists in many areas for predoctoral practica; expanding this approach to internship would ensure that no student who has met the standards of their home program will fall through the cracks and not receive their degree due to uncontrollable processes beyond their program's reach.

None. The imbalance doesn't seem to impact students from my program beyond increased anxiety. My classmates all tend to match.

This is the second time that I have not been matched. It's really disappointing knowing that I am a qualified applicant, but am unable to match with any site, especially since I have more experience compared to last year. Despite more experience, I only had two interviews. I was told I was ranked at one site (no rank number given) a week after the rank deadline, but despite being on their rank list, I did not match. I am curious what the match rate is for 2nd timers. I feel that APPIC should definitely look into setting up statistics for 2nd timers and address how to increase the match rate for them. Because of this imbalance, I feel that I am set back again with moving forward.

The high unmatched rate definitely was a major source of the anxiety I experienced during these months. I am grateful that I got matched but I couldn't imagine how frustrating the unmatched applicants might feel, and that they need to go through the same process again!! Please address the imbalance problem as soon as possible. Some possible solutions might be increasing internship programs/positions, or, limiting the number of applicants each year. For example, it might be better that only certain number of applicants are permitted to participate in AAPA each year (by setting up minimal requirements, e.g., 4th year or above, 500 intervention hour minimum, etc.). In this way, many people do not need to waste money, be stressed out constantly, and receive a devastating result after several months of work.

Created anxiety during the match process regarding the risk of not matching to a site.

It's not our fault, it's not the sites fault, the imbalance is the fault of legislation and managed care. If our services could be billed for, I really think there wouldn't be an imbalance. That being said, I'm not particularly concerned by the imbalance. Some deserving people will be hurt by it, but some people who maybe weren't so deserving will be filtered out. I find that unfortunately there is little filtering in my program, so it needs to be done at some level. I would like to see the imbalance reduced, but I think having a slight shortage may be healthy for our field.

It is very stressful and daunting to know that 20-30% of students will not match. It is helpful to have the statistics that indicate how the type of graduate program impacts matching. I could not imagine how it would feel to not match, after putting more than 4 years of hard work into graduate school. Since the predoctoral internship is a requirement for APA programs, it is APA's responsibility to supply enough programs for students who have met specific standards.

The imbalance has impacted the general atmosphere of my counseling psych program. It seems that faculty are worried about their match rate, so they really push students to get hours and more hours and more hours, while not decreasing any other demands on students, which made a research/practice program very difficult at times. I guess overall, my program seems to be adjusting the training process to focus on matching intern applicants, which I think is really sad and is not why I decided to get a PhD. I understand the push to make students "great intern applicants" but I believe much is being sacrificed for this emphases. Overall, the imbalanced has increase my stress and anxiety along with my peers.

Although I successfully matched, the process leading up to match day was incredibly stressful. It is heartbreaking that as dedicated students, not everyone is guaranteed a placement. This imbalance has created severe levels of stress, anxiety, and competition among students. We have little if no control over this imbalance, yet we are all bearing the negative outcomes as a result. It seems entirely unfair that we have to fight so hard for an aspect of our training that is necessary for our long-term success. I hope the internship imbalance is resolved so future students will not have to endure the overwhelming stress associated with potentially not matching.

I am concerned with how much the process of matching has taken over the focus of training. While internship is, of course, an integral part of the training in becoming a clinical psychologist, securing an internship should not be the sole focus of training. Because of the severe imbalance, from the moment a student is admitted into a doctoral program he or she must base every training decision on how it will effect his or her ability to match. Students are forced to become overly focused too early in their training and decrease their opportunities to develop a broad, strong foundation in clinical psychology in order to try to create the perfect fit with a particular internship site. My main concern, however, is how demoralizing and dehumanizing the process is for students. It has taken on the character of a hazing or right of passage ritual that is designed to knock students down a few notches before letting them finish their degree. With the current imbalance a student who is qualified and capable of completing an internship can be kept from completing his/her degree without cause. The best of intentions from APPIC and Directors of Training at internship sites often make things worse. In trying to reduce the demands on internship sites, APPIC has created a payment system that deters students from applying to a large number of sites. However, in a system where students feel they have little control, increasing the number of applications feels like one of the few things they can do to increase the chances of getting an internship. So the overwhelmed and desperate party with limited financial resources is the one who is fined for doing what they can to meet a program requirement. Training directors and programs come across as disingenuous as they work to hedge their bets and charm as many applicants as they can to secure a top student to serve their population. I want to be clear that I am one of the fortunate individuals who has been matched with an APA accredited internship that has demonstrated an incredible commitment to training and development of interns. I had the opportunity to interview with a dozen sites and rank up to 15 placements. It appears that I have been judged to be well prepared and qualified for internship and have had what would likely be considered an ideal experience. My experience of the process, however, was that of incredible stress, objectification, and unwarranted scrutiny. It should be a major concern that even a successful outcome was fraught with problems and dissatisfaction.

I find it unfair that psychology grad programs are accepting so many students into their program and this is contributing to the student/site imbalance. Is there any organization who watches over the programs to make sure they don't just keep accepting so many students? Something should be done about that because students entering the program may not really know the specifics about internship placements. It is unfortunate that this is happening; it appears that schools are just looking to make profits and not concerned about the students' welfare.

It is really an overwhelming and stressful process. While it worked out well for me, I can only imagine how hard it is for others put in all of that hard work only to not match, or end up somewhere they did not prefer. In speaking with some of my friends who are in this predicament, I really did feel the pain they were enduring. I wonder if this problem is partly an issue of funding and the law. For instance, many places lost funding this year and closed positions. Thus, it is our responsibility to advocate for deserved money from the government and other resources.

The small number of sites makes it too competitive and I have been saddened for my peers that did not match even though they had great resumes and experiences. I wish there was a way to encourage an increase in training sites, I know that it costs them more than the small stipend they give us (e.g., to pay for supervision and training for us), and therefore isn't very advantageous, but I wish there was a way to increase the number of sites since almost one-fourth of applicants did not match, which seems way too high to me, and that Match II looks bleak for them because there are only a few spots left for many people. My program used to have 96% placement at APA sites only a few years ago; now, we had 6 out of 20 people not even match in Match I! This seems to be the growing trend, and while there appears to be sufficient practicum sites for people, internships are still in short supply.

It is very devastating to see how many students do not match at a site due to lack of sites or other reasons. One of my suggestions would be to limit/restrict the number of students that enter a doctoral program. Also look for international sites (most of them have a need for mental health professionals) so that the imbalance can be resolved.

n/a

It's a very serious problem and very seriously affects students and their careers. I'm personally affected because I matched to an unaccredited internship which means my career will never allow me to work for a VA, there are a few states I can never get licensed in, and I won't be competitive for most post-docs. Internships are the main part of our clinical training and it's really sad that we pay six-figures to our training programs without there being enough accredited internships. I would have rather had an unpaid accredited internship than be getting my stipend and benefits from an unaccredited one that may never allow me the career I wanted and worked hard for. This is a serious issue and I hope you fix it as well as convince VAs, states, and other jobs to be more open minded considering the huge difference in students and accredited internships.

I am startled by the number of students who remain unmatched. I have been impacted by the fact my peers who go through the Phase II. Knowing that the internship process during the Phase I was stressful, I cannot imagine the level of stress involved going in Phase II. I was also concerned about positions being withdrawn after budget cuts, and students being informed prior to ranking. My questions for current imbalance between applications and positions are ? - What are current programs doing to help in this process? Some programs have more that 20-25 students or even more that apply every year for internship process. - What about budget cuts impacting students and positions, as well as applying for such a tedious process that requires financial backing? - Whether it would be advisable by APPIC to inform DCT's of schools to propose the idea of securing some seats for their own students if student's do not get matched?

Delayed internship applications for many students by one year to accrue more hours

It appears that the disparity between the number of applicants and available positions is negatively impacting the efficacy of the Match. Applicants are aware of this disparity and how it directly impacts our placement during the selection process which undermines our self-confidence and confidence in the process. Because the Match is flooded with students, it is compromised. Therefore, the Match became especially detrimental to my mental health because, despite my best efforts, I knew I was part of a system that was stacked against me. This led me to reflect on whether or not the match enhances ethical behavior (as it is supposed to) or, alternatively, if it has become inherently unethical by design. Specifically, did less capable applicants match to my top sites, leaving me to match with a lower-ranked site as a means of satisfying the algorithm which will not match everyone anyway? How confident can I be that the site I matched with really wants me? There is no way APPIC can remedy this in its current state. In hindsight, I wish I had not been aware of APPIC's limitations as my awareness only worked against me. And now, I have no answers to these questions (as they relate to me personally). My younger brother is pursuing a doctoral placement in a counseling psychology program. I have warned him extensively about the emotional toll this process has, unnecessarily, had on myself and other members of my cohort.

The match imbalance is a serious problem that the APA can no longer ignore. To date, APA has taken practically no responsibility for the imbalance, although they accredit both the graduate programs and the internships required for graduation from these programs. Instead, the APA puts the responsibility on the students to select graduate programs with high match rates and to apply nation wide for internships. While students are ultimately responsible for acquiring an internship, there are a number of problems with the APA ignoring the match imbalance and placing virtually all responsibility on the applicants: 1) programs statistics can change in the 5+ years many students are enrolled in a graduate program before they apply to internship: a "good" program may have a few years with a lower match rate due to unpredictable factors, program directors change, faculty retire, etc. Next, 2) the match imbalance issue and the professional limitations of not acquiring an APA accredited internship are not commonly known to many students in the process of applying to graduate programs. Finally, 3) many programs do not fairly "advertise" their match statistics to program applicants - for example, I have seen graduate programs advertise on their web pages that they have > 90% match rate for internship; however, on examination of the list of internship programs to which students match the vast majority are not APA accredited internship programs. The process is also extremely expensive for students. After 5+ years of graduate school expenses it is extremely frustrating to be expected to pay an exorbitant amount to travel to a any number of sites to interview. I believe it is not appropriate for a site to expect an applicant to pay for plane ticket, hotel, rental car or cab, plus other travel costs merely for a one hour face-to-face interview. The APA should work to address this serious issue. There are a number of solutions to address travel costs: more internship programs could be encouraged to hold optional open houses, or conduct phone interviews or teleconference (e.g., Skype interviews). Another option would be for programs to interview at a set conference or convention similar to the system used for application to neuropsychology post-doc fellowships. Not only are travel expenses difficult, but applying nationwide includes the costs of relocating to a new area for a year. These costs may be prohibitively expensive for many applicants, particularly for those of minority status or from disadvantaged backgrounds. That said, there are a number of possible constructive changes that could be made to improve the match system. I may add that I am an applicant who matched to an APA accredited program, and that I am thrilled with my match results; however, the application process was long, arduous, expensive, and excessively stressful for me and my partner. It has certainly been a lot to go through emotionally and financially for a one year training position. My heart goes out to all the individuals who were not as fortunate in the match process as I was. I sincerely hope that the APA takes some action to help the next generation of psychologists to successfully enter the profession.

There are too many applicants and not enough positions available. This is my second time in this process, and I feel that many schools are allowing classes of too many students which then makes it difficult for those of us in small psych programs, especially in cities with very few internship opportunities.

I had geographic limitations which were frowned upon by my university, given that I was able to apply only to very few sites and rank even fewer.

I think that professional schools that have many students should provide their own internship programs. These programs are overflowing the system with students and should be responsible for providing their own internships.

Is it possible to limit the number of students who are admitted into psychology programs? Even cutting back by one student per year at some sites would change this balance.

I have found the imbalance idea very stressful. I feel fortunate to have matched, but I feel that the field needs to address this imbalance. Half of the individuals from my tiny program (6 candidates) did not match this year. These individuals will be delayed another year if they do not match in phase two, leaving them in a bit of a limbo. I feel that the advent of on-line schools and the glut of intern candidates from these large programs has caused a problem for the system.

Obviously, the number of internships to applicants is concerning and causes extreme anxiety in applicants. Having applied two years in a row and applied with non- APPIC sites last year, I also realize there are many excellent training programs that do not have the funds to be APPIC members. I interviewed with 8 university counseling centers, some of which have fantastic training opportunities, some of which offer very little in the way of relevant training opportunities. I find this a disappointing reality. Although I felt confident having ranked 6 sites, it was still a very anxiety provoking experience. Some sites had excellent websites, outlining their training programs and their expectations for interns. Perhaps if sites had to make more specific statements on their APPIC page or their websites, applicants could determine more about the fit of a site prior to interviews. I find some of the cryptic statements on site's information pages to be misleading. If applicants are required to write 4 essays, cover letters, and complete a lengthy application, perhaps sites could put more effort into the info they put out for applicants. Just a thought, I guess a wish that the application process could be more transparent.

As someone who didn't match in Phase I, the imbalance between applicants and positions has certainly hurt me in many ways. During the application process, my entire cohort was encouraged to apply to 20-25 internship sites, including places we didn't necessarily want, but felt forced to apply to due to the competitiveness of the field. This is an unnecessary burden on top of 4 days a week of practicum work and working on dissertation. In my cohort, in particular, we had an 87% match rate, but those of us who didn't match were excellent candidates, and I was honestly shocked that they didn't match. Furthermore, many really strong candidates matched to their last choice. Also, all the sites I interviewed at emailed me letting me know that I was ranked (but not where), but somehow I still didn't match, and I can't understand how that happened. I recognize that there are many idiosyncrasies when it comes to who is ranked in what position, but it seems like if someone ranks ever site they interviewed at and all the sites ranked them, that person is clearly a strong candidate and SHOULD match somewhere. This again points to the problem of not having enough spaces to go around. Now I am faced with writing 42 cover letters in less than a week for Phase II, and I still don't have a great chance of matching, given that there are over 900 people without matches. For those who don't match at all, the financial burden of another year of loans can be crippling. As someone who has both undergraduate and graduate school loans, I can't fathom another year of falling further into debt before I am able to be licensed and practicing. I don't know what the answer is, but something must be done.

There are too many applicants for too few internship sites.

The ten-thousand pound elephant in the room is that we all know the cause of what we so delicately refer to as the "imbalance" so as not to offend anyone. There is an overwhelming glut of poorly-trained and under-qualified students who pour out of professional schools as fast as their tuition checks can clear. During the internship matching process, this is felt in greater competition, and an staggeringly low match rate. (The analogous match rates for the national PGY-1 residency match for physicians is above 90%; some might point out that the match rates are lower, but the overall match rates include foreign-trained physicians, and prior medical school graduates attempting to complete a residency, all of which are less-competitive candidates. The rates for US-trained medical school seniors has held at above 90% for the past several decades.) After graduation, the "imbalance" translates to lower pay, greater competition, and a general devaluing of our profession (especially in the eyes of the general public, who do not know the difference between Dr. X who earned a PhD for studying and researching the science and practice of modern psychology for 5-7 years, and Dr. Y who earned a PsyD from a professional school after 3-4 years of large classes and poorly-supervised practica). To address this problem; I have heard some people advocate for the loosening of APA accreditation requirements to allow for more internship slots. That's like telling a hoarder to buy a larger house so that all of their stuff will fit; it fails to address the root problem, and sooner or lather they will just fill their larger house with even more stuff. I also think that the quality standards imposed by APA on internship programs are important, and I would hate to see them weakened. I do not mean to sound uncaring, or to come across as if I think I am an expert on the problems of our field, but after spending six years of my life as a graduate student it is upsetting to know that the demonstrable value of the degree I don't even have yet is being eroded out from under me. I'm glad that the administrators at the professional schools have found a business model with such great short-term growth potential, but I fear that they have not evaluated the long-term downside risk as the supply-flooded market threatens to overcome the demand for our services (both in terms of the behavioral health services that are needed in our society, and the amount of services that individuals, insurers, and the government are actually willing to pay for). Perhaps it is no surprise that many of these schools have begun to diversify, as their portfolios of degree offerings now include degrees and certificates in coaching (which, since I'm already being blunt, we can all agree is just practicing psychology without calling it psychology to avoid licensing and ethical or legal oversight), industrial/organizational psychology (in which all of my undergraduate professors said there is "a lot of money"), and forensic psychology (because who doesn't think CSI is cool). I also feel for the students in these programs. They are being done a huge disservice by being allowed to pay exorbitant tuition bills in exchange for sub-par graduate training. A supervisor of mine once said that "some people propose solutions, and some just point out problems." I'm afraid I fall into the latter category; I have no solution, but remain hopeful that someone does.

I am concerned that some very qualified candidates do not have an internship available to them. I am also specifically concerned that there is a shortage of counselling psychology internship training sites in Canada.

I think there should be a "cap" on how many students psyd programs are allowed to admit. There will always be an imbalance if a single program is graduating 120 students per year.

Of course it affected me. This is the second year I have been rejected, and I am a highly intelligent person with a lot of great clinical experience. My life was put on pause last year, and may be again this year if I don't get an internship. It's really quite ridiculous that there are not enough positions available for all the students. This is not an issue with the MATCH process but with the situation at large.

I commented about regarding some ideas for fixing the imbalance. Personally, the imbalance leads to more stress surrounding the entire process. Because I matched, it has not affected me in a negative way. However, the months surrounding the process undoubtedly were more stressful than necessary and affected my interactions and relationships with others.

stressful, although when I matched I felt good that I made it through. it's not fair though.

It seems as though the matching process is site driven. Of the applicants I know who matched, only 3 got their first choice (and 2 only ranked 1 site). Everyone else got their 5-7th choice. This is unacceptable and I would be hard pressed to find sites that had this problem. This is a requirement to graduate and there needs to be more spots available (obviously), and I think part of this is expediting the APA/APPIC accreditation process. New sites MUST be a priority in the next few years. I've seen friends become extremely resigned, demotivated, and demoralized in this process and it absolutely does not have to be. Further, the cost is absolutely outrageous. I would like to know where all this money goes- are the tech support ppl that expensive??? Maybe if applicants were told where the money was going, it would soften the blow, but come on, there is no need for this level of cost. It weeds out applicants who are supporting themselves and lets applicants with unlimited or better levels of outside financial support get ahead. This is not the way to even the pool. I understand that everything needs to have value, but I value graduating and eventually being a psychologist, and internship is part of that process.

I think there should be an even number of students as there are sites. I believe that the market for psychologists is being flooded by schools who are admitting too many students. The imbalance created extra stress for our cohort and left well qualified individuals unmatched and disappointed.

I think that if students have proven that they are dedicated to completing their doctorate, and have attended 4 years of schooling, this shouldn't be what's stopping them. I know this is an ongoing issue, and I'm not aware of what sites have to do to become accredited. Possibly slightly less stringent criteria or help get the sites the training they need to become accredited?

The APPIC Match is not required by my program; I must complete an internship but it does not have to be through APPIC. Therefore, I was the only one of my cohorts who went through the Match process but I have a few friends in other programs who participated and were required to get an APA-accredited internship. Therefore, I've experienced vicariously their very legitimate anxiety about whether they would be matched or not. This imbalance reflects badly on the profession and should be a source of embarrassment for the field that it continues to exist even after several years of public awareness. In addition, as I said, my program doesn't require me to participate in the Match. It was something I wanted to do for my own professional growth and later opportunities. I am very excited that I got the internship and am appreciative that it was successful. However, I felt such guilt that I was applying for an internship when it meant that realistically I could very well be getting an internship that another student (whose program did require an APA-accredited internship) would not get the one that I got. As a result, I didn't tell any of my friends that my program didn't require it of me, and I made sure to not discuss it with other applicants on interviews. This is too bad, that I felt guilty for wanting more for myself professionally, and that in reality in doing so someone did not get an internship and must put their career on hold for a year.

I think that the current situation caused a lot of extra stress and anxiety in addition to the match process. However, it made me work on my applications that much more in order to ensure they were strong and competitive.

I think the imbalance between applicants and positions has made the process stressful. On the other hand, I feel that even if there were more positions than applicants, the process would still be stressful. There might still be internship programs that are more desirable (on average) to others. Therefore, there will likely be competition to achieve these slots. Although stressful, I think the process has been a positive one for me overall. Then again, I might have felt differently if my outcome during the matching process was different. Also, I believe that this process has inspired me to start an internship program and create additional training opportunities for future students. Other than the difficulties that come with moving to another state, I am very happy with my results from the match, and I feel grateful that my professors and peers were extremely supportive and helpful during the process.

It makes the entire application process more stressful than it already is. Knowing that highly qualified applicants sometimes do not match, makes students' anxiety level skyrocket. One can never feel completely safe that they would match to ANY site (even our last choice). Also, it makes you apply to a lot more sites. I applied to 20 even though the recommended number is 15, which increases costs, time, and anxiety. I live in New Jersey and there were only 3 sites I could apply to in the entire state! One of them I did not like, but I still applied to because there were only 3 options here and I would have liked to stay here. Something should be done to increase the number of sites or limit the number or applicants. Professional schools that serve as degree factories should be limited and monitored. Also, agencies/hospitals/schools should be encourage to develop internship programs. APPIC/APA should make the accreditation process as affordable and efficient as possible without lowering standards of training. APA should develop ways to fund and support internship training sites.

I personally think that we should only allow as many applicants to apply per year as there are available positions. I think it is too stressful and expensive of a process for someone to go through it with the risk of not matching. I also think that this kind of "weeding out" process should happen much earlier in graduate school (i.e., first year).

The match was difficult and anxiety producing as it was, it was much more so knowing the imbalance of applicants to sites going into the process. I was given advice by the faculty at my graduate program to apply to only 15 sites, which was supported by emails by Greg Keilin that stated that statistic. As a result, I felt that applying to a greater number of sites would decrease my chances of matching. As it turns out, everyone I know, from my program and others I met on interviews, applied to more than 15 sites, were more successful. Thats is upsetting, as I felt that if I applied to 15 sites I was optimizing my chances of matching, instead I set myself up for failure. In addition, I received emails from Greg Keilin that certain sites reduced the number of interns they are taking for next year, after the deadlines passed! If I knew that some sites were taking fewer interns, in fact, cutting by half, I would not have applied to them. And, the news came after the deadlines had passed, so I couldn't then apply to more sites. Once again, I felt I was set up for failure!

I am married to an attorney. Because he has only been licensed for 2 years, he cannot move out of the state and receive reciprocity at this time. This was very stressful for us, as we realized that I could not limit my applications to close-by internship sites (because the imbalance already severely limits the chance of getting an internship) even though we very much did not want to have to live in separate states.

I will never advise anyone else to try and become a psychologist. It isn't worth it.

I have been fortunate in that I did match, but one of my good friends is going through Phase II. The large imbalance of sites/positions to applicants has been a stressor throughout both phases, but is especially scary during Phase II.

The imbalance of sites to applicants has effected me directly as I was not matched the first time I applied nor did I receive a site during the internship process. After I didn't match last year, I went through several months where I had to re-convince myself of my worth as a clinician, decide what direction to go if I didn't match in clearing house and then begin applying for jobs, a process which lasted about 3 months. All this while on advanced practicum, living in a foreign country, moving back to the US and working on my dissertation. I believe it may have been the most stressful time of my graduate program. I also entered the application process this year feeling somewhat frustrated and anxious. While I was able to overcome these feelings and focus on the benefits of previous experience I was hoping to not have to repeat the process because of amount of stress and work involved. Solutions to this problem include increasing the number of internship positions (which is impacted by funding, I realize) and decreasing the applicant pool by creating a more stringent application procedure in to graduate programs.

It made me work harder. I had to make sure that I do my best, so if I do not match to a site, I would know that I've done everything I could.

I did not match last year and had to wait a year to apply again for internship. Personally, this worked out pretty well but I know others who have families to support and other responsibilities who will have a difficult time pushing of their graduation by a year. I think that there should be a general reconsideration of this obsession with accredited internship programs, both by doctoral programs and state licensing boards. i tis ridiculous for us to spend so much time and money on a degree only to be told at the end that there aren't enough spots available. Programs should be responsible for ensuring that students complete their degrees in a timely manner.

The imbalance made me feel that it was necessary to apply to more sites than I would have liked to avoid the possibility of not matching. This led to a much more expensive and stressful process of flying around the country. I am extremely pleased with my match result but I would have liked to apply to fewer sites.

I am so thankful that I have matched, but seeing some of my colleagues who have worked so hard in the program not succeed in matching has been immensely difficult. This process breeds comparison and competition among students, when what is needed is support and recognition of the systemic flaws. I come from a PsyD program and feel that my training is strong: we conduct research, have opportunities to teach, and have rigorous training sites. However, there are too many students being admitted into professional psychology programs. I view this as irresponsible of the programs, in a market where there is clearly an abundance of trainees and a shortage of training sites. From the perspective of training sites, I cannot imagine the difficulty in weeding through so many applications. Many students it seems applied to many more sites than the recommended number of 15. I applied to 18. 15 that I thought were reasonable and 3 reaches. There some students on the APPIC thread (none from my program) that applied to 25+ sites. I feel that this penalizes students with less economic resources, and floods sites with applications from applicants who are simply seeking a back-up. I applied to medical sites and recognize that many have a preference for PhD students over PsyD students; when you also consider that some applicants are applying to 20+ sites, it means that applications of well-qualified and genuine applicants are overlooked. Obviously we need more sites. I think the process would also benefit if there were a cap on the # of sites an applicant could apply to. All of my rejections spoke to an increase in applications (some as high as 50%)from the previous year. Perhaps an application limit would help this process. In addition, greater pressure from APA to reduce program size.

The imbalance significantly increased my stress throughout the process. It gives sites the "upper hand" and puts applicants in a "needy" position. I experienced this through the arrogance of some sites. It was obvious that applicants need sites more than sites need applicants. This power imbalance is unproductive in a mutual matching process. Furthermore, the availability of so few APA sites automatically puts a majority of future psychologists at a disadvantage due to lack of training resources. APA must streamline their accreditation process so more future psychologists can reap the benefits of an APA accredited internship. The APA internship imbalance creates an inherent schism among psychologists that divides and weakens the field.

This process created intense anxiety and stress. I feel like I have been on an emotional roller coaster since last summer, when I began working on my application. I'm thankful for having matched, but feel terrible that so many others did not. What a brutal process!

Respectfully, I must say that I think this process has a fundamental flaw: applicants from different fields compete for the same internship spots. I've noticed that among PhD students, it's popular to blame this problem on PsyD programs that accept vast numbers of students and "flood the market." I disagree. I believe that the imbalance between positions and students instead comes from our shared competition. Frankly, we all shouldn't be in the same market for internship in the first place. Although they are all psychology doctorates, the PsyD, clinical PhD, counseling PhD and EdD are essentially distinct from one another; the education, training and career goals for students in those programs are all different. Why, then, are we all fighting over the same internship positions? Why isn't there a separate predoctoral internship and matching procedure for each type of degree? It is equivalent to medical, veterinary and dental school students competing for residency positions. I believe it would be preferable for both the applicants and the internship sites if there were spots designated for particular degree programs, with requirements and expectations that match what we, as students, have trained for. If the degrees are different, so too should the internships be. Otherwise, what is the point of getting different degrees?

Fortunately I matched my first option. On the other hand, I was the only one in my class that matched at all. It was a bitter-sweet experience, because I wanted to celebrate and share my joy, but at the same time I knew my friends hearts were crushed. They were all equally capable, smart and professional. This has impacted me both positively and negatively. While I am starting a new chapter in my professional life, my friends are trying to recover from the shock of not being matched and the uncertainty of not knowing what to do next. I know the imbalance will probably always be there, but I can't really think of an idea to solve. It's just really sad.

1. This imbalance is really crazy. It is completely unprofessional that a field cannot match students so they can quickly finish their programs and get on with their lives. 2. This should be priority number one for APA. 3. Why not have us get our PhD's before internship and require a two-step licensing process like MDs. That seems much more appropriate.

While I did match, I feel that the imbalance puts students in an untenable position, in which they may be left with no option but to wait another year, possibly with no funding, and have their careers on hold regardless of their qualifications. It doesn't make sense to me that PsyD programs, who have hundreds more applicants than PhD programs are competing in the same pool.

All I would say is that for three of the four years of my training program, I have felt pursued by the terror of "not matching." As far as I know, terror and exploratory learning do not go together. So the imbalance seems to me to be a major problem. To my mind, though, the question about how to fix it seems so much more complicated than a simple "just make more internships." What good will that do if there are no jobs for newly minted PhDs? It will just shift the 'imbalance' later in the career arc. What I wish is that those who are in positions to shape our field would take a good, hard look at the education system (both in clinical psychology and in general). I think schools accept too many students because, with the availability of public and private student loans, schools can make a lot of money on students borrowing money. I believe that it is unethical to train people for internships and jobs that don't exist. I think there are schools out there that are accepting lots of students, charging them large tuitions which the hopeful students pay with loans--the schools collect the money and the student is saddled with the debt and the internships/jobs imbalance. How can such schools retain their APA accreditation? If I could locate a problem, this is where I would start. Why does APA not place caps on class sizes in considering accreditation? In whose interest is it to have large classes? It appears as if it is in no one's interest; yet, someone must benefit from this, else it would not continue.

personally, I got 7 interviews, ranked 6 sites, and got matched to my first-ranked site. it was fine. people who didn't get interviews or didn't get matched, it was sort of their own fault for restricting themselves in terms of how many sites or what kind of sites they applied to, or they just weren't well-qualified at this point

I think the imbalance makes the process very stressful. I found that I ranked sites that I may not have becasue I was worried about site availability. This was also compounded becasue I found that within positions those of interest to me (pediatric neuropsychology) was a subset of those offered. So while sites may offer four positions, three would be for a generalized track and one would be for neuro. I feel like this gave me even fewer choices than many other applicants. It also leaves very qualified candidates "out on the street". The only option for many of these students is to remain enrolled at their institution and then apply next year. This is a very expensive penalty for not matching. I don't know what the answer is though....Obviously to get more people to create APPIC training sites, but I'm sure that's easier said than done. I don't know if there's any way that APA/APPIC can help to create laws that would encourage openings (e.g. tax breaks)?

I have not personally been affected as I matched this year but I certainly have friends who did not match or did not receive interviews and are in Phase 2. I think this is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed in that there are more and more students every year that need placement and not a sufficient amount of internship spots for all of them. Either graduate schools need to be more selective regarding how many students they admit into their programs or we need help creating (a lot) of new internship sites. I am guessing a balance of the two would probably be helpful in reducing the number of unmatched applicants every year, especially the ones who are highly qualified.

I think that a stronger effort needs to be made to provide more options for training sites, we are to be future psychologists, but we are limited in receiving amazing training experiences for internship due to funding issues. There should be no reason why the number of unmatched individuals is greater than sites available. If this continues we can be faced with a crisis for the future in the field of psychology

I think it is scandalous that there is such a differece between the number of APA-accredited sites and the number of students applying for these slots. Not that anyone will care what I think, but here are my thoughts: 1. students should not be eligible to apply until they have successfully proposed (dissertation); 2) some very fine sites cannot be APA accredited because of funding problems -- I suggest that ALL sites be federally funded (similar to the way medical students' residencies are funded); 3) stipend for ALL sites should be the same.

Because of the imbalance and the competition for matching with an internship site, I found it extremely important to look at site information during my first year of the program, so that I could already see where I would like to be placed, and what kind of experience I would need to be someone competitive to those who were matched at the particular site. That gave me the opportunity to take the next three years to work towards gaining the experience I would need to be competitive when it came time to apply for internship. I found that the imbalance also impacted my priorities and how I balanced my personal and academic responsibilities. A week after completing my interviews I discovered I was pregnant and while I wanted to withdraw from the process, I decided to just refigure the sites I would rank so that I could avoid the arduous process of internship applications, and not have to face the anxiety of the site/applicant imbalance the following year, when it could potentially be worse.

As I did not match in phase I, I feel that the imbalance has had a tremendous impact on me. I will only know the extent of the impact after phase II is complete. If I do not match to a program in phase II it will impact me both professionally and personally. I will be forced to wait another year to do my internship, and hope that I will be successfully matched next year. If I do not match this year, it will cause me to question my resolve in completing my degree. If I were a less determined person, I might have already given up after not matching in phase I. It is extremely disheartening to work so hard on the application process, put so much effort into interviewing, spend so much time and money to travel to interviews to not match in the end.

I have not been able to get an internship for two years, this extends my time in school, increases my debt and is discouraging.

The internship imbalance is a major flaw of our field. In my view, it is wholly unacceptable as well as unethical. There are many responsible parties (e.g., APA, programs that train too many students), but it seems only APA can correct the situation. If adequate internship opportunities are not available, the pre-doctoral internship requirement should be dropped for the granting of the PhD. I find the whole situation personally appalling and professionally embarrassing.

The lack of internships has been devastating to me. Last year I went through the match and did not match; this year I did (praise God!). Because of this, my training was delayed for a year, which may seem like a small thing. However, this means I don't graduate with my cohort. My program in particular tends to treat those students that didn't match somewhat like lepers; people you want to forget about. They went back and forth on requiring me to do all the footwork myself to find an additional practica and telling me I should have waited for them to make contact. I got nasty emails from internship training directors after asking about possible practica experiences at their site, stating that my site should have been the one to make contact. Very little help was offered by my school. I would love it if schools got more guidance on what likely makes people more successful in matching the second year. On a more personal note, I really strugled personally. After not matching, you really struggle with what is wrong with you, compared to your cohort, that you weren't selected and they were. For me, I went through a period of depression. In addition, for individuals like me whose programs require an internship to graduate, a very real fear exists that after 4 years of hard work, dissertation, etc., you won't ever graduate. This is ridiculous; there should be some assurance that you'll get your degree after all that work. In addition, for me personally, this has meant an additional year away from my husband. When we met as a military couple, we expected to have to spend a certain number of years apart, which has been exceeded now. Finally, it feels terrible that your own classmates feel sorry for you or avoid you because you remind them of that possibility of failure. What changed for me? This year, I got my number 1 site; not sure how terribly different I was after a year, but a huge difference in outcome. This is not merely an inconvenience for students, and it will ge worse by leaps and bounds over the coming years as all those people like me who haven't matched continue to clog up the system. It leads to real career consequences for people like me with a military background who would like to work with vets; there aren't enough internship sites in general, and apa sites are even more difficult. If you don't get the Apa site, then you can't work for the federal goverment. I would love to see APA break down some of the barriers to accredidation, allowing more internships to get that apa status.

I believe I was fortunate not to have matched last year only because it provided me the opportunity to focus on my personal matters related to my family and provide care and support to my father who is terminally ill. However, it was also a great source of stress and worry not only to me but to those close to me. I would recommend to anyone wishing to pursue a doctorate in psychology to do their research about the duration of time from beginning to end to obtain the degree as well as the cost. Not obtaining an internship and having met all other requirements for the degree is extremely frustrating. Equally frustrating is having to pay back loans while not having a full-time job related to my career. This too is financially difficult. Future undergraduates and those who wish to pursue this career need to be made aware of the imbalance and be prepared with the knowledge that there is a 25% chance they may not match. I feel this percentage is unacceptable and is not existent in other professional match programs. The imbalance has affected me professionally by not allowing me to move forward in my career and delay potential opportunities. Personally, it has prevented me from starting my family. The profession must take action by limiting the number of students admitted in professional psychology programs for a minimum of three years to rectify this imbalance. I believe it is irresponsible of the academic community to continue granting admission when the opportunities for employment are limited, the economy is struggling, and internships are unavailable to many who have invested so much of their time and energy. I know my colleagues who have and have not matched feel the same. But since we are all dedicated to improving the lives of others, I recommend doing anything and everything possible to improve and grow during the time you have - such as obtaining another clinical training experience, whether it be in your area of interest, or area with which you have little or no experience. Getting involved in research or defending your dissertation are other experiences that students typically work on during this time. Positive thinking perpetuates positive results. Reframe your way of thinking and the year will be filled with opportunity.

It took a lot of time and money that was already strained to participate in the match. I did not match. It is very frustrating and discouraging to have expended such effort and be in the same situation I was a year ago and no closer to attaining my degree.

Our program has been open with us about the issues related to increase in individuals in the market and tried to prepare us as best as possible and my thought is that if this is what you want to do this is an issue that you have to be ready to deal with. I am unsure of suggestions to help, but as I mentioned before it could be helpful to limit the amount of sites one can apply to given the ease of applying with on line applications

I believe that this imbalance contributes significantly to the anxiety of the match process. I was fortunate to be placed. Unfortunately, I believe that this imbalance is largely due to programs accepting too many students, possibly for financial gain, and that there needs to be more oversight of these large programs. It is almost as if the "market is flooded" with too many psychologists. This is not an issue that I feel APPIC can address. I wish more sites offered internship training, but I also recognize that offering such takes a lot of money and man-power. I do not believe this is an issue related to intership training sites. I firmly believe the problem lies within the training facilities that admit a large amount of doctoral students.

My life has been affected profoundly by the match process and the discrepancy between the number of spots available and the number of applicants. I attend a PhD program in NYC, but my family moved to Florida, so I can only apply in the South Florida/Miami area. Meanwhile, there are several local PsyD programs that churn out vast numbers of applicants each year. It is not just frustrating and upsetting, but also very wrong that there are not enough internship spots for the number of applicants applying. I believe the APA should be outraged and work diligently to rectify this very very serious problem.

After watching friends who were highly qualified applicants not match over the past three years, I was nervous about my prospects before even submitting applications. And while I was relieved to receive several interview offers, the reality of the costs of traveling to so many sites quickly set in. I felt as though I had to put my life on hold for almost two months as I scheduled these interviews and traveled to each location. I am very happy with the overall result of where I matched, but unfortunately my excitement about this does not even begin to make up for the emotional and financial stress of going through this process.

I don't know where to begin. As I said already, the imbalance is completely insane and unacceptable. How can you have almost 1,000 students who have been in graduate school for YEARS not match to a site? I don't know of any other field or professional discipline who has this problem. To have such a huge hurdle and have so many barriers to completing school just is not okay. This whole process has been one of the most stressful times of my life. The pressure is unbelievable, and students are the ones who are left feeling helpless and disempowered. We are going above and beyond to be as well-rounded and well-qualified as possible to secure positions--getting testing experience, publishing, research, presentations, summer externships, etc. We are more well trained going INTO internship than any of the training directors and faculty members I know of were as they were applying. At this point before going into internship I will have been providing therapy to patients for 6.5 years!! My program did NOTHING to help us apply to internship, so I know that that is a separate issue I need to take up with my school. I think that there are too many people in graduate schools in psychology. I interviewed with a few people who have over 50 people in their cohort! The quality of the training provided at these programs simply cannot be up to par. But programs like this are flooding the field and are taking a tremendous amount of profit without consideration for the implication on others. I think monitoring these programs would be a good first step. Or somehow limiting the number of people from a program who can apply each year? Or get accepted into a program each year? I also think all of the match rules are completely ridiculous. What other field doesn't allow people being interviewed to express to a site that they are their first choice? It seems like this process has been so overly micro-managed that no one can get out of their own way. And the student--the ones who are supposed to be trained and the ones who are the future of the field--are the ones feeling disempowered, helpless, and frustrated. For a mental health field to have a process that creates such anxiety and unhealthiness is very concerning to me. I don't know what the answer is but something has to be done. And I'd be happy to be a part of the solution.

I did not match last year. I was devastated. I successfully completed all qualifying exams, passed my dissertation proposal, had strong letters of recommendation, and spent countless hours on my applications. I was told that I did everything right. My professors had no answers for me as to why I didn't match, and when I contacted sites to ask why I was not offered an interview, nobody had a clear answer. They responded "we just had so many qualified applicants, you look like a great candidate". I was a student when I applied last year, so I put thousands of dollars on my credit card between applications and traveling to interviews. I am still paying off last year's application costs, while I simultaneously paid cash to repeat the process this year. I have over $150,000 in student loans and those accrued interest over the past year which I will now have to defer further. Major life milestones have been delayed a year, like beginning to have children. I suggest that the APA determines a way to allow sites to become APA accredited. I understand that there is a large financial cost to applying for accredited status- maybe they can allow sites to enter into a payment plan over several years, or they can waive the fee for nonprofit sites. maybe they can be proactive in determining what an APPIC site needs to do to become APA accredited, and tell them.

Added more stress to the process, but I ultimately had a good outcome.

produces anxiety about the future - it was stressful to think that statistically there was a really high possibility that I might not match despite being a strong candidate

I think that this mismatch creates a significant amount of anxiety for all involved. It makes it difficult for many to feel confident in their abilities as psychologists. It creates stress within doctoral programs because of the pressure for grad students to land internships as it reflects upon the grad program. This is an incredibly lousy process. I believe that there should be an obligation for graduate programs to only accept the number of students who can be supported in the internship process and to help assist applicants in securing an internship. It is not fair to make people wait additional years to get their degrees when they are qualified applicants. The financial and emotional cost is too great.

I had been aware of the discrepancy between the number of applicants and available internship positions during my entire graduate program. This issue did concern me, but I realized throughout my graduate training that it was important to earn hours and to apply to sites that were good fits. I do think that the imbalance is unfair, particularly because of the extensive amount of time, effort, and money it takes to earn a doctoral degree. I had been told by my training program that the imbalance is a result of the large class sizes at schools of professional psychology (I attend a university-affiliated PhD program). I am not sure if this information is true, but if it is, it certainly helps to explain the imbalance.

I don't think this affected me too much for a couple of reasons. The first reason is my friends who applied last year from my school were all very successful, which helped me feel confident. The second reason is that I really tried to focus on myself and not think too much about all the other people who were applying. Although this didn't negatively affect my application process, I do think it is an important problem, especially since schools are taking more graduate students and there are the same number of fewer sites. I think it is really important to be able to depend on high-level graduate training in a paid internship.

This is the number one problem facing training of psychologists. As it seems more of a systemic concern, it will not be instantly corrected. At every formal gathering of psychological professionals, this topic must be addressed, and a time table designated for its resolution must be created.

I find it extremely concerning that over 30% of internship applicants have not been matched this year. If an internship is required in order to finish the doctoral degree, I feel it should be easier to obtain such an internship, especially after years of non-paid practica and already many clinical hours. Not being matched, does not only mean being disappointed after working hard for 6 months during the application process, but it also means waiting another year without much pay, putting a hold on one's career, as well as family planning. In my opinion, something really needs to be done about this imbalance.

This was unquestionably the most stressful part of graduate school for me. It was harder than applying/getting into a graduate program in psychology, which I am told is itself more difficult than acceptance into medical school. I think there are many reasons for this imbalance - I can tell you that a majority of people in funded, 'traditional' Clinical PhD programs such as ours are very resentful towards for-profit institutions that offer degrees, and institutions that offer PsyD's to e.g., classes of 40 at a time. This is genuinely the perception for the imbalance of training sites and applicants.

I think the imbalance between trainees and training positions is totally unacceptable and something that needs to be addressed immediately in the field. The fact that doctoral students in psychology, in accredited programs, can complete all the necessary requirements toward their degree, but can be barred or delayed from graduation simply because accredited internships are not available is criminal. The wasted cost of reapplying to internships a second year, continuing tuition for enrollment for an additional year, and deferring graduation is simply unjust, especially since the majority of students who are subject to these costs are victims of circumstance, not unqualified candidates. Even for students who do match at accredited internship programs, the stress alone of knowing that each year, hundreds of students do not match, seems like unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, being forced to move away, sometimes very far distances, from friends, family, and professional connections, simply because of local competition for a disproportionate number of internship spots is exasperating! Something must be done to correct this imbalance immediately. Either the APA needs to move more quickly to accredit more internship programs as funding is lost at others, or enrollment in doctoral programs needs to be limited, or the internship year needs to be reconsidered as mandatory for graduation - I'm not sure what the answer is. What I do know is that it is completely unreasonable that a student could work hard, achieve all the milestones of his or her training program, finish countless practicum hours, and still wind up without an accredited internship. Although APPIC is doing their part to approve internship sites as APPIC accredited members, these internships still fall short of the APA accreditation standards, and selecting an APPIC internship automatically closes doors for future career options and complicates the licensure progress. This is truly unjust.

This is a very stressful and frustrating process. At certain times, I felt that it wasn't worth it and would be better to find a site outside of APPIC where I knew I could be matched for my school's consortium. Additionally, I had to search outside of where I would've preferred to be in order to feel more sure I would find a site.

While I think the issue generally hasn't impacted me or students from my program, I do think there are occassionally times when it adds additional stress to otherwise competative applicants and increase concern about not matching, even when they are likely to match.

I think that the imbalance between positions and applicants heightens the stress of the entire experience but I would not say that it affected me personally. I felt confident, once I obtained four interviews, that I would match somewhere, especially because my program has traditionally matched nearly all of its applicants.

I was lucky and obtained a position, my first choice and a dream come true, the first time I participated in the match. I am very grateful. However, the imbalance between applicants and positions is an utter disaster. It is destroying lives, sundering professional relationships, and I believe it is endangering the credibility of our field. My program now has student pitted against student, faculty members angry at each other, and the worst match rate in program history, which may reduce the funding the department gets from the university. Other fields are not blind or immune to the laws of supply and demand, and I do not believe that we should be, either. Allowing professional schools to unleash classes of upwards of 100 students creates a major problem for all of us. The competition seems to be most fierce for APA/CPA accredited internships, so although there is no mechanism to force programs to admit fewer students, perhaps setting a reasonable cap on the number of students that could apply to accredited internships could be limited per program. So, for example, if each program could permit a maximum of 20 applicants to apply for accredited positions, that might force very large programs to select their strongest students to compete for accredited positions and serve to unclog the pipeline a bit. However, that's only one way to tackle this situation. Certainly another worthwhile avenue is to advocate for more funding for positions, to provide assistance for programs applying for accreditation, and for streamlining the accreditation process and/or making it more affordable. This is a heartbreaking problem, but I believe that if we all work from every angle, the problem can be made more manageable.

It was stressful but I also assured myself I was applying mainly to Canadian sites and thus was not as greatly affected by the imbalance as if I was applying primarily to US sites. I am just incredibly grateful that Canada doesn't have such an imbalance. I don't want to imagine what it would be like otherwise.

I think there needs to be more funding to programs to provide positions for students. I also think licensing needs to adjust to the unfortunate circumstances we are in. Not everyone is going to get an APA accredited internship, not because they are not good at what they do. Many sites cannot afford to pay for the accreditation and there just are not enough APA internships out there. There needs to be more work for APPIC and APA to reach out to the massive amount of mental health providers (hospitals, CMHC's and etc) to sell the idea of placing internship students there. There should not be such an imbalance and I don't think there has to be if the pre-doctoral internship is marketed.

The imbalance between applicants and positions is deeply troubling. It contributed to an increase in my level of anxiety throughout the proces.

It's scary. To see that 25% of applicants do not match, the process is very intimidating and can be overwhelming at times. There were critical times (like when receiving interviews) that made me think, "Five years of training comes down to these few essays, my clinical/research experience, and these few interviews." It's hard to think that EVERYTHING comes down to this. Without matching, that means another year in grad school limbo, meaning very little pay, or having to get a job outside of the field, and more time waiting to start my career. Some ideas that may be helpful to improve the imbalance include - A tiered performance system for sites, similar to how law schools do it. This could be for grad school programs (e.g., history of matching, research productivity, avg. student clinical hours, etc.). Then additional sites can work towards a lower-tiered APA-approval that is less stringent than present APA or APPIC accreditation standards, allowing more opportunities for places without an internship program to start one. This could allow for less prestigious/rigorous doctoral programs to provide more options to their students for matching in their first internship application year.

I felt very stressed and anxious throughout the whole process (for months) because I was aware of the imbalance. I think that some programs should not accept as many students as they do and some internship programs shouldnt accept certain students from certain program exclusively. That limits the options for the rest of us. Also when a graduate program accepts 100 students each year, are they really offering a good graduate and mentorship program? The number of students entering the field and graduate programs each year should be limited. Canada has less of a crises and imbalance because the graduate programs accept few students each year, provide good education and training, and the number of students applying for internship is not too far from the number of internship spots available.

I faired well during this match process despite the notable imbalance. I appreciate the way in which various organizations and professionals have been working to address the shortage of sites. I feel like I have been impacted by the shortage because I was matched with a new site that has not had the opportunity to complete the APA accreditation process. It is a VA and thus very likely that it will become an APA site in the next couple years but at this time is not one. Although I observed that there is a marked difference between APA and non-APA sites that can warrant the professional deference given to accredited programs, however I see that during this shortage of sites that distinction should be carefully re-evaluated.

It made this process especially stressful even though I have a very strong application. It seems to no longer be a matter of preparing yourself well for internship, but a numbers game. I know individuals with very strong applications who have gone unmatched because of the shortage of positions for the number of applicants. It appears that we are no longer being rewarded for our hard work and dedication but just part of a numbers game.

The amount of anxiety about getting an APA accredited internship was significantly increased for me due to the discrepancy. The focus at this point (due to the discrepancy) is often at just getting matched, rather than getting the right training opportunity. Students are willing to take any internship program if it means that they do not have to go through the process the following year for the second or third time. It is difficult to get accepted into a competitive Ph.D. program, put in a lot of work, and meet your goals only to not match. I do not think that it is good practice or professionally responsible for sites to accept psychology students with the understanding that there are not enough internship slots at the end of the process. There has to be a means for addressing this crisis and at this time nothing has been done.