Comments about Imbalance - Page 7

I think the imbalance is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Effectively we have the risk of a terminal PhD.

The imbalance only affected me through anxiety because I was able to match to an excellent site, my top choice. However, there are many close to me that did not match and thus their lives have been forever affected and must make potentially life-changing decisions (leaving family, delaying internship which may mean delaying having a family, moving, jobs, etc) due to this situation. It is disappointing that as a community we have not been able to identify the problem and/or find a solution. No one likes to talk about things like professional schools, Psy.D. vs Ph.D. because that brings it back to the system being a problem, but having that information available to students can help them make a decision about where to pursue their degree. Do Ph.D. students have an advantage over Psy.D. or vice versa, in what clinical environments is one or the other favored? Are students at professional schools at a disadvantage to those in academically based programs? When was the last time the system was balanced? What was the average incoming class at that point? The average pool of applicants increased 37% since 2002 but the number of sites only increased 15% - see the problem? Limiting the number of applicants to internship may or may not work, but what about a student to professor ratio requirement? A cap on the number of students a program can take either based on faculty, number of students matched the previous year. Sort of like an in/out policy, if 6 leave for internship then you can take 6, if 15 leave for internship then you can take 15. Good luck.

It goes without saying that there is a tremendous imbalance between the number of applicants to available positions and I (and many others I know) did not match during Phase I. I personally devoted a great deal of time and energy to my materials and application and to walk away with nothing to show for it is quite upsetting. That one third of applicants did not match to an internship is disturbing and highlights a problem that needs to be addressed immediately.

There continues to be a signficant discrepancy between the number of students applying to the Match and the number of available positions. This is a concern for me as a recent participant, but is also concerning for the profession as a whole. I hope that sites will continue to expand and new sites will be added in order to meet the growing demand.

The level of stress that I experienced this year as a result of this imbalance cannot be underestimated. I consider myself to be quite good with self-care, and compared with many of my colleagues I am not at all type-A. However, the stress I felt at the possibility of not matching was almost unmanageable at times. My academic program is suffering from vicarious trauma, as we have watched excellent candidates fail to match in the recent past for no obvious reason, and this has sent a wave of panic through the students. Students are more competitive with one another, instead of being cooperative, and I would include myself in that scenario. I consider myself to be a relational therapist and person, and this is not my normal way of being, but I felt it necessary to keep things private for fear of not matching. There is something very disconcerting about the fact that one can be a good candidate and do everything they are supposed to do, and still not match anywhere. This really does not make sense, and leaves students feeling helpless and sometimes hopeless about their chances.

This was an extremely stressful process and made it difficult to make plans for next year. Whether to sell a house, what my partner would have to plan for next year. Students within the program became more competitive. This interfered with research. The technology/web desgin should be updated to make it easier to use and make seraches more accurate.

I felt that although there are several options that are available for students to match to, other sites should be accredited at this point but are not because of funding and paperwork. The expense for accreditation is minimal in comparison to the extended tuition that students must pay if they are forced to remain in a doctoral program for an additional year. The shortage of sites reflects poorly on our degrees, and on our profession as a whole. If more sites are not attainable, I feel it is the ethical responsibility of psychology programs around the US and Canada to be more astringent in their application procedures, or to diminish the number of accepted applicants to their programs.

The inbalance between number of internship positions and applicants has led me to feel as though the psychological community (e.g., APA) is not investing enough resources into the profession. It is highly stressful and it seems that Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs may want to have their own individual match programs.

I am very happy to have matched but very sad that not all of my friends matched. It really is unfortunate that the imbalance is so pronounced. I think that there is still a certain amount of denial around the competetiveness of this process. I feel that had I known what I know now I would have applied to even more sites because it really is difficult to get interiews and to match. I think that advice that is circulating about applying to 12-15 sites is misleading. If I were to give someone about to do this advice, I would encourage them to apply to as many sites as they think would be fitting as they can. The financial hit for applying to more sites should be reduced in light of the match imbalance. We really need to cast a very wide net to achieve a match.

Alhtough I was fortunate enough to obtain a match, the imbalance crisis is a serious concern. Personally, the level of anxiety and doubt that I experienced the past few months was extremely heightened throughout this process because of the real possibility of not matching, based on statistics alone. I strongly believe that the addition of the large, free-standing, expensive programs is an immense problem. I believe that a psychologist is someone who should have extensive, specialized training. By allowing a huge influx of students (and eventually employed professionals), as a field we are essentially lowering our standards for psychology, as a discipline and as mental health providers. This really disturbs me because I hold our field and my eventual role as a psychologist to a high standard. I understand that we cannot regulate everything as a field, but it seems like more should be done. Ultimately, I do not blame the students - as an undergrad applying for graduate schools, I do not think I even understand what internship was! Adequate eduation to potential students is extremely important - then if a student goes to a poor graduate program, they will be choosing so with the knowledge that they have a lesser chance of matching. It seems so unfair to me that excellent students who have invested plenty of money, time, and effort do not match. Another potential alternative, which I believe has been addressed, is to attempt to expand the number of sites who are willing to take on interns. It seems like one area that is not represented are private practice businesses. I honestly don't know enough about these setting to hypothesize how intern programs could be implemented in these settings, but it seems that there would have to be some incentive for the business itself, in order to peak their interest. alright enough of my rambling, but I am thankful that this problem is being addressed and hopeful that match rates will improve.

One of the biggest lessons learned throughout this process is that no matter how great you look on paper, social skills and the ability to control overt anxiety is the key to good interviewing. I have also heard from many that this is also what makes you stand out from other applicants and is the key to matching.

This process took a great deal of time and money. It was unbelievable to friends and family outside of the psychology community, that this amount of time, resources and stress was required to complete a requirement of my graduate program. While I am happy and relieved to have matched, many others did not, and I cannot imagine the stress that they must experience.

This is a big concern of mine and impacted my final match result.

I am lucky in that I do not need an APA internship to graduate my program. However, I still was interested in an internship. I am so frustrated with the process. Since when is getting into a doctoral program not enough? Since when is one of our biggest supporting institutions going to make it fairly impossible to get something that is "necessary"? Frankly, I think its rude and pajorative. We should be coming together as clinicians to promote the best mental health care possible, not fighting against one another. We sacrafice a lot going into these kinds of programs, and although this is understandable, I think there should be a limit. We work hard to get in, work hard throughout, we should all be able to get APA internships if we want or need them. No other profession has a system like this.

The impact on me personally has been to increase my anxiety over the course of graduate school as to whether or not I would match. It's hard to work as steadily and intensely as graduate students often do, and yet still feel that so much of our future is out of our control. I also think that I was unaware of what a weight the internship application process is when I applied to PhD programs, and didn't fully appreciate how heavy the pressure becomes when internship is the last step between oneself and finishing school. I'm not sure how this could be communicated more effectively to potential graduate students, but for me there was a disconnect between the importance placed on internship at the grad school application phase and the importance that internship truly has as a necessary final stage in grad school. As long as the imbalance remains as it is, this disconnect will continue since there will be no guarantee of matching at an internship program.

The lack of sufficient accredited positions places an enormous strain on each applicant to achieve perfection in this process. I find myself mystified at the amount of energy I have put into a position that only pays $25000 and is not even the final step to licensure. (Post-docs, I hear, are even worse.) I know an outstanding candidate from my program who did not match this year. Because of the imbalance, the training sites have no need to attempt to improve the quality of life for their interns. Most sites are routinely overworking their interns, and don't even try to hide it.

I think the professional community needs to recruit more sites for internship placements. This produces way too much anxiety.

I am too angry with the results to answer this question right now.

The lack of internship sites has greatly affected me in that it now makes it extremely difficult to meet this requirement for gradutation. This shortage in internship should be communiticated to schools and their prospectice students prior to applying for graduate school. Or there should be a push from APA to gain federal funding like the American Medical Association to create more internship positions. Until either end changes, the field of psychology will continue to be oversaturated. Which will eventually deteer future generations of clinicians to choose alternative career paths.

I have observed that the imbalance has resulted in extreme stress for applicants throughout the process. Because applicants generally believe that any match is better than no match, many are inclined to misrepresent their goals, interests, strengths, values, and personal traits to suit the site in question. If the latter qualities are indeed important for a successful internship year, the imbalance between sites and applicants undermines the central purpose of the match. Furthermore, the process of exploring one’s genuine ambitions, strengths, and potential contribution to society as a psychologist is impeded by the desperate need to match. Applying for internship could potentially be an exciting and organic process leading to a personally meaningful career path. Indeed, for many applicants, this may be the case. However, the imbalance between sites and applicants often encourages dissociation from one’s sense of personal and professional identity to appear as the ideal candidate for the positions in question. As a result, stress, confusion, and lack of clear career ambitions often ensue, even for those who match to their first choice. In terms of improving the situation, restricting the number of applicants accepted to clinical psychology programs may be one possibility. More terminal clinical psychology MA programs could then be introduced to accommodate the need for mental health clinicians and the abundance of undergraduate psychology students interested in clinical work.

Yes, I worked hard to specialize sooner, gain more research experience, present at conferences, learn field-specific assessments and treatments, and attend several professional meetings to learn more and meet professionals. I have worked hard to maximize my potential and do all I can to make me the most qualified applicant so that I would be more likely to fit with the qualified sites to which I was applying. This has had a predominately positive impact on my knowledge and competence, but has been a large drain on my finances and time. Other students have observed my efforts and have asked me to mentor them in how to creatively seek out training in their areas of interest.

I had a horrible experience last year not matching. I wish that schools would not accept so many people in the first place when they KNOW that it will be very difficult for everyone to complete their education.

This was the most stressful part of the process. I believe that the students in my program, and this sentiment is shared with our undergraduates, views Psy.D. programs very negatively. Many of the programs accept so many students that we question the quality of the programs. We also have to compete with these students for internship spots as well as externship placements. We have lost a large number of externships due to budget cuts, but also because there are so many people willing work for free that these sites would rather hire them than pay us. The solution for our externship loss is that students will have assistantships in the department, so they receive a stipend, and they will have another 20/week unpaid externship for experience. I was never concerned about having fewer hours on my application than Psy.D. students, because I know that I had very good supervision and quality placements. However, I am happy that I am able to graduate now, without having to basically have two assistantships. I do not have any suggestions on how to improve the imbalance,but I spent much more money and applied to more sites than I should have needed to due to the fear of not matching because of the imbalance.

I think it is incredibly infuriating (and nerve-racking) to know about the imbalance (and I am concerned about the funnel affect that each year those who don't match will just create an even greater pool of applicants). I think that graduate programs should limit their numbers so that there is less imbalance.

It was disappointing to see that I had worked so hard for so long only to have a highly competitive exit from graduate school. I was most disappointed that the professional field has been unable to address this problem and "take care of their own."

Thankfully I have not been impacted by this staggering statistic, but I believe that the entire system is extremely flawed. I do not believe that APA should hold the "possibly unattainable" internship position over our heads if such positions are not available to ALL students.

Overall, I would say that I had a very negative experience trying to obtain an internship both years I participated in the match even though I received a placement my second year. First of all, I think the system favors students from programs that have involved/interested faculty. My department did nothing, and has done nothing, in the past to help students prepare for and obtain internships. They do not review CV’s, hold mock interviews, or help students build connections with potential internship training staff through conferences, collaborative projects, etc. I think students that do have this experience have a significant advantage especially in this type of highly competitive market. I think the APA should consider this behavior by programs as a factor towards (non)accreditation when conducting university site visits. Since internship is a requirement to graduate, programs should be penalized for not helping students graduate. On a related note, I also think that due to the extreme imbalance that the APA should reconsider requiring an internship be a requirement for graduation. It is an extremely unreasonable rule to require an internship for graduation and yet not have enough opportunities for students to meet this requirement. It forces students (already at a disadvantage, with no power) to take on more student loans for additional years in grad school, and take on additional expenses to continue applying and traveling for internship interviews. Overall, I do not think that an internship is appropriate for all psychology graduate students. Some want to go into academia/research positions, some into clinical practice, etc. Making this blanket requirement causes the bottleneck we have now where students are just trying to get out of school but cannot because we are all competing for the same positions regardless of fit. I think there are a few options. 1) the requirement should be lifted and students can graduate after completing coursework and program hurdles. Students wanting to pursue licensure can pursue clinical internships as post-graduate work and students wanting to go into academia can pursue research post-doc work as is typical after internship. Or 2) the APA requires a creation of a broader range of internship types (accredited and nonaccredited) and more specific guidelines about what types of students can apply for specific types of internships. This way more research focused internships can be created and students interested in academia can pursue these sites while only students interested in licensure can pursue APA accredited clinical sites. I think this would help funnel students in the right direction instead of pushing everyone to fit into the same internship experience. I met many research oriented students during interviews that did not want a clinical internship yet were pursuing one, or already in one, because it was required. Finally, I think interviews should either be rescheduled for a different time of year or should be held in one central location at one time point. I do not understand why interviews take place in the month of January when this is the absolute worst month to travel (due to weather) no matter what state you traveling from/to. Both years I participated in the match I was in a car accident (both times my car was totaled) trying to travel through snow storms to get to my interviews because sites refused to cancel them. Even though these accidents were not my fault, it

I start by saying that there is no other profession I would rather be in than clinicial psychology. I genuinely feel that I have been well-trained and prepared not only to treat mental illness, but also use assessment and research to inform my treatment choices. It has been an amazing experience and I am hopeful for an exciting and fulfilling career in this field. That being said, my stress levels leading up to the Match date were through the roof. As a result of the imbalance of applicants to positions I am increasingly hearing the application process be referred to as a "crap shoot." For myself, I felt a sense of arbitrainess as to whether or not I would be selected for an interview. It was a horrible feeling to think that even though I did my best and I had all the credentials to excel at any of the sites I applied to, that it might not be good enough. More disturbing was my sense that because sites are inundated with more applications than ever (every place I interviewed made a point to say they recieved a record number of applicants), that they were also screening applicants more superficially. I believe these issues may be most relevant to those of us who limited our applications to sites that were APA accredited, but maybe not. I say this because there are a number of opportunities that clinical psychologists are no longer eligible for if we do not train at an APA site. In my research for jobs following internship, I'm finding the only ones exclusively offered to registered/licensed psychologists (and there don't seem to be many outside the VA) require that you went to an APA accredited internship. On the other hand, the majority of mental health jobs I've researched don't care if you went to an accredited training site; however, they also don't seem to differentiate between a Phd, PsyD, MSW, LCSW, MFT. I've heard the proposed remedy of increasing the number of APA accredited traing sites, but to me, this only postpones the imbalance. It does not address how the PhD/PsyD continues to be perceived as equal to a 2 year graduate degree in the field at large, a major issue that cannot be addressed in this comment alone. I recently saw a video clip on YouTube, "so you want to be a clinical psychologist?" that speaks to this issue and essentially derides our profession. I whole-heartedly value my (future) degree and am hopeful that this generation of clinical psychologists are able to successfully uphold and negotiate all the respect it deserves.

I question the application process to Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs in general. If there are not enough internship sites to match applicants to, then it seems like programs should be more stringent in their own application and selection process to their respective programs. It does a disservice to the graduate student and professional to accept them into a rigorous program with a potential chance of not being accepted for clinical internship, thus delaying an already lengthy process of achieving the doctorate degree.

I feel that the imbalance places additional stress on students. Similarly, I feel that students also feel the pressure from their schools to match to an internship. By the time students apply for internship, they have devoted several years to classes and practicums. Overall, these students are deserving of an internship and I imagine it is extremely frustrating to put your life on hold for a year.

As with most internship applicants, I have serious concerns over the imbalance between sites and students. Obviously, this is nothing that can be fixed overnight but it cannot be ignored. The application process and selection process went smoothly for me this year, but I remember the disappointment I experienced last year and empathize with those in the same position now. Personally, I have always been a hard worker and one who prides myself in doing everything with excellence. I was surprised that I did not match last year, but I realize it was not personal, but rather "the nature of the beast." I was really disappointed that I would not be able to get on with my life, I felt like I had been held back (like a child in kindergarten who didn't meet certain standards). One of the saddest things for me is that I am not able to graduate with all of my cohort members this year. Additionally, my husband and I have had to take out additional loans in order to pay for our living expenses since I decided to gain more unpaid clinical experience in order to make myself more competitive for this year's match. Fortunately, that paid off but we are another $10,000 in debt. A few students in my program did not match for two consecutive years and ultimately created their own internship programs at a local community mental health center. I was unwilling to do this because I have a strong desire to work within a Veteran Affairs Medical Center, which would not be possible if I created an internship or accepted a non-accredited internship. I think it is sad that at this point in our training, we have to make those types of decisions (whether to take a non-accredited internship in order to graduate on time or to wait a year in order to make sure you don't close any doors for future employment/licensure). This time last year, I would have been more than willing to take an APA unpaid position in order to save a year of my working life. Although I understand reasons APA is opposed to this, I have been working for free this past year anyway in order to gain more experience. If that had been possible, I would be graduating this spring and either be pursuing a post-doc internship and/or licensure. In conclusion, I don't have any specific answers to the problem, but I think it's important to consider students' perspectives. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

Well, just reading the question made me tear up. I was really lucky to match this year, but the stress of putting off having a family and working for five years as hard as you can only to be faced with not being able to complete your degree and move on with your life is extremely frustrating. So much time, energy, money, and sacrifice goes into attaining a PhD in clinical psychology, it seems ludicrous that we are now in a position where 30% of our students cannot finish their degrees in a timely manner. And the stress of the process as well as the considerable stress of not matching cannot be ignored. We are in fact mental health professionals.

It has made the process of becoming a psychologist much more stressful for me and also other students I know. Even though I matched the first time around, it has been very distressful the past couple of years wondering if I would and what would happen if I did not, especially after seeing many of my well-qualified peers have to go through the process twice or risk not completing an accredited internship. Also, I think it results in students having to go into greater debt if they do not match, which is unfair given the financial burden that is already placed on many of us, particularly first-generation college students. I hope that something is actively done about this, such as by limiting the number of students that doctoral programs can accept to be APA-approved and by increasing the number of accredited internships/ positions.

It was incredibly stressful and an overall burden on my quality of life. My family and friends were supportive, but there was little they could say to assuage the frustrations. I was unable to attend to much of my graduate work during the process either. Moreover, the trauma of waiting for match results means that I will need recovery time, further reducing my work productivity in the Spring. I appreciate the final outcome, but this situation is unacceptable, especially for a mental health field.

It makes this process even more anxiety-provoking than it already is, especially since the imbalance keeps getting larger and larger. Something really needs to be done.

I decided to find a career that did not require a pre-doctoral psychology internship.

It's been discouraging and depressing. I matched this year, but I was rejected the past two years.

I was not matched, which can speak to the fact that there is a need for more placements to create more balance for the future. Also, since I am in a Forensic program, it would be nice to have some placements that are Forensic, but not necessarily prisons.

1. Dr. Greg Keilin did a wonderful job. 2. The ratio of internship spots to applicants is incredibly out of proportion. Roughly, 1 in 4 applicants did not match during Phase I. I believe the community should spend a substantial amount of time considering ways to remedy this issue. I believe their our incredibly too many applicants. I feel their should be more regulations on professional psychology programs. For example, they should have their own governing body and sites for internships.

The imbalance increases the stress on an already stressful situation. It has affected several aspects of my life. I applied to many more programs than I would've if there was not a shortage which means spending more money and less time on each application. It was an anxious time waiting for match day with part of the worry coming from if I would get an internship at all even though I've worked hard for years and have good qualifications. That is not the case in many other professions. Medical students are not in the same position when matching with residencies and they get paid much better. And the high demand for positions keeps the stipends disgustingly low. Our professional field is so poorly paid while we work alongside people who are making over 3 times our stipend. An $18,000 stipend is not reasonable for 5 years of graduate education. It should be required that our stipends are higher before a site is accredited (which I understand means less spots but that also speaks to the alarming number of applicants). There are too many applicants especially from PsyD programs. And while training may be decent at some places there is a much larger variability and they are not contributing to the number of positions. I think it should be required that those types of schools should have to provide APA-accredited internship sites (or help sites become accredited) before they can have their students apply. The system needs to balance itself. We cannot expect the institutions (hospitals, counseling centers...) to take on all the responsibility. We must set applicants up to succeed from the beginning of the process and although I know it's driven by making money at these schools, (even though psychologists say they aren't in it for the money) it weakens the profession.

It seems supremely unfair that there are hundreds of unmatched students each year. This knowledge certainly caused me great emotional stress from considering the possibility that I may not match. I believe programs should admit fewer students each year so that there is not this great imbalance in available positions. I also think there are many facilities which could host great internship experiences but don't have the funding to support this. I'm not sure how this works, but money should be directed toward these entities.

I would very much like APA to set caps on the number of students that can be admitted each year to a graduate program. I think that the imbalance makes it so that good candidates can easily fall through the cracks which should not be the case. If a student is well prepared for internship they should have no trouble getting an internship to complete their training. The increase in the number of students from professional programs has put a great strain on students from traditional programs. Either the number sites needs to increase or the number of students needs to decrease. I have been told that one suggested solution is to offer unpaid accredited internships. I think that is an inexcusable solution. Every other health profession is able to pay students when doing comparable training, and I think that moving to unpaid internships would be insulting. I think the level of fear associated with the process is disproportionate to what it should be. Two years ago, two very well qualified students in my program did not match. This broke our program's security that "we always match" and has increased the anxiety in my program. I myself did not suffer from the imbalance and received my first choice out all internships to which I applied, so the system is not entirely flawed.

This is my second time participating in the Match process and I have to say it has been a difficult and stressful experience both times given the current imbalance. Between family obligations and pressures, student loan debt, and feeling my life was on pause for a year for no understandable reason, I am frustrated not only for myself but for the students who will come after me. I feel that participating sites have the benefit of grilling students beyond what is beneficial or logical when it comes to narrowing their list of choices...in other words it has become a system that ultimately benefits sites as they have an inordinate amount of power and ability to be so choosy that students with appropriate training and goals are left feeling inadequate, disillusioned, and on their own. It is difficult to understand how a field that seeks to support human beings can set up such an inhumane system that leaves so many students out in the cold (more than is statistically appropriate or reasonable). I also struggle to understand how APPIC can charge so many students (approx. 25%) the current fees knowing that these students will not match, not because they are not suitable for an internship, but because there are simply not enough sites. It would be easier to understand if the imbalance were %5 or maybe even 10%...but 25% is staggering and I shutter to think the amount of money that is collected from individuals who are simply at the mercy of a system that works like a game of musical chairs.

-Applicants with tremendous skills, and friends/colleagues of mine, were not matched the first go around. This has coloured my own success/luck insomuch as I both celebrate and am concerned. -The disparity concerns me, but there are several programs out there that do not prepare students are subject them to the rigor in training and clinical experience that others do. I both understand the disparity and am angered by it -- if many capable, well-trained students are displaced and left unmatched when other less trained individuals are matched then I think this should not be so. However, it is hard to denote this.

I'm not sure how to improve the situation, but it has caused intense anxiety among the students in my doctoral program. I applied to many sites to maximize my chances of matching. While I matched, one of the members of my cohort didn't and that has been crushing to watch. The most difficult thing about the imbalance is knowing that we cannot complete our degrees without an internship, and having to put that off for a year is financially, emotionally, and psychologically challenging. It also adds undue burden to those who do not match. I do think that the huge number of students admitted to PsyD programs is part of the problem, and wish that degree granting institutions took the imbalance into account when admitted students into their programs.

Yes, the imbalance impacts every graduate student in psychology. Even though I knew I was a qualified candidate and have received excellent training, knowing about the imbalance made this process very stressful. The fact that certain programs are psychologist factories that take in over 100 students is completely unfair. Living in a city with one of these programs, I sometimes found myself even competing for practicum positions due to the fact that this school was flooding the local market. These programs also make it look like they have a higher match rate because of the number of interns they place in unaccredited internships. We have an accreditation process for a reason, and I don't think the solution to fixing the imbalance is to have programs create positions for their students. I think if a program does not have more than 70% of their students match to an accredited internship program, they should be forced to limit their incoming class to the number of students they had match to an accredited internship that year. A doctoral degree is supposed to be something special reserved for a small group of people with superior training in their field, and it is just not possible to receive a high quality of training when you are 1 of 150 people in an incoming class.

The applicant/position imbalance adds an enormous degree of stress to the process. Rather than have most of the worry of not finding an internship be eliminated when interviews start to roll on, it is prolonged right down to the moment of the match. I am also in a close-knit cohort, so even when I was able to feel pretty good, I bore a lot of anxiety and worry for my classmates and friends.

I think the imbalance created quite a bit of anxiety for me and for the other students applying, particularly those of us with geographic restrictions. It's particularly challenging for those of us in scientist-practitioner PhD programs to compete in terms of hours, and forced us to get more clinical hours than previous students. Personally, I enjoy clinical work, so it wasn't too much of a burden, but clinical work certainly took away from my time to complete program requirements (dissertation and research). It is very hard to compete in terms of hours with the PsyD and more clinically based PhD programs in terms of hours. We are concerned that the quality of our education is not considered as highly as the quantity of other students' hours. There need to be more sites that accept/prefer students from research-oriented programs.

This process was very anxiety-provoking, especially after receiving the information regarding how many more applicants there are than sites. I believe that academic institutions should restrict the number of applicants which they take on every year. In addition, I believe that the APA application process should be made more user-friendly and less costly to encourage more sites to receive accreditation.

I overspent on travelling to 11 interviews because I was terrified that if I turned down an interview and didn't match, that I would never forgive myself. This was a major expense that is an undue burden on underfunded students. Furthermore, I was away from home for about a month.

To use the word of my classmate and close friend who did not match in phase I, the imbalance in the number of applicants and sites is disheartening. She applied to sites that were a good fit with her experience and interests, she had strong intervention and assessment experience and strong application materials. As she is applying for phase II, she has received feedback from her advisor and our training director that there are few if any modifications she can make to her application materials to improve them. She is a strong applicant and yet she may not get matched. For students who have already added an extra year to their graduate training to boost their vita and get additional training hours it leaves them feeling helpless and rejected. It also feels as though APA, APPIC and the field of psychology are doing little to help the situation with this year's disparity being the largest ever. It should be more difficult to get into graduate school than to get an internship as internship is the last phase of graduate training. Perhaps one way to limit the number of number of applicants for internships is to limit the number of students admitted to graduate schools as opposed to trying to increase the number of internships. Programs that have classes of 50 or more students are doing a disservice to those students in terms of the number of training opportunities available for those students and in the promise that those student will eventually match with an internship site. While APA chooses to accredit such programs, it is condoning the large number of applicants being placed into the already large pool of students who may need to extend their graduate training and debt due to not being matched for an internship. As it seems that the disparity will continue to grow, perhaps considering graduate school admissions is a place to start.

Adds way too much stress to the process. It is entirely foolish and idiotic to require an internship, and not offer enough internships for everyone.

It is frustrating to know that after so many years of training and after jumping through so many hoops that there is a chance we won’t match. It is also frustrated to think of having to up root your life and move to a new city just in get a match at this point in our lives when people are starting families. That being said, neither of those things happened to me, so I am not complaining. But, those are thoughts that I had throughout the process.

It definitely added stress to the process knowing that there are so many qualified individuals, and so few training opportunities. It was just another factor that made me really spend a lot of time combing through my application to make sure everything was perfect. It is frustrating to think that you could spend all of this time and money and not have the opportunity to complete required training.

It caused me a lot of stress that I feel was very unfair due to the fact that it was about holding the degree hostage, and not about earning a doctorate.

Yes. The imbalance has been a huge source of stress to myself, my family and to my colleagues. It would seem that APA and APPIC could speed up the process by which sites are approved (esp. APA which requires several years of un-approved graduates before approval is given). The student perception is that APPIC and APA would prefer to reduce the number of programs/students then to increase the number of sites for matching. It is an unethical travesty that individuals can devote 10 years and 100,000 to training and fail to achieve a Ph.D. and licensure due to a systemically created problem. While I had the privaledge of matching, colleagues and friends of equal worth and even superior skill remain unmatched and this is our collective failure which is being given a lot of lip service, but the action is entirely too slow, too little and too late. Crisis requires immediate action and APA and APPIC should rise to that occasion rather than fail students. In light of the imbalance, the costs of registration, applications and travel are really ridiculous, as students sacrifice thousands of dollars, possibly for no match. The financial burden from applications, registration and travel make the process much more difficult for the non-privaledged, the working poor, the minority status individuals, for students who are also parents and caregivers. These are the individuals who bring a wealth of maturity and wisdom, diversity and experience to a field which is greatly lacking diversity. Yet these are the individuals who are often shut out of the process due to the funding difficulties, the logistics of two months of interviews, the financial, physical and emotional costs. In a world of Skype, the APA and APPIC should encourage sites to consider the social justice of making themselves more available for distance applicants.

I did not match the first time I applied and I am a good student with solid clinical and research experiences. This has taken a toll on my life because it is yet another year of no salary and student loans. I have a family to support and would like to move on with my life.

I think the imbalance puts an enormous amount of pressure on both students and sites. The burden for students is multi-layered. Students apply to many more sites than they are interested in due to competition. But this only drives up the number of applications for each site to review. They in turn need to determine how to filter through a stack of very qualified applicants. If a student does not match, there are financial, emotional and potentially social consequences. A good friend and classmate did not match this year who is truly a phenomenal clinician, academic, etc. She is second guessing many aspects of her application, her interviews and her qualities as a future psychologist. Further, I withdrew my application because I received 1 interview out of 17 sites. I spent the fall working diligently on my application and sent it to numerous faculty, supervisors, and colleagues for review. After giving some useful feedback, these individuals felt that I had a strong, interesting, and diverse application. They enthusiastically supported it. Moreover, my recommendation letters were all outstanding and I have a high gpa. My program has a 90+% match rate. Nor have I encountered interpersonal difficulties during my training. The feedback I received afterward concerned the fact that I mentioned having a young child in my application. Some worried that this might have deterred sites from interviewing me because of perceived unavailability compared to applicants without children. I welcome other constructive feedback in order to change my essays for next year and I plan to continue looking into how I might alter my application. However, I felt it might also be useful to share my experience as it stands now, in case others have experienced something similar.

On my interview days I was very overwhelmed by the numbers of applicants being interviewed for such limited numbers of positions. I wondered how the interviewers could possibly remember each applicant well enough to rank them. In my case there were few sites offering my specialty area and those sites seemed to be flooded with applications. I feel lucky to have gotten interviews, yet feel that my chances of landing an internship position at one of these sites even in the second time participating in the match is really "luck of the draw". It's up to what the interviewers remember of the many applicants they have interviewed and up to the ways in which they choose to narrow that number to a rank order list. I feel that the imbalance of internship sites to the numbers of applicants is forcing applicants to take internship sites that are either not APA accredited which are still within their area of interest or sites which are not in their area of interest but are still APA accredited or causing them to repeat the internship process multiple times in hope of landing one of the few sites that are the perfect fit for their interests and carreer direction. I find myself in this dilemma and will repeat the match next year in the hope of being matched with a site in my area of interest which is also APA accredited. If I am not matched I will have to take a local, non APA accredited, site which is in my area of interest.

It's just a terrifying process and creates a lot of anxiety for the applicants and their loved ones. I can see how this experience (and not being matched) can potentially have the power to negatively impact self esteem and self confidence

I believe the shortage makes students even more stressed and apply to places they would not like to attend just so they can get an internship.

Overall, the internship application process was the most stressful thing I have ever undertaken in my life. It feels like such a "high stakes" process because securing an internship is required for completion of the doctoral degree. Because of this, I applied to a high number of internship programs and, luckily, secured a high number of interviews. I felt compelled to go on a high number of interviews (15 out of 17) in order to increase my chances of matching. I exhausted myself physically, emotionally, and financially doing this. However, I did not want to have any regrets about the process if I didn't match. The internship application, interview, and match process is harrowing, and resembles hazing. I am a competent student who had a very successful experience, but I cannot imagine what it is like for students who are not as competent in navigating the process.

The difference between the number of positions and amount of applicants frightened me. Since I matched, it didn't impact me very much personally, but it is still scary. Personally, I think many programs (including my own) accept too many students each year, which inflates the amount of students applying for internship each year. Schools should become more selective in accepting students, which would help this imbalance. Each year qualified students don't match while other students who are not as qualified "luck out."

I wasn't really concerned about it because I was pretty sure I would match. It doesn't make sense why APA can't regulate this. Don't accredit programs where people don't match.

I came into the process knowing about the unbalance. It added to my stress level and made me think continually worry about whether I would match. It was hard to have faith in the match when you know that there are more applicants than positions.

We take all required classes and receive training and the possibility of not matching the first time makes me anxious. The internship process is frustrating and anxiety provoking and I cannot imagine having to do this 2 or 3 times. If I did not match, that would mean putting my life on hold for one year and frankly it seems like a waste of time.

I think that I have sought out good training in a Clinical Ph.D. program so that I could maximize the likelihood of matching. However, this imbalance does create notable anxiety in the face of many students who have invested several years toward graduate training. Failure to match could obviously be associated with significant stress and feelings of being setback. It seems that a large part of the problem is professional schools that take in so many students. It seems that APPI should see if there are trends of particular people who don't match and go from there (which I assume is already done). In general though, I think people in my program have confidence that we/they will match, yet there is always a bit of doubt in case the process does not work out.

The imbalance has put a great deal of strain on my fellow graduate students and on me. While we have had 100% match rate since I began grad school 6 years ago, last year only 2 of 6 students matched in the match, and 1 found an accredited position during the clearinghouse. As a result, this year's applicants were even more stressed and worried about the possibility of not matching. Many of us were tempted to submit more than the recommended 15 applications out of anxiety, although most resisted. On a personal level, the imbalance has created a great deal of stress for many of our partners, whose lives are also significantly impacted by the results of the match. In my cohort, all three of us had partners who could not come with us wherever we matched, so we chose to limit ourselves geographically, although not exceptionally strictly (i.e., limited to a region of the country from which it would be relatively easy to travel home). While I realize that doing so can impact the chances of matching, it is very important to me to find a balance between my personal life and my professional career. Given that many graduate students are older and more likely to be in committed relationships and/or also have children or other family obligations, it is even more important to provide enough training positions that would allow applicants to have greater confidence that they can match somewhat close to home so that they can continue to meet familial obligations. This is not to say that applicants should not have to make any sacrifices, but the imbalance between positions and applicants significantly exacerbates what is already a stressful requirement.

The imbalance has impacted me profoundly. I elected my school as it was located near me and accredited, but it appears that appic doesn't accredit sites with the same number of positions. It is a HUGE financial burden as well as incredible hours of study and training to complete the PhD, but without the appropriate number of sites, this effort has been a huge burden and impacted me greatly.

The imbalance increased my level of stress associated with applying for internship. I was acutely aware that I needed to work diligently to get good training, maintain relationships with supervisors and advisors, and do well in my classes in order to be a solid candidate. I focused on these aspects of my training in anticipation for the highly competitive internship application process. I also applied to internship programs that were located in rural and "less desirable" places to increase my chances of getting interviews. I took the application process very seriously and devoted countless hours to perfecting my application materials. I took a chance only applying to University Counseling Centers (UCC) that were APA accredited, with no prior UCC experience. I did this because I knew this was the training I wanted. I am so thankful that it worked out for me!

The process of applying and interviewing is financially exhaustive and extremely stressful. The fact that so many students will not be matched makes the process more stressful.

The mental health field continues to grow along side the demand for qualified service providers. The imbalance between applicants and internship positions creates a competition among the applicants that is wholly unnecessary. I have seen highly qualified individuals needlessly wait 1-2 years before being placed in an internship. This delays their ability to become licensed and help people in need. It is a shame that there are not more internship positions available. Please make it easier (by offering funding, direction for attaining accreditation, etc.) for mental health offices to create internship positions.

It is clear that the profession as a whole is becoming more and more saturated, that is, there is greater supply of psychologists than the marketplace currently demands. This is clearly suggested by the ever-widening gap between the number of applicants and internship positions offered. It is unconscionable that academic programs are enrolling students in such great numbers, when it is likely that those same students will struggle to not only secure internship positions, but also employment upon their graduation. The already limited earning potential of the profession will gradually shrink even more as the market is flooded with more and more psychologists. Especially for a profession that supposedly prides itself on its ethical standards, it is not only self-defeating but outright morally wrong to keep training future psychologists in numbers much greater than the market can absorb. Nobody informed me when I was accepted to my program that, a few years down the road, I was running the risk of not being able to secure an internship position, and thus graduate. (Please note that this does not apply to me personally, as I was lucky enough to match on my first try. But, as the saying goes, "there but for the grace of God go I" - it could well be the case that I could be one of the over 1000 students who will not match this year, as there are not enough positions). This is shameful and something has to be done about it. The APA intervenes in just about every aspect of doctoral programs, so why can they not also impose limits on how many students are accepted into doctoral programs each year, to bring the number down to something closer to what the market can absorb?

The difficulty for me between the imbalance was with the social aspect of the process. Even though I was placed, many of the students I have worked with and respect were not placed. Even though we didn't apply to the same sites it somehow felt like we were all competing against each other. People became very edgy and guarded and did not want to chat about their interviews they received, or about their anxiety before match day. Everyone became noticably more avoidant of others, IMHO.

Created more anxiety around the whole process, and made me extremely elated to have been matched with an internship position at all.

I didn't match the first time. I am angry about the loss of one year of my career as a psychologist for professional, personal and financial reasons. I spent $5000 going to as many interviews as I could this year because that investment paled in comparison to the loss of earnings associated with not matching. Professionally, I've lost a year of scholarly productivity given than I plan to work as a scientist-practitioner for as long as I am cognitively able to do so. Personally, being worried about matching and not matching has impacted my family planning. I had planned on waiting to have children until after internship, but began trying to get pregnant after not matching in February 2010. Unfortunately, that effort resulted in a miscarriage. Given the competitiveness of the match, I delayed trying for another pregnancy until after interviews given that I did not want to be discriminated against for being visibly pregnant or in response to any of the socially awkward symptoms of early pregnancy. Now, I will likely be giving birth while on internship; that creates another set of stresses. But what am I to do? I am almost 33 years old and my biological clock is ticking along side my PhD clock, and I must honor both these aspects of myself in order to excel in all areas of life. The match imbalance has created a lot of stress for me (and my husband). Securing my top choice for internship this year at a very competitive site has restored my confidence in my professional abilities, which was stripped away when I didn't match. I questioned whether I belonged in this profession and I questioned the wisdom of delaying childbearing for a profession that didn't seem to want me to succeed. I know now that my failure to match the first time was the result of the imbalance, not because I was a deficient applicant. The mental health toll the imbalance is placing on doctoral psychology students is completely unacceptable and possibly unethical.

I strongly believe that something needs to be done about the fact that every year (and this year in particular), the number of applicants increase and exceed the amount of spots available. If students cannot be provided with the opportunities needed for them to complete their programs, then they should not be accepted into their programs in the first place, or degree requirements should be changed. Given I did not succeed in the match, I have settled for what I perceive is an internship of relatively low quality in the town I'm currently residing. I am greatly disappointed, as a I believe my training will be sub-optimal, and I will not come out of my internship feeling as competent in my therapeutic skills as I had hoped. I also feel that I will not be as competitive on the job market. This greatly concerns me, and has made me second guess my choice to do my PhD in clinical psychology.

I feel that the current imbalance of positions to applicants added a substantial element of stress to the entire process. It was often difficult to be confident in my merits helping me obtain an internship when we all had to consider the odds of matching. This is definitely an issue which must be addressed if training programs are to continue teaching psychologists and preparing them for a career in psychology. It is discouraging to think that students have invested so much time in their education and still must face the possibility that there are not enough internship training positions so that every qualified student may complete their experience.

It is tough to get matched, but if students are prepared for the APPIC application with a variety of clinical experience (e.g., assessment), they can get matched.

I know multiple graduate students who did not match the first time around, and they are well-qualified, highly regarded students with sound clinical training, most of whom lack Axis II pathology. When such excellent students don't match (after seeing them work so hard and conscientiously for many years), it is discouraging, both to the unmatched applicant, as well as to fellow students, including those already nervous in anticipation of the possibility of not matching the following year. I think that it causes some applicants to consider whether this profession and career path was the appropriate one for themselves and sometimes to regret having entered a doctoral program in psychology. I am not from a Psy.D. program, but I think that Psy.D. programs should be obligated to disclose their match statistics to applicants to their programs and to discuss the implications of not matching. The imbalance is discouraging.

I addressed this question to some extent in my response to Q.59. Please refer back.

It was certainly very stressful knowing 1 of every 4 applicants would not be placed. I was also limited due to my school not obtaining their APA Accreditation (we were informed our school would have their APA Accreditation by 2007 or 2008). I applied to mostly sites that accepted “only APA” accreditated applicants. This significantly compromised my chances of obtaining an internship. I was one of the fortunate applicants and was matched to my first choice.

Although the knowledge of the imbalance was daunting, I tried my best to maintain a positive attitude and try my best during the process. I prepared myself for the worst possible outcome (not matching and needing to try again the following year) and brainstormed what I would do in the event that I did not get an internship. This plan helped abate some of my anxiety/nervousness and allowed me to better focus on doing a good job on my applications and interview process. I also used my previous experiences with practicum (I received a practicum via Clearinghouse) to remind myself that there are good options available in the event that I would need to participate in Phase II of the Match. Honestly, the most important part to this whole process is to remember that attitude is important and to keep the grand scheme of things in mind.

I believe the imbalance borders on inhumane, unethical, and criminal. I entered my program believing that if I met all my requirements (passing classes, doing practicums, passing comps, etc.) I would be guaranteed that I could graduate smoothly. Importantly, I was never made aware of the potential risk that I would face 3 or 4 years after admission after spending almost $100,000. Pre-admission, this information must be a highlighted issue and required to be addressed by every program. In fact, the applicant should sign a form that stipulates this risk o it is clear they are aware. APPIC should enforce. The imbalance creates an inappropriate obstacle to many. Additionally, and not less importantly, I believe the imbalance causes undue stress on already a stressful process and period in one's life. Getting to this point in a doctorate program takes its toll on both the student and their family. Creating more stress is unfair to all. The community of programs should not be allowed to accept more applicants than the estimated number of positions will be. I understand this is difficult to predict but an actuarial approach would at least be a fair start. One way to overcome this hurdle is to create some system whereby a site could offer some allocated amount of unpaid positions since a big obstacle to creating more positions seems to be funding. Maybe this privilege could be given to sites that already fund some $ level of psoions. Maybe if a site commits $100,000 of their own money as stipends, they get a freebie (i.e., the privilge of taking on an intern with no stipend). These positions could be available to those people who are willing to take that risk.

Please work to fix this imbalance! It's not fair to highly qualified graduate students who do not get matched. Options include 1) reducing the number of potential applicants (i.e., the # of students accepted to psychology doctoral programs); 2) increasing the number of APA accredited sites; or 3) decreasing the repercussions associated with going to a non APA-accredited internship site. Please keep working to fix this problem!

The imbalance has added an enormous amount of stress to my life and created much in the lives of some of my colleagues. I feel that it is unfair to set a requirement that may be unable to be fulfilled by everyone who has been admitted to a graduate program due to space limitations. APA has a responsibility, if they set program requirements for being APA-accredited, to limit the number of students entering the match each year. Perhaps this can be accomplished by limiting the number of accredited programs or the number of students a program may enroll each year. I feel that this is something APA must act on in order to maintain any semblance of credibility as a professional organization. The imbalance is increasing; the time for talk is at an end and the time for action to resolve the problem is now.

N/A

I feel that the current internship imbalance creates an even more competitive atmosphere in and across doctoral program in addition to fueling the debate between the value/education/creditably of the PhD versus the PsyD.

I believe the imbalance is a national problem that needs to be addressed. Too many people are being flushed into the system which is creating this imbalance and making the field of psychology in general diluted. I am sure this must be difficult to control, but I believe something must be done or at least looked at, due to the strain this is having on applicants with such a stressful and competitive internship placements. It just seems to get worse and worse with every coming year.... I cannot imagine what it will look like in 10 years from now.

It created the pressure to apply to more sites and to make costly travel to interviews. It also became extremely competitive to get an externship position as well. For people I know, even include myself, have to do unrequired externships in order to be competitive for matching.

The current imbalance is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. Too many good candidates are not getting matched which is a financial and personal burden. The problem continues to worsen each year as unmatched students roll over into the next application class. After students spend several years and go into considerable debt to complete a program, it is unreasonable to not be able to provide necessary internships. Perhaps programs that are graduating large amounts of students each year (professional schools) should be reevaluated as they seem to be largely contributing to the imbalance. Further, increasing the number of available accredited sites should be a focus of the field.

The imbalance between number of applicants and positions available greatly affected me throughout the search for an APA internship. Personally, my anxiety was high throughout the entire process because I knew the numbers--1 out of 4 students would not end up placed. I obsessed and worried about what would happen if I ended up unmatched. Professionally, I sought out mentors and supervisors whom could put in a good word for me if they sustained connections to any of the sites I applied. I felt a lot more dependent and insecure than I have throughout other times when I have applied for positions. I also applied across the country and was very open to moving just to expand the chances of being matched.

I am currently attempting to find placement in Phase II of the Match. The imbalance of sites is extremely frustrating. I am a professional who had been working in the field for over 17 years, and have been licensed at the Master's level for 5 years. It is frustrating that these elements were not weighed more by sites. I have had to navigate a difficult career, where I have my own military status, and am married to a member of the military. Every several years, I am forced to move, and reconfigure my career. I accept this and make attempts to make this as smooth as possible for myself and my family. However, given the limitations on this, the lack of APA sites, and overall number of sites is not conducive to this. I was only able to focus on a small goegraphic area where my husband is currently stationed. If I do not match in Phase II, I may have to navigate this entire process, but in a different location and little knowlegde of the area. Due to frequent moves, I have adjusted my goals to work within the VA system, which can be more supportive of military members. However, I did not get the support from these sites that one might expect. I realize that there are program for professional that are active duty, but little support from an entity that puports to support veterans. I am hoping for the best, but expecting little given the probability and statistics in this process.

To put it kindly, this process is inhuman. If I had known even 1% of what I do now about the state of doctoral training including internship/post-doc/and early career psychology, I would have gone into psychiatry like I was initally planning or at the very least become a psychiatric PA or NP and still out-earn a psychologist with a mere masters. It is 5 days after the match and I'm still having some PTSD symptomatology including nightmares and flashbacks. For the record, I matched at an APA internship and come from a university-based program in evidence-based treatment. However, this whole process has been devasting for me. I had to move to an undesirable location to attended a good doctoral program...away from my friends, significant other, and area where I thrived and contributed to my community. The whole time I kept telling myself it's only 4 years. Although I matched, I once again have to move to another undesirable area away from family, friends, and my significant other for yet another year because I could not secure an internship in the city that I would like to ultimately relocate and practice in. In addition, with the current post-doc crisis, I have been told that there is a slim chance that I will be able to move to the area that I want to practice in...another year or two of waiting. I am close to 400,000 in tuition at this point with undergrad at a top ten research institution, an Ivy league masters, and doctoral program. I sacrificed my twenties, a ten year relationship, and a chunk of my child-bearing years. I have worked for free at practicum placements for the last several years in an attempt to land a good internship with the hope that I will be able to make a living wage with health benefits on internship and post-doc, but unfortunately, internships and post-docs don't pay a living wage and many don't have health insurance. Moreover, you'd think with all this moving that is encouraged that your hours/licensing would transfer between states, but nope...no luck. In fact, states vary greatly in internship/post-doc/and licensing requirements which makes it very difficult to obtain a license after completing training in three different states. I guess that's the final joke... if it is even possible to obtain a post-doc to get licensed. Finally, the loss of networking, contributing to a local community, volunteering, friendships and family connections, building a home, and raising children in an area in which I would like to practice has been immeasurable.

It created a significant amount of anxiety for me, which proved to be unfounded, but it made the past several months rather difficult. If I knew I would get an internship and the question was just which one, I would not have been nearly as anxious, knowing I would still likely graduate on time.

This is a completely stressful and exhausting process, physically and mentally. Something must be done to ensure that a) applicants get an internship b) an internship is not required to graduate c) stop allowing so many students into programs! This last point not only negatively impacts the entire graduate experience because there are not enough resources/opportunities for the number of students, but there are so many applicants who do not match and must go through this intense and costly process twice.

This process has been awful. People are under tremendous stress for a terrible amount of time. It has become a numbers game, which encourages dishonesty. For example, completing huge numbers of hours, reports, and "high value" client types does not say what the quality of the candidate or the training are. In fact, a person who wins on the numbers game may not be a good psychotherapist at all. Further, people who are in rural areas for their training are at a disadvantage because of the limited types of training sites, although they may be quality. People with families and children are also inherently at a disadvantage. Also, many of the sites that are APA accredited are VA's or College Counseling Centers, who seem to value experience in their types of sites before hand, requiring students to specialize early and also leaving rural students at a disadvantage again. It is ridiculous a person could have spent over 100,000.00 on an education, have done well, gotten good training, passed all requirements, could have trouble getting an internship simply because of a lack of training sites. Looking at candidates who match or don't in our own program over the years also testifies to the fact that "better candidates" do not necessarily fare better or "poorer" candidates do not actually fare worse. It almost seems like a random process. Finally, the stress is unbelievable and continues over the course of at least 6 months if not more.

This process was substantially more stressful than it needed to be, due to the imbalance. It is a travesty that there are many more applicants than positions, and that this experience is needed to graduate. APA accreditation of programs needs to be re-thought or captive consortiums need to be invented.

It added a lot of stress to know that percentage of students that did not Match. It seems that there is an influx of students, and the number of internships cannot keep up. In my opinion, the answer is a two front response. Programs should be cognizant of the discrepancy and not take in a large amount of students. Additionally, programs should ensure that their students are prepared for internship. In addition, there should be a push to add more APA accredited positions.

Our department is collaborating with another department to start an internship program. It takes a certain personality to venture into the unknown territory, bureaucratically speaking, of compiling the paperwork and resources necessary to start an internship, particularly when one has a full-time job anyway. That kind of personality that embraces the frustrating task of dealing with unknown paperwork and restrictions is relatively uncommon. There are many capable leaders in the field of psychology that would gladly start valuable internship programs if the process were simplified and if their efforts were more clearly tied to providing a valuable training program for interns rather than satisfying the neurotic impulses of policy makers. Yes, some internship programs will "screw up" and provide poor training to students; such realities are inevitable. The cost of micromanaging the process is too high, leading to a relatively weaker and more frustrated field. Thank you.