Comments about Imbalance - Page 5

This process seems very unethical at this point in time. Many students now complete an overwhelming amount of clinical work during their graduate student career that almost makes the internship unnecessary, unless they want to specialize in a particular modality, setting, etc. For such students, I would suggest offering an option of applying directly for a postdoctoral or faculty position instead of participating in the match. This would lower the amount of applicants in the match pool. It would also likely be more productive and beneficial for those students that had such an option.

I believe that graduate schools are admitting increasing numbers in order to profit from tuition, and without consideration of the impact on the profession in the long term, and without adequate owning of the gate-keeping responsibility that they have for the profession. The students ultimately pay for this problem, because we pay so much money for tuition only to find that there are mediocre people making it through the programs, so the money and effort does not say much about the quality of the result. Furthermore, there are not enough internships to get everyone through the training, so the internships effectively become the gate-keepers. People who are stuck at these gates have already invested four years of time and money into the process, this is not acceptable. Moreover, the internship selection process does not seem to be a good gate-keeping device, as some of the most qualified students in my program were not matched, while more mediocre students were matched. I think there is an inherent conflict of interest that professional schools are for profit, whatever the mission statements may be, the bottom line speaks the loudest. We will all ultimately suffer for this exploitation as our salaries shrink and our student loans become insurmountable obstacles.

The imbalance between applicants and positions created significant anxiety about the matching process since my first year in graduate school. I had no idea how great the shortage actually was in Chicago until this year, so I was very worried about having this geographical restriction.

I believe that there should be someway to curtail the extremely high number of PsyD's applying to internships at one time. Based on statistics suggesting that individuals with PsyD degrees are more likely to fail the licensing exam, perhaps there should be a form of pre-internship exam that only allows applicants to qualify for internship if they are able to pass the exam. This could be a requirement for all applicants. The current imbalance seems to reflect a surge of students in economic times that are not able to support the number of positions.

The imbalance creates an enormous amount of anxiety about internship for all students, including those students at small university Ph.D. programs. I have concerns about the quality of training by for-profit institutions. It seems deeply problematic to allow institutions to profit from enrolling students without having any incentive to contribute to the guild or the profession. Everyone benefits if the quality of the training programs is tightly controlled and for-profit institutions are not allowed to churn out high numbers of students without ensuring adequate training and preparation for demands of internship and licensure. As long as this financial incentive for for-profit institutions exists, I don't see any reason this imbalance won't continue to grow.

The imbalance made the internship selection process unnecessarily stressful and worrisome. I am also concerned about what it means for the field that we are producing many more psychology graduate students than we are prepared to train in pre-doctoral internships.

I didn't get a preferred internship position.

Extremely anxiety provoking - and it honestly seems unethical to admit students to programs without knowing whether they can be awarded the "required" opportunity to complete their Ph.D.

I think the burden should be on universities to only accept the same number of new grad students per year as there are internship spots, give or take fifty. The onus should be on the training programs, not on students, to ensure there are enough programs to accommodate them! Certainly, if a student is unable to match, his or her tuition fees should be suspended for the following year. Students who are not qualified, or not good candidates for an internship, should be weeded out by their programs PRIOR to applying. Or, even better, not accepted into doctoral programs in the first place! The discrepancy between applicants and number of available internship positions is deplorable and unconscionable. Graduate training programs (dare I say it... especially PSY D programs and professional psychology "schools") need to be more responsible as to the number of students they admit. Please note that I was able to match successfully. I am just disgusted by the number of unmatched students.

The imbalance between internship applicants and positions is something I was aware of prior to enrolling in my doctoral program. However, it is unsettling to know that many qualified people do not match through this process - even after five or more years of hard work. I feel that this disparity reflects poorly on our profession and it may ultimately "scare away" qualified students from pursuing doctoral degrees. Therefore, it should be a priority of the APA to either increase the number of internships available or to limit the number of doctoral students in psychology.

It's a big problem. Candidates invest a lot of time and money into the graduate school process, and are (hopefully) good students if they have progressed to the point of applying for internship. It's unfair to expect some applicants to apply for internship year after year.

My life has been profoundly affected by the internship imbalance. My husband and I are both graduate students. He applied for internship last year, was an extremely well-qualified candidate (e.g., over 20 publications, large number of intervention and assessment hours), and somehow failed to match. This was by-far the most stressful experience either of us have experienced (to the point that the stress put my into labor with our first child prematurely!). He was lucky enough to ensure an unpaid position at the site that was his first choice, and we are lucky enough to be able to live without an internship stipend. But the stress of being so qualified and not matching has had a lasting effect on both of us. It is preposterous that qualified people from excellent, accredited programs can be placed in such a position!

Not unlike many other students in psychology doctoral programs, I moved thousands of miles away from family to pursue my degree. It was an incredibly difficult decision, as my only child was among those I left behind under the assumption that it would only be for four or five years. When I did not match to an internship last year, I was again faced with the very difficult decision of whether to remain in the area of my academic program or to move back home. I chose to stay for several reasons, not the least of which was to continue to receive clinical supervision and dissertation guidance from members of my core faculty in order to increase the likelihood of matching this year. Once again, however, despite interviewing at several programs which would have been an excellent fit, I remain unmatched. I have now been away from family for nearly six years, which has been incredibly difficult to say the least. The imbalance is only growing larger, given the increase in number of applicants including those who have not matched in previous years, and I now have to decide whether to settle for an internship that is not accredited, which would limit my options later and may even result in modifying my long-term career goals. The whole process has been more than discouraging. I have spent thousands of dollars and missed weeks of work traveling for interviews that have yielded no success—money that could have been spent traveling to visit family. My entire career—and those of all other applicants—rests on whether or not I am able to procure an internship. I have no idea what needs to be done to make this process better for all those involved, but it seems something must be done. How many students have nearly reached the end of their doctoral training only to be left with internship standing between them and graduation? Sadly, too many.

This is a very anxiety-provoking process. Knowing of the imbalance between applicants and sites added to the stress. However, I knew that I would need to work extra hard on my application because I would be competing with many competent, knowledgeable applicants. I prepared extra hard for this process. I used the APAGS workbook and it was very helpful. To future applicants, save now for travel expenses!!!

The only way this impacted me was by increasing my anxiety about matching.

I was so nervous about the imbalance of training sites/number of applicants, that I wondered if I had made the right choice in pursuing a career in this field. I spent a lot of time in these past 3 months focusing on self-care (e.g., thinking positive thoughts, avoiding catastrophizing) to prepare myself for the possibility of not matching. As a seventh year, when your doctoral program starts to notify you that it is time for you to graduate or future funding cannot be guaranteed, then there is a high risk of panic about what your next step will be if you do not match in Phase I or Phase II. I feel fortunate that I matched to my top site, but I must say that this has been the worst experience of my life (it even surpasses the stress of my qualifying examinations). The interview process was also hectic. Traveling across the country (because a diverse geographic range supposedly increases your chances of matching) was so exhausting that I started to reconsider whether traveling should be listed as one of my hobbies. This winter was particularly challenging and dangerous with being required to drive through several snowstorms, stay odd hours in airports because of flight delays, catching colds or other respiratory infections due to increased contact with people in confined spaces (e.g., planes, trains, airports, bus terminals). I suggest that the application process somehow change so that interviews are held in either early or late September. I know that people even drove in hazardous icy road conditions (e.g., Atlanta) and I assume that their lack of caution was motivated by the "match crisis". I met a fellow applicant who shared that she hydroplaned on the highway the night before while trying to drive through a snowstorm. I heard that in one site in Georgia, 4 applicants managed to show for the interview, which is miraculous because even the training director was afraid to weather the road conditions and stayed home. I somehow managed to make it to an interview in Florida, which at the time was the only state in the United States without snow or ice problems. Overall, I think that grad programs should reduce the number of students to match the number of available internship slots. Second, I believe that more sites should start to incorporate online interviews (e.g., Skype) to reduce the costs and personal risks associated with winter travel.

The inbalance between applicants and sites has been exceedingly stressful. Coming from an APA-approved program that prides itself on small clas sizes (8), it is frustrating to see that applicants from "degree mills" are flooding the system and displacing more qualified applicants. Furthermore, the fact that several of my intended sites were only interested in applicants from one program, and all others need not apply, seems unethical and in violation of match policies. I believe that until this discrepancy is corrected, the best applicants will continue to be hindered.

The financial and emotional hardships incurred are tremendous. The internship positions are limited and the stipends rarely, if ever, cover the cost of living. The process is strenuous and disheartening for many. As our scientific and professional organization, the APA should take the lead and make possible for more sites to be APA accredited. They should also encourage the expansion of internship programs, and even promote the offering of part-time positions to assist the working professional. Most of us are in this field to pursue a higher education and to fulfill our vocation. Other degrees provide the increased pay and career flexibility that our psychology doctoral degree does not. If we ever want to increase the level of earning potential in our field and promote job stability, we should start from the beginning - the internship process.

Ultimately, I would like to pursue diplomate status in my area of concentration. At this point in time, however, ABPP makes it extremely difficult for those who have not completed an APA accredited internship to earn that status, no matter if the internship site was APPIC or if the doctoral program was APA accredited. It would be great if APA could formulate a method for non-profit or sites under budget constraints to be able to attain APA accreditation. Or, maybe those associations/programs offering post-doctoral fellowships and diplomate status could take the APA accredited shortage into consideration for the vast majority of people who are not able to secure APA accredited internship sites. Advocacy on both sides (i.e. internship sites and other agencies) would be extremely beneficial.

The imbalance has effected all of my graduate training. As a graduate student I felt compelled to do more work in more areas than might have been expected before. It was difficult to balance all these demands and struggle for funding at the same time. I felt that I was unable to live a balanced an healthy life because of these demands. Additionally, the hours requirements for internships have created sometimes unreachable standards for a graduate student trying to complete graduate school in a timely manner. Additionally, despite numerous reminders from APPIC and my program that internships are also competing for me, it is clear that the applicants are at a disadvantage and may often have to settle for a program that does not meet their needs. I feel fortunate to have matched to a program I am very excited to attend, but I am concerned for the many students who have put so much time, effort, and money into graduate school and will continue to struggle to find an internship. In summary, the imbalance has created undue stress on already struggling graduate students and has caused people not to gain all they could from their graduate and internship experience.

It has been unbelievably stressful and expensive. Those of us seeking PhDs in clinical psychology are generally overzealous and committed and would likely go to any length to attain our ideal internship and professional position. However, after several months and $3000 being wholly consumed by this process I am exhausted and a little bit bitter. I received my first of 17 ranked positions but I do not believe I would have been so fortunate if I had not been so tireless. Given the numerical imbalance, our field's predicament is understandable. However, I think it is our duty to not only fully inform applicants to clinical psychology programs of the purgatory they may have to face, we also need to reduce the number of applicants, either based on accreditation of doctoral training programs or passing the EPPP. I worry for the future of psychology as long as we have a gatekeeping device that is unintentionally locking out many qualified students. If I was married when I started this process, I would probably now be divorced.

The imbalance between applicants and positions has not really affected me - I got matched to the site I wanted. I think this is not as much of a problem with Canadian students/programs. It is too bad that there are many more applicants than positions and I hope that this imbalance can be resolved, but I think there is not much that APPIC can do. I still think that approved programs should be of high quality and perhaps students who are unmatched can wait a year or find other alternatives (e.g. non-APPIC or non-accredited programs depending on the requirements of their program)

There needs to be pressure on sites to provide more internship training opportunities in both Canada and the U.S.A. If this is not possible, there needs to be pressure on universities to decrease enrollment in programs. There were double the amount of applicants applying for internship from my program this year and this problem will continue to be an issue in following years. This is a very unfortunate scenario for many students who enter graduate school hopeful to complete their degrees on time.

The mismatch between the number of applicants and the number of internship positions was a major source of anxiety and stress for me and my peers. Although I matched, one of my colleagues, a very capable and accomplished woman with qualifications equal to or better than those of our peers, did not. There did not seem to be any rhyme or reason to her results, and I sincerely believe it could have happened to me or any of the rest of us, which is incredibly unfair. She will participate in the second match, but the odds being what they are, may not get a position then either. She's told me she may defer a year and try to finish her dissertation and then reapply, but there does not seem to be any reason why this should have to happen to her. That's another year of her life spent without making income, without having the resources to start her family and build her career. The only solution I can see is limiting the number of doctoral candidates accepted into graduate programs. I find it particularly disturbing that PsyD programs admit upwards of 20 students per year, and then these students flood the internship application pool. The APA should take more responsibility for ensuring that the programs they accredit are playing fair. To that end, programs should be allowed to admit students only to the degree that they are able to place them in viable internships and provide them with quality training.

Given the current and growing disparity between the number of applicants and available sites the entire process has been akin to waiting in a Soviet-era bread line. As a result the preparation of application materials and attending a maximum number of interviews has been incredibly time consuming and ultimately very expensive, and for many a waste of time and funds. Unfortunately, I cannot help but think that those bodies which could alter the system (APPIC, APA, & training sites) all stand to lose revenue if participation in the MATCH process were to become more restricted, as a response to the site/trainee numbers disparity. While APPIC simply provides a service, the larger problem is the responsibility of APA and the licensure boards. APA should seriously reconsider the stringency of their accreditation guidelines and rethink to what sort of programs they offer their seal of approval, as well as the requirement of externship training to receive a degree and licensure. Many of my colleagues, myself included, find it absurd that we enter into a training program to earn a degree which is not awarded upon completion of that training, but upon completion of an externally controlled, and ultimately flawed, process. This year it is likely that roughly 700 people who have devoted time and much sacrifice will stagnate. Unable to be licensed. Unable to enter the workforce in any appreciable way. They all paid their dues to APPIC, bought plane tickets, rental car, and hotel fees. Sadly they will all be forced to do it over again next year. It is my hope that training programs will see the futility of this system, and continue to develop their own in-house training programs which operate outside the Match process. While I am personally pleased with the outcome of the Match, I found it to be expensive, a stressor, and counter-productive to the completion of other more valuable work.

I think it is unfair that certain programs have 90-100 people applying in a single year. I have no idea of the quality of their training, but it seems to put a strain on the system.

I know that one person in my year did not successfully match in Phase I and it is heartbreaking to know that the person did not match. It's hard knowing that approximately 25% of the applicants do not match in Phase I of the process. I can not say that I have solution to the issue but maybe programs should admit less students than they do each year.

The process as it is not is HORRIBLE. I matched at my top choice but I still think the system itself is utterly broken. The huge imbalance in spots, the low pay, and the sense that the sites are in the drivers seat because have to get an internship is all wrong. MDs have made residency work better - there are enough spots, they pay better and hospitals make money instead of loosing money on them. First, we need more sites. Second, we need more spots and more pay at those sites. Third, the system needs to be changed so we receive our PhD before internship and then go on internship so we can bill more to insurance. Fourth, professional PsyD schools need to be regulated more tightly - they are letting in tons of students, getting poor training and then making the internship process harder for everyone. I've had to spend thousands on interviews, spent most of this year on applications and interviews and all to just increase the chances of matching. Its a waste of time and money for people that could otherwise use this time to help people through clinical work or research. The system needs to be changed dramatically.

I think that far too many people are being accepted to Psy. D programs and this greatly contributes to the massive imbalance! Programs must be more selective and concentrate on educating excellent practitioners and not on the financial aspects of accepting so many students! I think the sad statistics indicating that close to 1000 people are without slots thus far is a cry for help to do something about the number of students in these programs!

I am a student with a 3.8 GPA who has glowing recommendations and has already defended her dissertation. None the less, I have not matched for the second time. Something MUST be done about this situation. Students who are otherwise prepared for internship should not be forced to take a year or more off (and sometimes face never graduating based on time limits set forth by their programs) because there are not enough positions available. I come from a large program with a relatively low match rate, though the size of their incoming class expands each year. If more positions can not be created, then I think we must at least hold programs responsible for preparing their students to be competitive applicants. In my case, the support from our academic institution is negligible – they did not so much as require/ensure we obtained practicum-based assessment experience! I support the proposal set forth that programs with low match rates be required to decrease their number of incoming students until their match rate is increased. This will require the large schools, who seem more inclined to let their students fall through the cracks, to spend more time and energy ensuring that their students match, and less time focusing on how much money they can make by continuing to increase class sizes. While this would not help those of us currently suffering from this crisis, it would guarantee that future applicants did not find themselves unmatched as a result of attending (likely without knowing it previously) irresponsible programs.

I think it is completely unbelievable that there is such a disparity in the number of applicants and available positions. I think it is irresponsible that this has even been allowed to happen. Other fields limit the number of people that can even be admitted to a program. Unfortunately, this could only be done through the APA and many programs are not even APA accredited and therefore could not even be accountable. I also think that the amount of expenses that are expected to be covered by the applicants for the internship process is outrageous. I was very frugal in my choices and only went on 4 interviews and spent about 15% of my annual salary just on this process. These were expenses that I did not have to cover when I applied to doctoral programs or when I will apply to postdocs and jobs in the future. If there are no other viable alternatives (e.g., only phone interviews, or limiting number of applications) then it would be nice if there was some sort of competitive funding mechanism to help support at least a very small minority of applicants.

I think the primary effect has been extreme anxiety. Our program had its first person in a long time not match last year, and all of the buzz about how many people don't match made us all very anxious about the process. It is SO unfortunate, because it should be a time when we are excited, able to explore amazing professional opportunities, and focus on what our training needs are. I was actually sickened at some of my interviews to hear applicants say "I just want a sight...I don't care what one, I just need one". I understand their feelings in the context of the crisis, but I also think "is this really where we are at?". We should be attending to our training needs, carefully selecting sites, and have the freedom to reject sites that do not fit our needs, not accepting (or even applying to!) sites that aren't great fits for us! To me, this goes under the radar. Yes, there is an imbalance, but even of those who DO match, how many of those are actually good fits? What is the training like for them? Are they accepting "any old site" because a poor fit site is better than no site at all? I also think we have limited foresight about the problem. Increasing sites is not the answer. If we cannot even get internships, what are the chances we will get jobs? Are we flooding the field? There is NO way we will be able to create the 300-500 new positions needed, especially quality positions. It is good to try to improve the number and quality of available positions yes, but let's also look at the number and quality of applicants! There are mega programs, producing 90 applicants a year, yet not being held accountable for poor match rates. Those 90 applicants may take sub-par or unaccredited sites. Then they enter the field with below acceptable training and skew the job market. I think we need to take a step back and look at the big picture. What does the imbalance say about the entire trajectory of the field? What factors (i.e. large psy.d. programs, problems in the accreditation process of both sites AND doctoral programs, etc.) might be contributing? How do we address each of these factors? Finally, stop talking about change, and DO something about it!

The imbalance adds an enormous amount of stress to the process. To know that you worked extremely hard to get through graduate school and you whole career could be put on hold is horrible. Especially because there are qualified applicants who don't match, so there is only so much in your control.

There are very few school psychology internship sites and/or positions available. School psychology students must complete an APA accredited, APPIC accredited, or CDSPP approved internship in order to be eligible for independent licensure. Further, holding a license to practice independently is often a "preferred" or "required" qualification for a job in academia. The current ratio of sites to students is very discouraging and may deter talented individuals from seeking independent licensure due to the inappropriately competitive nature of obtaining an acceptable internship.

I generally do not let major trends affect my personal decisions

While I did not get matched, I do not feel I can answer this question yet. I am currently exploring my options for internship. One option will be whether or not I will participate in the 2nd phase of the match process. I am also considering non-accredited internships as well as taking a year off. Because the 2nd phase of the match is currently in session and I still have time to decide which path I plan to take professionally, I do not feel I can say the imbalance has "affected" me just yet. Ask me again if I don't get matched in the 2nd phase. :o)

Personally, the prospect of applying to internship is scary enough, but there is additional pressure knowing that the number of applicants is so much greater than the number of positions avaialable. I think programs with huge cohorts of people should have a cap on the number of applicants who are allowed to apply each year, or they should have to contribute new positions to the match in order to off set this huge discrepency.

The imbalance hasn't affected me directly - if anything it has pushed me to ensure that I was more highly competitive. It also pushed me to apply in my fourth year as insurance in case I didn't match (my plan was to finish up my dissertation and subsequent conference presentations and re-apply the next year).

We either need an increased number of spots available or programs have to be more lenient about accepting non-APPIC internships. While I matched and the process went well for me, too many of my classmates were left internship-less after Phase I- for no apparent reason. They are all highly qualified. It just seems that if almost 1/3 of applicants don't match (at least partly due to lack of spots), how can we continue using such a matching process????

My negative experiences with the match process have negatively impacted my personal relationships, my emotional state, and my motivation to continue pursuing a career working with low-income children and families. APPIC should support alternative internship experiences created by programs and/or assist internship programs in coming up with funding for additional positions. The problem will continue to get worse as unmatched applicants pile up year after year. Some individuals will also give up their pursuit of doctoral degrees after years of hard work and accruing tens of thousands of dollars in debt. APPIC must begin to plan for and execute changes in the structure and funding of internships in a way that is sustainable for the foreseeable future. The current efforts that APPIC has made have appeared to be minimally effective in correcting the imbalance.

I have only observed the impact on other students who have not matched due to the imbalance between the available internship placements and the number of applicants. These students are often very strong candidates who experience a great deal of distress upon not matching. I am thankful, however, for the second phase of the match, which will hopefully provide many of these applicants with a placement. That being said, the number of students who will still be left without a placement after phase 2 is still substantial. I am most hopeful that some type of progress will be made in terms of the amount of internship positions provided, in order to avoid this issue or at least to significantly decrease the number of students left without placements.

The imbalance makes everyone incredibly anxious, more so than the process already would be with out the very real fear that you will not match. It also skews what students feel they have to do to be competitive. For example, if any opportunity comes up that could give a student "an edge" they feel they must take it, despite how busy, overwhelmed or burned out they already may feel. Also I know some students that applied to 20-30 sites, which I think inundates sites with way more applications than are necessary and may not afford other students to get interviews due to the inflated number of applications received. For me personally, I was also strongly encouraged to apply all over the US because I am not married and therefore am able to move. I am somewhat dissatisfied that I matched to a program outside of where I wanted to apply. (However, I am grateful to have matched.)

I was fortunate to come from a good program and have access to the experiences I needed to match. However, I understand this is a very difficult process for everyone (even those who matched). It is a shame that so many people have to go without a match after working so hard for many years, especially when many of these individuals can't afford to be in debt any longer. Within our department, there is a large emphasis placed on finding a match. Our advisor and an internship commitee help us prepare our materials and determine which sites to apply to. This process was very helpful in preparing me for applying to internships. However, along with other students, I felt significant pressure from our department to match as it can impact the program's reputation as well. Thus, it is a stressful process for students, advisors, and directors of clinical training. The match process also takes an unbelievable amount of time for graduate students. For many of us, the process begins in the summer and does not end until the end of February. This has a significant impact on our: 1) ability to work on our dissertation, 2) to provide continuous care at our current practica sites, 3) and, to stay engaged in other aspects of our personal and professional lives. It is a very large time committment for one additional year of training, especially considering most of us have completed many intensive clinical practica by the time of internship. Here are a couple things I have considered to help with the match imbalance: 1) have a central interview location where all candidates could meet with supervisors and hear about individual programs, rather than having everyone travel to each city. For students, this can make the process more time efficient and cost-effective. 2) increase the amount of internship spots available and/or decrease the amount of graduate students accepted in clinical psychology graduate programs - this is obviously easier said then done! 3) develop more internal internships, where students can meet the requirements of internship through clinical experiences at local sites. Alternatively, individuals who don't match might be able to meet the same requirements in their program or an affiliated program. While there are many negatives of the match process, I think it has been a great way to meet others who have the same professional interests. I think this may be one of the biggest advantages of the current match set-up, as students have a chance to network and learn about how other programs are run. I am happy that APPIC has decided to ask applicants about their experiences. This can go a long way to hopefully improving the internship imbalance and providing better, less stressful, experiences for students.

The current imbalance between applicants and sites is disheartening. I feel fortunate to have matched, but feel bad for those who did not. Every qualified applicant should be able to go to an APA accredited internship the first year that they apply. Either more sites need to be created or there should be a restriction on the number of applicants that apply each year. It was very anxiety provoking to think of the amount of time, money, and energy that I expended to apply for internship and knowing there is a possibility that I could not match and would have to repeat the process. This is a concern that students should not have when applying for internship.

The cohort sizes of the Professional psychology programs are a big problem right now. It makes things more difficult for PhD's who are in a cohort of 6-8 people to be competing with cohorts of 50-100 people for internships. The professional psychology programs are flooding the system and something needs to change so that we do not continue to have this huge discrepancy between number of applicants and sites.

Yes, I have friends from previous years and this year who did not match. I was only applying to programs in a particular region due to family reasons and it was my fear that it would limit my chances of matching. Many great students and talented therapists do not match and it is not becaue they are not qualified. It does not seem fair. I think there needs to be push from APA to create more training opportuinities for interns. At the expense of sounding hypocritical (as I come from a training programs with large class size) there may have to be some regulation about how many students are allowed into programs as this directly impacts the internship shortage.

The stress created by this imbalance negatively affected the lives of myself and my peers considerably. After being accepted into graduate school, several clinical externships, research positions, and other forms of professional development, it was extremely disappointing to know that nearly 25% of us would not match and would be faced with finding an unpaid, unaccredited site, or applying again next year with funds we do not have at this point in our careers. Something needs to be done about this imbalance, and it may not be answered by just creating new internship positions. I think graduate programs are responsible for taking less students and online institutions with huge class sizes need to be held accountable.

The shortage was definitely on my mind. It motivated me to stay on schedule with my class so that I wouldn't have to compete with even more people the next year. The downside was that it contributed to my anxiety about possibly not matching because of reasons I could not control (vs. it could be more improvement in my clinical experience, more pubs, etc.).

The imbalance strikes me as a major ethical problem for the field. That said, it also seems like a fairly simple case of supply and demand that could be solved a couple of ways (i.e., reduce number of admitted students, increase number of internships, or both). It seems unlikely that there will be a sufficient number of internships if for-profit professional schools continue to admit and train large classes of students. Perhaps those programs should advertise that those students will also be required to provide financial support for themselves through the internship year, as well, to offset the burgeoning cost of training interns. Another solution may be to relax the need for all students to complete an internship in order to get their degrees and licenses. Many students come out of their doctoral programs with significant clinical experience. Perhaps participation in an internship should be voluntary for those individuals who a) accrue a set number of supervised clinical hours during graduate school, and b) demonstrate sufficient clinical acumen, commensurate with what would be expected at the close of an internship.

Despite having great clinical experiences and background, I did not match. What is most difficult, is that all of the applicants are highly qualified individuals who are undoubtedly high-achievers who are not used to "failing", if you will. The fact that the internship training year is a requirement for graduation from a doctoral program, yet there are not enough positions for this, is an unfortunate game of professional musical chairs. Between the high number of students in doctoral programs, and the difficulty for sites to become APA-approved internship sites... something's gotta give. Unfortunately it does not seem that this gap will be decreased any time soon. I live in a state which allows for an individual's school to determine if a site meets the requirements enough to be considered an internship; however, this could limit me in the future since there are not universal licensing laws across the U.S. All of these factors considered, it is unfortunate that something that should be exciting is turned into an awful situation for all involved. Even people who end up matching go through a few of the most stressful months of their lives prior to Match Day. And for those of us that don't match, it becomes a painful day which is further complicated by the fact that a day that is sad for me is so happy for some of my best friends and neither of us are able to be there for each other in the way we would like to be.

It was intimidating knowing off the bat that so many of us would not match but I'm not sure that there is a solution to this problem with the economy being what it is and positions being cut as the number of students applying increases...

I think that programs should be responsible for the matching or non-matching of their students. If a program does not have a certain percentage of their students match - for example, what ever the average is for that year, then that program should be required by APPIC to reduce the number of individuals in the follow years' incoming cohort by 10%, or some number. This policy could reduce the number of people in the large programs that are flooding the internship market with applicants.

Makes it much more stressful applying for internships, and I was shocked at the small number of sites in some areas of the country.

The imbalance leads to more competition and stress for the students. Anything that can be done to encourage sites to take on more interns to alleviate this should be done.

Adds more stress and disappointed we pay so much money to use this service but may not even get a slot

Obviously the imbalance causes some stress as you know the odds are not in the students favour, but I do not see how it can be remedied. As a trainee I would rather see fewer legitimate sites to more sites with some being illegitimate. I was confident in my training and that hopefully that it would be recognized as such and give me a slight advantage. Seeing as I was matched this may have been the case. One thing I would like to know is what exactly sites are looking for as it is not clear to whether an internship is meant for further training, or if they are looking for someone that can work for them. Being rejected from sites made me wonder if they were clearly looking for something that I could not offer. Not sure if more transparency is an option.

It made this whole process extremely stressful. I think sites would enroll less students to even out the imbalance.

I think the imbalance is part of the problem, but overall I feel that the required internship and match process is not very conductive to having a family and a life outside of graduate training. It is a huge gamble to begin laying down roots and starting your life in the area where you go to graduate school, even though many graduate students are at a time in their life when it would make sense to "live life" and find a place to call home -- instead, when you go on internship, you will likely have to pick up and move (again). I feel that this discriminates against those who have families, those who would LIKE to have families, those who have geographic limitations based on financial or health reasons, etc. It basically becomes an elitist system where only those who are single or whose partners are flexible in their employment, who have enough money to move, etc. are "good" material for matching. I think that some vast reforms need to happen to make this a more palatable, family-friendly, actualizing experience for graduate students. I am a graduate student with two children (who I had during my graduate education), and who has a partner who is very happy in his DREAM job where my graduate program happened to be located. We bought a house. We laid down roots. We took a gamble, and I only applied to internships in the area-- and fortunately for my family, I matched at a location where I will only have to drive an hour to and an hour back each day. However, this was a HUGE gamble, with the dearth of sites in our area. I had a peer with a family, partner, home and life who did not match. In sum, I think the very idea of "not limiting oneself geographically" is a ridiculous thing to ask people to do. We shouldn't have to completely sell out to obtain a PhD....we deserve to live our lives in the way that we want, AND obtain our degrees.

The imbalance between applicants and positions offered for a required part of our training is completely unacceptable. I understand and think it is acceptable to compete about where one goes, but not if one goes. The process itself is already long, expensive, time-consuming, and anxiety-provoking, and it seems unethical to add to that, the fear of not matching at all. I don't know what can be done about the situation at this point. Perhaps limit the amount of incoming students accepted to PhD and PsyD programs in order to control the growing number of applicants? If more internship spots can not be added and the number of students starting graduate programs can not be controlled, perhaps the time has come to do away with this requirement?

The imbalance between applicants and positions did have an affect on me and my husband as I completed this process. In general, it created more stress and anxiety during the application and interview process. I felt that I was sometimes encouraged to "settle" for any internship site because a match at a less desirable place (or one that wasn't a good fit) was better than no match at all. I felt disappointed in encouragement to adopt that attitude because it was important to me to find an internship that I would enjoy and that would lead to greater career opportunities that match my interests. Luckily, that happened for me but I think the attitude that "any internship is better than waiting another year" is unfortunate for our training and is a direct result of the imbalance.

I, for one, applied last year and did not match. I decided to defer and try the match again this year, despite the option to apply to the California Internship matching system(CAPIC) which is accepted by the state and my school. I also think that the system favors individuals with more of a research-future focus rather than practitioners. It also seems to me that, while matching to an internship is an imperative and important part of becoming a psychologist, not much was said at my school about this. In regards to personal experience, I have seen several of my hard-working and well-organized colleagues find themselves without an internship two years in a row (prior to this year's second match). When I survey and reflect upon those who match and those who don't, I find myself often perplexed. I have been told by myriad professors and colleagues that my not matching has come as a great shock to them, whereas they are not sure how some other folks would match when I did not. I say this not to be arrogant, but because I frankly do not understand it myself. I know that I work hard and that I have strong references. Another factor is also personal and family financial status. Of interest may be the fact that those I know who did not match are also those who, despite financial aid, still needed to work in order to survive through grad school. I am among those individuals. Because of my financial situation, even receiving maximum financial aid, I must work. The fact that my practicum pays me a stipend that works out to be around $3/hour does not help either, because I must still work in an office doing spreadsheets and paper filing -- this work does not make it onto my CV as it is not directly relevant to my skills as a clinician. What my working does show, however, is how hard-working I am and how busy I am compared to my colleagues. I realize now that I have gone on a bit of a rant with my writing here, but I also gather that the point of this question is to be direct about how frustrating the intern-internship gap is for us. The cycle of applying again and again and being rejected again and again is very wearying and irritating. This applies not just for internship, but also beginning with applying for graduate school. We apply to school, then we must apply every year for a practicum placement, and then for internship. This type of evaluation in addition to the exams and papers for classes, as well as the standardized evaluations for case presentations and exams, makes psychology graduate school an exceptionally difficult process. Particularly true as we are not paid for any of this work, including the actual working that we do (i.e., practicum). While not all of this is relevant to the matching process itself, I believe that it provides a sense of my state of mind and that of the peers with whom I have conversed on the subject. This entire process has resulted in feelings of worthlessness, doubt, powerlessness, and sadness for me; these are not feelings that are generally characteristic of me.

I am so glad this is being asked, because honestly, I feel like I have so much to share on the topic. Last year, despite being the student with the most research experience in my class, 5 practica in a VA setting, dissertation proposal completed, and strong letters, I did not match, which nobody, especially myself expected. It was completely devastating to me. Looking back, I believe I was clinically depressed for several months (as soon as I started hearing about interview through at least June). I had applied to 19 VAs (NOT geographically limited) and only received 3 interviews. Of those, one site was so unacceptable to me that I did not rank it. A decision which I haven't regretted even after not matching. Not matching devastated me for several reasons. I have been struggling financially the entire time I've been in graduate school and not matching meant yet ANOTHER year of an $8000 annual stipend and maxing out my student loans just to make ends meet. That's another $20000 approximately that I had to spend. Not including over $3000 I spent on interview travel this time around. Also, that meant another year without health/dental insurance, since I cannot afford it on my stipend. This meant putting off necessary appointments for another year. More than the finances though, this was such a huge blow for me. My identity as a student and as a future psychologist is SO important to me. I've devoted my entire adult life to it and it is a huge part of my identity. It's also the one part of my being I've been able to keep moving forward and safe no matter what else may be going on. To say that match day last year was the worst day of my life may sound like I'm being dramatic, but it truly was. It caused me to become paranoid and obsessive about my chances of matching this year. I spent the last year second guessing myself and feeling not good enough and trying to figure out where I went wrong. And most of all, I began working over 40 hours a week of JUST PRACTICUM to increase my hours. As you can imagine, this was hell as it was on top of all the other parts of graduate school and life. Self-care became impossible and yet, even after it's all said and done, I don't regret it because it was necessary. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people say hours don't matter, including Greg Keilin and my TD, both of whom I like and respect very much. This is ONLY true IF you make it past the cutoffs that sites are using (at least in the VA system). Then, it doesn't matter. Otherwise, you are cut. After my experience, I am CERTAIN that that is why I didn't match last year... Last year I had 450 intervention hours from my doc and master's program combined. This year, I had 1101. Several sites that flat out rejected me last year offered me interview this year. Indeed, I was offered interviews at 21 of the 25 sites I applied to. Many of them said that despite what may be listed in the APPIC directory or other application materials, they just reject the bottom half or third of applicants based solely on hours and only then look at the rest of the applications in entirety. Only 1 of the 25 sites I applied to shared this info in the front end, before I submitted my application, allowing me to make an informed decision. Even after my experience, I STILL hear people say that hours don't matter. They do! They matter SO much! The only way they don't matter, is if you make it past the cutoffs! To perpetuate this myth is a disservice to students, who m

There are far too many students in the field who are applying for APPIC internships. I'm not sure if this is a regulatory issue between state licensing boards, APA, and specific schools with largeer student bodies or what; however, there are a significant number of schools that have a huge student body. Perhaps something can be done to limit # of schools (especially professional schools) out there or limit the number of students at some of these schools. Maybe have regional consortia? They say there is a college for everyone. There shouldn't be a psychology doctoral program for everyone. I have also heard that in the past/ at present people who were ranked high who ranked sites high did not match anywhere. Please work to improve the algorithm.

In my experience, I believe that sites are less favorable towards counseling psychology students. Counseling Psychology students tended to be acceptable rather than preferred. Also, our training was often compared to perceived clinical "gold standard." I believe this is an unfair practice and a problem that counseling psychology students will continue to face as we continue to compete with both ph.d and psy.d clinical students. There has to come a time when internships along with post doctoral programs become more favorable towards counseling psychology students and that they beging to respect our diverse training and practicum experiences as opposed to promulgating the ideology that we are only competent enough to work in college counseling centers

This has affected me both professionally and personally. Personally, I have spent a lot of time and money preparing for a degree that I might not be able to receieve because this final piece is being held up. I have had many sleepless nights and experienced stress from the imbalance. This has affected my relationship with my fiance and even with family who don't live close by; everyone asks what my plans are and what it means that I can't get an internship. I have even started taking steps towards loan consolidation in school, and am considering leaving school at this point, because the financial burden of continuing to pay for tuition just to try for an intership again seems ridiculous. The system is not designed to benefit students, but instead puts enormous amounts of stress on us to succeed, then does not provide the support we need to actually fulfill our requirements. Professionally I have had to take on a full-time job to generate an income and to begin preparing for the possibility that this time and money has been wasted on a degree I won't get. I am working in a closely related field, and even my direct supervisior has asked why I cannot use my job as experience to fulfill the requirements for an internship. Obviously there are not enough sites for all applicants, and not enough sites in certain areas. We are told to be flexible and open to going where the sites are, but this is niether practical nor appropriate for all students. I relocated for graduate school and then was told to be ready to relocate again for an internship. I think a fatal flaw in the system is the process by which sites become accredited; it appears to be lengthy, difficult, and turns away potential sites. For example, in the State of Idaho there are only 2 APA accredited sites. This is very problematic for people who need to stay in an area for family or personal reasons. I also believe that the APA needs to begin considering alternative means to fulfill internships, like my current position as a full-time vocational rehabilitation counselor. I have more direct client contact hours in my job than most mental health professionals I know (on average I see about 5-7 clients a day, four days a week, for a full 50 minute hour). A combination of streamling the process for accreditation and allowing alternatives woudl allow more people in situations like mine to actually fulfill their degree requirements. It is frustrating and disheartening to go through so much and then to come to an end result like this, and something needs to happen soon, because the trend is getting worse. I also think that schools need to take on some accountability for students who are 'dropped' by the system, either financially or vocationally, and help us locate or develop means of meeting requirements.

In general, I feel that the large discrepancy between the number of applicants that apply for internship and the number of internship positions available sets up qualified applicants for failure. In light of this, there should be more of an effort to ensure that non-APA accredited internship programs become accredited. Moreover, academic programs should be cognizant of this discrepancy in terms of their admission procedures and, perhaps, reduce the number of individuals that they admit in to their programs. Further, while I was lucky to match in Phase I of this process, I feel that the imbalance between the number of applicants and positions, and the competition created by this imbalance, results in many people taking an extra year to gain more experience. While this extra year provides for professional/personal growth, it also comes at an economic and personal cost.

After so many years of training in this field, the uncertainty of being matched creates a significant amount of stress. I also feel that the real possibility of not being matched that exists for many applicants is very disruptive in terms of starting a family (i.e., because of increased time in the program if unmatched), and spouse/partners' living arrangement and career. The possibility of being unmatched was extremely stressful due to these factors.

It really is stressful to get to this point in the academic process to face such uncertainty. I would really like to see all the professional schools be encouraged to open clinics to provide training and low cost services to the community. And, if there is any way to help non-APA sites become APA sites, that would be great too. I am going to a non-APA site and hope that in the future this does not cause a problem with obtaining a license, but there is no guarantee. The stress of this process was unreal. Had there been enough jobs, that would have made a big difference.

The imbalance is a huge detriment to the future of our profession. Students are entering into thousands of dollars are debt, but then are not able to complete their degrees. They accrue even more debt while waiting another year to enter the match yet again. I feel that the only way to resolve this problem is for APA to step in and make some very uncomfortable decisions that many people won't like. I doubt that they will actually do this for political reasons. It's amazing to me that in a profession that requires consideration of others, our own governing board is resistant to take care of its future. They seem to keep stamping bandaids over gushing wounds, pretending like that will heal everything. How about rescinding the approval for accredited schools that consistently don't do well in the match? How about restricting class sizes for these schools? How about helping these schools set up independent internships?

It definitely adds more stress to an already stressful situation. My concern is more with unqualified applicants flooding the market, such as those emerging from professional schools who graduate 100 students a year. The stress of this process takes its toll on those applying and all with who they are close. The imbalance of sites does add to this stress.

I feel that PsyD programs have the greatest impact on this imbalance.

I matched, so I am relieved. Sadly, what should be an opportunity to receive professional training and grow in my chosen field has felt arbitrary, burdensome, disrespectful and has led me to question my career path. While I love and highly value the work I do and the training I have received thus far, this process strikes me as remarkably unfair. Year after year I see applicants that I think quite highly of not match. Our field is difficult enough, the work we do day-to-day, the investment we make in training and the decreasing pay that we are likely to receive after graduation without being asked to run a gauntlet after spending years and often hundreds of thousands of dollars on our training. We are all smart people with other options to make a living, yet we chose psychology. I did because I care deeply about the work I do, though it has meant a significant financial sacrifice. I don't know how to solve this problem, but at the moment, despite my commitment to my work and this field I would be reticent to recommend that a friend pursue this path, in large part due to my experience with the match process and even though the process went well for me.

I have shed many tears over this process. I have completed competitive externships, published articles, and am close to defending my dissertation. Unfortunately, this is the second time I have not matched. I chose a traditional Ph.D. program for graduate school with a small class size. I wanted to integrate research with clinical practice and develop mentors among the faculty. With all the responsibilities that accompany a Ph.D. program, I simply could not rack up the clinical hours as my peers from Psy.D. programs. Therefore, when it came time to apply, I have much fewer hours and I don't feel competitive on paper, even though I believe I am better prepared to be a scientist-practitioner. How many times do I have to go through this process? How much money do I have to spend? How many more years of externship do I need to complete (I'm already on my 5th externship)? APA: please help!!! Please limit admissions to APA-accredited doctoral programs. Only then can a balance between students and internship positions be attainted. Please don't let others suffer they way I have. Please. All I want is to be a practicing psychologist but I don't know if I can go through this process for a third time.

The imbalance is the single most stressful aspect of the match. Because I didn't know whether or not I would have had a paid internship for next year, I ended up taking on more part time work, which delayed my studies further. Students who are unmatched are left feeling unqualified and less skilled, which can have a significant negative emotional impact. Further, it leads to more of a competitve atmosphere with your colleagues in your program, which can be somewhat destructive. As my scholarship funding expires this year, I would have had no income next year if I had not matched. It is frustrating to realize that at your most qualified and experienced level in your graduate training you may potentially be at your most stressed financially -- it leaves you feeling that your profession is not being recognized, or respected. Also because of this, I have cautioned others from considering clincal psychology as a career path, due to the financial difficulty of it. I have been fortunate to have had financial support from family, but am certain that others without this support would have even more difficulty and stress in the program.

I think the imbalance between students and sites is only going to increase, as it has over the last few years. All of the members of my cohort and I are well aware of the issues that this causes, and it has caused us a lot of additional stress. I think a large reason for this is the large schools that admit hundreds of students a year, without being able to account for them and their ability to match to internship sites.I go to a professional school, but one that only admits a maximum of 15 students a year. My school is extremely careful about providing us with enough help and guidance to ensure we are able to get an internship. I also don't know all the requirements for becoming APPIC or APA accredited, but maybe it's too difficult or expensive of a process, making it less appealing for different sites.

I was limited geographically in where I could apply and, unfortunately, there are NO internship programs available in my city. This is unacceptable in my opinion because my university is located in this city and they produce 10 - 20 internship candidates per year. I believe it should be a requirement that a university works to create internship experiences either through the university (e.g., through an on-campus clinic) and/or through partnerships with the community. These should be available to students to other schools as well, but would work to address the imbalance in applicants to programs.

Simply, the issue is not one of not enough training sites, it is one of too many students receiving doctoral degrees in psychology. Professional schools and university greed drives the imbalance and students have to suffer as a result. Inflating the number of training sites only accommodates and encourages these schools to increase their enrollment. Do not expand the number of sites, find ways to limit doctorate factories from flooding the internship market.

This is my second year in the match, so obviously not matching last year was a big upset. I contacted sites where I interviewed to see if I could get feedback to improve for next year, however I received no feedback. Therefore, it was hard to know why I didn't match and what I needed to do in order to make myself a better candidate the next year. I know a lot of very qualified candidates who have not matched, and it is hard to know whether this is an indication of ones qualifications/experiences or just supply and demand problem.

I would limit Match Phase I to students in APA/CPA accredited programs first since these programs are what are most recognized and provide the necessary training for competent clinicians. Not to discredit non-accredited programs, however, since there is such a large and ridiculous discrepancy in the number of internship positions to number of applicants, and this is the pinnacle of our academic careers and a requirement nonetheless, it should be corrected immediately, or the number of students accepted into programs be limited, or the number of applicants be more closely monitored so that every student has the option and opportunity to be placed. Something needs to be done now instead of everyone simply saying "we know there's a problem." Lets do something about it.

I believe that the surplus of applicants to spots available is incredibly disheartening for those applying, particularly this year. I understand that this is not a perfect system and that inevitably, there will always be more people applying than spots available however, an 800 something plus surplus is truly awful. It's not encouraging at all when preparing application materials and it adds an entirely new level of anxiety to an already anxiety provoking process. It is not internship sites' fault that there have been financial cuts, yet it seems as though someone should be accountable for the many, many students who received disappointing news this past Friday. For some, an additional year farther away from having a job and getting paid is simply a luxury they cannot afford. We are all feeling the pressures of the suffering economy, none more so than graduate students who have put making money on hold for the past 4 years in an effort to seek higher education and training. What a shame that the educational process is designed to facilitate this goal only until the last, and most important, step: internship year. It is a truly unfortunate situation and I would beseech sites to continue to offer internship placements, even with an extremely reduced stipend, as it will still be an improvement to trying to find additional non-paid training for a year, or a non-related job for a year (which would not necessarily improve one's chances of matching the next year due to a "year off" or a lack of additional experience).

I am grateful in some ways for having an extra year in my program (due to not matching last year), as it allowed me to grow professionally and feel better prepared for internship. However, it made the match this year much more anxiety-provoking, as there was extra pressure to succeed.

It doesn't seem like it is a very big deal to those outside of academia. When talking to psychologists in the world about this they kind of shake their heads and say, "yeah, that sounds tough!" but APA at large doesn't really seem to care that much. What kind of a profession permits this type of a training barrier to such a large portion of its competent trainees. A few of my classmates that didn't match are a little immature, but the others are rock stars. APA's not taking this more seriously is one way that it is permitting itself to bleed unnecessarily. I am ashamed to be apart of this field in regards to how it permits this sort of barrier to highly qualified trainees.

The imbalance is terribly anxiety-provoking, adding an extra layer of uncertainty to the whole process. It also seems to place us in (perceived or real) competition with our peers, which is unfortunate.

I suspect that I have an unusual response to this issue. I think that the imbalance reflects the fact that there are too many students rather than not enough positions. I believe that training programs are doing a poor job of selecting students who are going to move the field of clinical psychology forward, instead using students to bring financial resources to their institution. There are ample excellent early career psychologists. Unfortunately, there are also ample persons who are unsuited to this profession. Let's focus not on increasing internship opportunities but instead lower the number of under-qualified students who seek internships in the first place.

made the process more anxiety-provoking

This has been a tremendously, tremendously stressful experience. I am very lucky that I matched with anywhere, and even luckier that I got my first choice. However, I have several friends who did not match and dealing with that has been tremendously stressful and emotionally exhausting. This entire process has been incredibly intense and stressful. The uncertainty and the work put into it has caused me intense anxiety, impacted my mood, made me more irritable, cause relationship stress and has impacted my health significantly. My colitis has been terrible and for the first time in my life has been debilitating during this experience. It is really too much for people. It has been too much for me. I am very pleased it is over. But it has been a terribly stressful and upsetting process.

It meant that there was more incentive to apply to and rank highly non-APA accredited sites, since it was important to get a site. I also think that the competition is higher, so that sites get more applicants and then have to use more arbitrary criteria to narrow down their list of applicants to choose who they want to interview.

The thought of having to wait another year because there are not enough positions to accommodate all the applicants is incredibly depressing. It is another year of having to go through the anxiety-provoking application process, another year of spending all that money, and delaying graduation. Being unmatched and then having to apply the next year does not help next year's applicants either since it just adds to the number of students applying for a limited number of spots. I understand that one of the solutions is to have new programs enter into the match, but there is hesitation among students to apply to those programs since they are not accredited (which affects either your degree program requirements, licensure, and/or future employment). Is there a possible solution to the accreditation issue?

It was anxiety provoking for sure. I think there are internship opportunities out there, but the politics of doing an APA internship vs a non-APA and other such pressures complicates it more. Purpose of internship is to gain specialization in your area of work. And you can always find such work (pain/unpaid/APA/Non-APA) and use it towards your internship. Also, I think many students are not aware about other alternatives to do when unmatched. So, resources and guidance on these lines may help.

Going through this process at the same time of my husband who was applying for medical residency positions, demonstrated quite a contrast that I believe was accounted for by the imbalance in psychology internship positions and applicants. I found this process to be quite stressful, knowing how competitive the sites were given the number of people applying for so few slots.

I got lucky and matched. Some in my cohort, who have put in as much time and energy (or more), did not. I think that if schools are going to accept more and more students, they should be responsible for also creating more internships- even if they are unpaid. There should be back-up options for those that do not match. I am in a PsyD program and I know that people make claims that we are the problem, but my particular program is not the main problem- it is actually the larger programs that just push people through like cattle that are problematic. In addition, if PhD programs are going to feel that clinical experience is not important, why do they encourage their students to go into the match? It would seem to me that if you want to do research, there should be a different way of getting a degree than doing an internship- perhaps those that are staying in academics or research dont need an internship since they wont need to be licensed to practice.

Makes the process more stressful for sure.

All the sites I applied to indicated a significant increase in the number of applicants this year, making this process EVEN more competitive and anxiety-provoking than previous years. It seems that the number of graduate students continues to increase due to some of the larger programs in the country. It seems that because internship sites cannot offer more positions, the programs should be required to be more selective in the number of students admitted, and hopefully the imbalance between students and sites will decrease.

No, our program has always been highly competitive with a high match rate, and this has not affected this. To date we have never had someone not go on internship during their match year.

I matched this year but went unmatched last year. Without exaggeration, I can say that not matching last year was the biggest failure experience of my life. All of my professors were shocked and I felt depressed for about two weeks. Despite having matched to an excellent site this year, I still feel bitter about it especially since the percentage of unmatched applicants topped 30% this year. I think that APPIC is very responsive to try to do everything they can to help but the problem is clearly systematic. When APA accredits programs that put 50-100 plus students on the market each year, the system has become clogged and broken. After I didn't match last year I felt like I wanted to change careers. I'm from a strong program and I am an above average student at my program and then I am told that I'm not worthy to go on to the next level of my career via email. I've let go of most of that now but I know of people in other programs who went unmatched for a second year in a row. The system is failing a large percentage of great applicants on a regular basis. Yet, disreputable accredited programs continue to flood the market.

The current imbalance is EXTREMELY stressful. The internship process should be the exciting final step to our training as psychologists. However, it is increasingly becoming a huge hurdle to completing a degree. To invest years of hard work in graduate school and then still face the possibility of not getting an internship because of the imbalance and having to delay completion of your degree is horrifying. It makes the whole application and match process ridiculously stressful. All applicants are aware of the imbalance. We know that 1 in 4 of us will not match initially just because of the numbers. That is insane!! Good candidates are unfortunately shafted by this imbalance. I have seen the stress this causes to classmates in previous years who had to enter the clearinghouse.

What a horrible process. I have been unable or unwilling to really celebrate my own success (which I earned though working hard as an extern at the site I matched at for internship) because nearly half of those in my program did not match, and more than half of those in my current academic year did not match. These are smart men and women, many of whom have families with children and are geographically restricted, who are now forced to choose between limiting their career options and going somewhere unaccredited without using matching services again, or wasting a year of training. The amount of stress created through this process has been absolutely miserable.

I worry about "degree mill" programs that accept large numbers of students and charge hefty tuitions without apparent concern for the career prospects of their graduates. Regardless of quality of training at these programs, the debt to expected pay ratio for many of these students is troubling. Though I could be wrong, the imbalance between applicants and positions strikes me as another symptom of these large enrollment programs, and I have great sympathy for in-debt students who find themselves without a paid, accredited internship.

This whole process has affected me emotionally, financially, and even on making personal decisions. It is ridicules to have such a large space between the process dates and interviews and the time we start! Interviews in January are hard to get due to airports closing down. I have a family! I cant afford to be stuck in the middle of a place I don't have anyone and wait until a plane is allowed to leave. I also have postponed planning my second child because I don't want to be pregnant during interviews. and i still didn't match. This affects us in all ways and many sites take it for granted. We are financially poor and some sites make you travel and don't even offer you a snack. The whole system is horrible!! There are many great candidate that are discriminated against for being moms, pregnant, from a small school, race, or undergrad studies in a different country. I'm am for sure I didn't receive interviews to small cities such as Battle Creek or Little Rock because I'm Hispanic and viewed in my CV, although born and raised from a military family, as just arriving in 2002. Please this has to stop! My family suffers, my husband, parents,in-laws and even my little child is put under stress due to this application process and no guarantee of matching because so little sites are available! I feel that the discrimination should be looked into! check how many moms match, how many don't, add an item in this survey to know where undergrad was finished. analyse the situation and tell program directors when their students don't match to market the program better. my school may have bad students but there are some like me and my friend that are trying their best to do everything to be seen, and its not working!

It seems entirely unfair that as students we put so much time, work & money into schooling & yet can potentially not be placed for internship. The medical school community seems to have a better grasp on how many students they take in and how many placements they maintain as available for whatever position it is their matching service matches them with.