Search News


Browse Archives

News

Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Is There Really No Match?

February 27, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Monday was “Match Day.” Too many ended it unhitched.

“I’ve done everything that I need to prepare. I did a broad geographic search, found sites that fit my interests really well. I applied to 15 sites…I got nine interview offers,” said Mark Gapen, a fifth-year clinical psychology Ph.D. student at Emory University. Gapen is one of 743 doctoral students who learned that he'd struck out in the annual standardized internship “match” sponsored by the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC). Even considering the 309 positions unfilled in the computerized matching process, the demand for required, year-long predoctoral psychology internships again dramatically outstripped supply.

“I’m just left feeling that there’s something fundamentally wrong with the system. In that, here I am, in graduate school, working to get my Ph.D., and yet my graduate school is not able to provide me the training that I need in order to get that degree. A portion of the training needed to get the degree is not under the control of the school to which I go,” Gapen said. He's currently applying for internship programs listed in the APPIC "clearinghouse" -- the database for unfilled positions left over after the match -- and working with faculty at Emory to see if he might be able to find another opportunity for an American Psychological Association (APA)-accredited internship, a requirement of his program, outside of the standardized process.

“If I’m not able to work something out, I basically have to give up a year of my life to do this all over again,” he said. “With where I’m at in my training, I don’t feel like that should be the case. I feel like it’s a sacrifice due to – I don’t know how to say it – the vagaries of the numbers.”

In the computerized matching process, applicants and internship providers alike rank their top choices after completing interviews. The number of applicants increased by 61 this year to an all-time high of 3,759. Also a record, 3,058 positions were available, 174 more than the year before. The number of unmatched applicants this year, at 743, is the second-highest ever, second only to last year’s 842.

“The only reason it was improved this year is, for whatever reason, the profession was able to create 170-something new positions,” said Greg Keilin, the APPIC match and clearinghouse coordinator and associate director of the Counseling and Mental Health Center at the University of Texas at Austin.

To say it’s better than last year “is technically accurate,” Keilin said -- but "we’re still in really bad shape.”

“The main concerns are that you’re bringing students into a system that can’t handle them. You’re telling 500 students a year, ‘Sorry, too bad, we can’t accommodate you, try again next year,' when people have invested incredible amounts of time and money into their training.”

Why the dramatic differences in applicants versus internships? The problem is swelling in recent years but is not new. Identified as early as the mid-'90s, it seems to have many roots. On the demand side, there’s been a dramatic increase in professionally oriented psychology programs. Some of them are for-profit, and some accept large classes. An article Keilin co-authored on the “Growing Bottleneck” analyzing 2007's record internship mismatch -- which appeared in a special issue of Training and Education in Professional Psychology devoted to this topic last year -- stated that while the number of internship applicants in Ph.D. programs increased by only 77 from 1999 to 2007, the number enrolled in more practice-oriented Psy.D. degrees increased by more than 450, from 1,021 to 1,473. (According to 2007 data, Psy.D. students match at a lower rate than their peers in Ph.D. programs.)

On the supply side, financial barriers are among the concerns. All internships accredited by the APA are expected to provide stipends to their interns. (And while they're generally small in size, so are many mental health providers' budgets.) In the past, the sponsoring organizations could typically get reimbursed by insurance companies for time an intern spent with a patient, said Jeff Baker, also a co-author of the “Growing Bottleneck” article and training director for a post-doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

“But, over the last 10, 15 years, insurance, third-party payers have pretty well come to a standard that you need to be licensed" (as most students, by definition, aren’t) to be reimbursed. “Which is not a bad thing, but it’s kind of caught the training programs."

And unlike in medical education, where federal funds used to offset the cost of residency training are in excess of $4 billion, graduate education in psychology only receives $1.8 million in federal funding, Baker said. (Baker, who’s also chair of the APA’s accrediting commission, cautioned that he was not speaking in that capacity. He also cautioned that he’s not advocating that funding for medical education be decreased in order to pay for desired increased investments in psychology training).

"It's not exactly a simple problem," he said. "People are trying to make it simple but it's more complex."

Last year’s applicant survey found that 530 of 949 unplaced applicants (those who either were not matched or withdrew) were subsequently able to find positions -- even though only 296 positions were unfilled at the end of the match. That so many students secured positions either not included in the standardized match or subsequently created has fueled concerns about quality control and whether, despite the efforts of APA and APPIC, market forces will mean that more graduate students will end up accepting unpaid spots (as is already happening in large numbers in California).

“Although many unmatched students appear to be quite determined and resourceful in finding and securing internship positions after the Match is completed, these students are often placed in nonaccredited and/or non-APPIC programs,” the “Growing Bottleneck” article notes. “Thus, these students are not only attending internship programs of unknown quality but also have an increased risk of experiencing future credentialing or employment difficulties.”

“Of particular concern,” the article notes, are “the dramatic increase in the number of applicants who reported that their doctoral programs were willing to compromise their standards” relative to what internships are acceptable, and the “large rise” in students who reported they were able to create their own internship on short notice where no program existed previously.

Philinda Smith Hutchings, a professor and director of the brand-new Psy.D. program at Midwestern University, in Glendale, Ariz., said she believes that in addition to funding shortages for training, another source of the problem “is a disconnect between the doctoral programs and the internship training programs."

“It’s a rather odd situation. But internships, that year of supervised practice, are a requirement within the doctoral program, but the doctoral program doesn’t provide the experience. It’s provided somewhere else.”

Doctoral programs “should be more involved in creating and supporting internship training," Hutchings said. She argued that universities should consider both creating internship opportunities specifically for their students -- to be offered outside the profession-wide matching process -- in addition to working with potential internship providers to create more options for applicants nationally.

She said there’s also a need for innovation in internship sites, as outlined in a 2007 article she co-wrote as a representative of the National Council of Schools and Programs of Professional Psychology. “University counseling centers are the most common internship centers, followed by Community Mental Health Centers and VA [veterans' affairs] hospitals,” the article states. “Even though the majority of mental health services are now provided in primary care settings, and jails are described as the new equivalent of psychiatric hospitals, there are few internships in primary care or correctional institutions.”

As for the APA’s role in all this, the association, for one, is looking for answers to a critical question. If there aren’t enough internships available, does that suggest there aren’t enough jobs? Are programs producing too many psychologists?

All experts consulted Tuesday said the answer to that is unclear. The APA is currently studying the issue. “What we need to do is we need to do a thorough work force analysis, much as other professions have done, to inform the discipline as well as the public about what are the work force needs,” said Catherine Grus, APA’s associate executive director for professional education and training.

Also, starting in January 2007, all doctoral programs were required to make detailed information about internship placement rates publicly available as a condition of APA accreditation. “We want to have this information available to prospective students,” Grus said.

“There’s pretty much always been a discrepancy" between internships offered and internships sought, she added. The association held a conference on the imbalance back in 1997.

"It’s just gotten so large in the last couple years that it can’t be ignored by the large masses.”

Especially not the (smaller but still relatively large) masses looking desperately for internship placements the day after Match Day. In response to a request for comments sent to an APPIC e-mail list Tuesday, two students from the same institution, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, separately reported that half of the students in their Psy.D. program weren’t placed in the matching process. (The listed director of doctoral studies there did not respond to a request for comment late Tuesday afternoon. However, both students stressed the program's strong reputation as evidence of a national problem in internship placements. According to the university's published statistics, 16 of 18 students in the program were placed on APPIC's Match Day last year; the year before, 10 of 11).

“It’s wait and see,” one unplaced student at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, who asked not to be named, said in a phone interview. “It’s pretty much getting these e-mails and waiting, doing a lot of self-care, allowing my friends to cook dinner for me, or force me to watch a movie with the laptop in front of me” -- keeping an eye out for open internship opportunities in APPIC's clearinghouse but also for those that close so as to prevent any more precious time wasted. On Monday, the student received an e-mail indicating that a job position listed on the clearinghouse was filled within 67 minutes of the database first coming online.

“I definitely think the huge imbalance between internship positions and applicants is attributable to my current situation,” Sabera Sobhan, a counseling psychology student at the University of Houston, wrote in an e-mail. Unmatched, Sobhan had 10 interviews over the course of the search.

“I am in no doubt that there were a lot of great candidates that did not match and are going to have to go through this process again next year, as traumatic as it seems at this moment.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Is There Really No Match?

  • Internship shortages
  • Posted by Will Pannabecker, PhD , Director, Counseling and Health Services on February 27, 2008 at 8:30am EST
  • As the founder and former director of an APA accredited predoctoral internship I would comment that this problem has been growing for about 20 years. I would like to establish an internship at my current university counseling center, but the costs are beyond our capability. I have a competent staff in an ideal city...but to set up a program for four students would require offices, an additional support staff, an additional licensed psychologist, plus about $100k for stipends plus 20% for benefits. That quickly gets into the $250k range to start up and sustain a program. Sorry. No can do!

  • The problem seems clear to me
  • Posted by In Texas on February 27, 2008 at 10:10am EST
  • The problem seems fairly clear to me, the academy is producing too many PhDs. IF these candidates are able to find and complete an internship, where will they work?

  • Slaying the mythical beast
  • Posted by A Survivor on February 27, 2008 at 10:10am EST
  • As a survivor of the 2005 Match/Clearinghouse, I experienced first hand the anguish and anxiety of this bizarre system.

    In its zeal to distance itself from the medical training model, psychology created an untenable internship training system.
    Unlike medical school graduates who complete internship/residency AFTER graduation (leaving with a limited practice license), psychology PhD/PsyDs must complete their internship while still technically students and then -- adding another layer of insult to injury -- in nearly all jursidictions, one must complete a second post-doctoral year of supervised practice BEFORE being eligible for a license.

    This means the only viable training venues are state facilities (which are generally allowed to ignore the practice/licensing laws of the state) or large university medical centers (which are able to access alternate funding -- grants, etc.)

    So the psych doctoral student who is "successful" in landing an internship is rewarded for having nearly earned the highest academic credential with a lavish salary averaging in the low $20,000 range.
    (Particularly problematic, given that the majority of internships are in major cities, not known for their reasonable costs-of-living.)

    More troubling than this state of affairs, however, is the tacet interpretation that an applicant who fails to match is somehow a lesser candidate. Recently, the vast majority of applicants contributing to an online psychology discussion board were supremely confident that they would not be the unsuccessful ones. Now that the Match has come and gone, some of these "top notch" candidates have found themselves still standing in this high-stakes game of musical chairs. The ongoing discussion on APPIC's own internship listserve speaks to the mythology of the process. Year after year, applicants post their pet theories on how one can be successful Do I rank my "safety" choice higher? Should I send thank you notes? If I call the program, will they remember my name?

    Then, sadly, a flurry of questions and answers about what to if you do NOT match. In what other professional health care training program would you hear of students contemplating extending their schooling a year just so they can return to the internship process the following year?
    Regardless of the annual regurgitation of "helpful hints," the general sentiment is applicants dot all the i's and cross all the t's on their application and then put their faith in a computer algorithm in Toronto.
    A rather peculiar state of affairs for a profession which prides itself on seeking empirical explanations for human behavior.

    Curiouser still, I am considered a "success" because I secured my internship after applying only once. Granted it was through the Clearinghouse and I spent an agonizing 72 hours working the phones and waiting until finally being placed at my last active Clearinghouse application (at a state facility) requiring a 1,000+ mile move.

    Finally, while it was encouraging to read Dr. Keilin's acknowledgement of the continuing problem, a reason that this oddity in mental health training continues is once you've "done your year" (of internship) most psychologists never look back. You suck it up, you endure the process and then you get on with your (professional) life. Further embedded in the mythos is a sense that one can jeopardize one's career by speaking out.

    Hopefully, we've reached a tipping point where the profession as a whole has come to recognize it is not necessary to subject the next generation of psychologists to this demoralizing, illogical process.

  • Need for Behavioral Health Clinicians
  • Posted by Gahan Fallone PhD , VPAA at Forest Institute on February 27, 2008 at 10:25am EST
  • I appreciate the attention to this problem and agree with the sentiments voiced by the students, Dr. Hutchings, and Dr. Pannabacker. The current training model endorsed by APA requires, in most cases, a year of full-time, predoctoral internship outside of the training department. This model is outdated and is inconsistent with financial drivers in the healthcare marketplace. It is also inconsistent with systematic, competency-based assessment of graduate training and education. I grow increasingly concerned that it is also a factor in driving diverse students away from doctoral training in clinical psychology.

    As to the whether we need more highly-trained, doctoral-level behavioral health practitioners, consider the information contained in this article. PhD-programs increased the number of students entering internship by around 2% over 8 years. Does anyone who works in the human service professions believe that a 1 or 2% growth rate will support the mental health needs of children, adolescents, and adults in this country? That is one reason why there are PsyD programs, because PhD programs will not or can not grow to address the mental health crisis we continue to face. I believe that APA needs to endorse a training model that truly allows for comprehensive competency-based assessment throughout graduate training so that we can move beyond the PsyD vs. PhD debate and get on with helping others live better.

  • Posted by Author , No Sucker Left Behind on February 27, 2008 at 10:40am EST
  • In my opinion, the three biggest problems that are specific to psychology doctoral training today include: 1) not placing qualified applicants within accredited internships; 2) low stipends (or no stipends) offered in the internships; and 3) high grad school debt, especially for Psy.D. students. And, in my opinion, the American Psychological Association is resonsible for solving these problems. Why does it allow Psy.D. programs to enroll so many students, at such high rates of student debt? Why does it allow the internship programs to pay low (or no) stipends (when the students have already completed 2,000 hours of training within their doctoral programs)? Surely we can all put our heads together and come up with reasonable solutions that will allow qualified students to obtain their training and degrees in a timely fashion without being exploited.

  • finances
  • Posted by Peter on February 27, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • Is not part of the problem the continuing failure of our health care "system" to put mental health on a par with physical health when it comes to benefits? There is no doubt about the need for providers of mental health care, but where is the consensus for paying for that care?

  • internship prior to licensure
  • Posted by Jan , Doctoral candidate at Argosy/Dallas on February 27, 2008 at 12:15pm EST
  • Although I interviewed, my univeristy did not allow me to participate in the match process. Fortunately, one of the sites where I interviewed had an open site which I obtained through Clearignhouse.
    One of the requirements for this site was the ability to obtain licensure. I hold an LPC license, obtained through a previous Masters program, and took additional Master courses along with my doctoral coursework. I anticipated internship as being a probem and tried to do what I could.
    The shame is that I am able to obtain reimbursement through a Masters counseling program, yet am unable to obtain any reinbursement through a Clinical Psychology Masters. Generally, states do not recognize a Masters in Clinical Psychology.
    It seems logical and makes more sense to me that Psychology programs take the responsibility to offer internship opportunities in the same manner that practicums are offered. Temporary Licensure should be offered after graduation, and then candidates participate in post-doctoral fellowships where they can be reimbursed for their services.
    Although APA has endorsed licensure after graduation, states have not come on board and followed the endorsement.

  • Posted by Darby on February 27, 2008 at 1:15pm EST
  • I just completed the internship application process and was lucky to be matched to my top-choice site. That said, even as someone who had a 'good' experience with the match, I found the process stressful and incredibly time-consuming. A lengthy application with five essays is required, including an essay that must be customized to each program. Since applicants often apply to at least eight, and in some cases more than 20, programs, this is a very involving process, followed by several weeks of interviews, many of them day-long affairs. For students applying to sites in multiple cities this is not only a drain on time but financial resources. In short, applying for internship is every bit as taxing as applying for graduate school - probably more so, given that applicants typically apply to more places. And students must go through the internship application process while proposing a dissertation and keeping up with full-time graduate study. The silly thing is that internship lasts a single year, so most students get only a few months into the internship before having to go on the job market for post-docs and other positions. It's so much work for such a short pay-off, and for the 'privilege' of making $19K a year for full-time work! It seems to me that students who work hard to be accepted to graduate programs and then complete all their requirements shouldn't be told, "You're not done with your degree until you find this outside position." Also, while many internship sites invest heavily in training and in providing a good experience for students, many seem to use interns as a source of cheap clinical labor. It's a system with the potential to be exploitative of students; I met interns during my interviewing process who were working 70+ hours a week and utterly burned out. It's also disenheartening, having completed five years of graduate education, to know that I just spent five months applying for a position at which I'll be making less than half the salary that I made my first year out of college. I agree with the other posters who call for a reevaluation and updating of the internship system. I also agree that it seems totally unethical (and downright cruel) to run a Psy.D program that accepts 100+ students a year, knowing that half of them may not be able to procure internships. How stressful and costly for students; is there no way for APA to require limits on those high enrollments?

  • Out of Control
  • Posted by Tim on February 27, 2008 at 2:00pm EST
  • Unfortunately the APA left the door open a long time ago, and the horses are already out of the barn. Between the poor internship salaries, plethora of applicants, and incredible range in training opportunities(from great to horrid), students are left to fend for themselves within a broken system.

    It doesn't take a statistician to realize that the system is not only broken, but it is leaving a trail of increasingly disheartened professional students left to pick up the pieces. For instance, for as much as the APA / APPIC frowns on unpaid internships....look at the numbers. This worrisome trend is only getting worse, and is akin to trapping students into slave labor.

    I am sad that our "lead" organization is letting this happen, as it didn't occur over a year....but rather over a decade or two. We as a profession are damning ourself and no one in a position of influence seems to care to do anything to change that.

  • Realistic Preview
  • Posted by Robert Gore, Ph.D. , Associate Director of Clinical Training at University of Southern California on February 27, 2008 at 2:25pm EST
  • As unwelcome as this comment will sound, the match process is just the beginning - a realistic preview of what lies ahead in our broken system. Because we put both clinical training and mental health care largely in the hands of laissez-faire capitalism, we have far too many graduate school slots of dubious quality combined with rapacious insurance companies working to inhibit care and exploit the glut. Once trainees finish internship, they will face a real struggle to get their hours for licensure while earning a living wage. There are simply more licensed practitioners - by a very wide margin - than the market is currently willing to support. While it is true that many people who need services do not get them, there is no practical way in this free market system to provide more care at a lower cost. Many managed care panels will not consider new practitioners until they are three years past licensure, which lies beyond still more hurdles. Managed care does not raise its rates to keep pace with inflation - one company pays the same rates it did in 1996, when I worked there. Inflation has eroded that by a considerable margin.

    The only solution to this problem is to get a handle on the number of students admitted into Ph.D. programs. I must respectfully disagree with the writer who stated that we need more trainees to meet the mental health needs of the US. While we may need more clinicians, we won't be able to pay them without a radical overhaul of our system. If we continue to funnel large numbers of students into this system hoping that the market will absorb them, the match problem will continue to get worse, as will the horrors that lie in wait beyond the match. Private practice, at least in LA, is no better, in my experience, and considerably less organized.

    Psychology needs nothing more desperately than to submit itself to a review by a team of highly qualified economists, in order to have an independent and qualified diagnosis of the problem. I predict that diagnosis would be, in essence, that we take in too many and can use too few. I think that's called obesity.

  • We're all in, pull up the ladder!
  • Posted by Ph. D. from years back AND GLAD on February 27, 2008 at 2:55pm EST
  • They told me--back in grad school days (in the 1960s) to watch out for increasing requirements for qualifications. The slogan is this: WE'RE ALL IN, PULL UP THE LADDER. In my state, New York, there is a new category of mental health providers--folks with M. Ed. credential--they can become "Mental Health Counselors." And don't laugh. They land provider contracts, too, e.g., EAP. My husband, a Ph.D. with 36 years' experience, National Register, NY state license, &c, was passed by, in favor of a young grad with M. Ed. She was cheaper, and had whatever this Mental Health Counselor credential was. Not to mention those therapists who do alcohol and drug rehab, whose principal qualification was having been addicted and supposedly are now in recovery; but in our small town, I know quite otherwise.
    But a psychology department gains prestige from offering the doctorate. So doesn't want to do so! (Well, after all, there are SOME jobs out there.)

    But a person should not be naive as he or she enrolls in any clinical psych program in today's world. To receive third party payments, one must be on a preferred provider list. I myself have a NY State psychology license, but I am on no one's preferred provider list, so no client's insurance will cover my services.

    Many insurers will list only one provider in a coverage area. If that provider is not you--ooops.

    I don't think that is taught in grad school. Definitely not in my grad school, or my husband's grad school. And we went to a major state university, no small dinky backwater Psy.D. program--we earned research-bound doctorates, the four star Ph. D.--as Zorba the Greek would say, "the full catastrophe." Our college age son said he was thinking of clinical psychology (following in Dad's footsteps). BOTH of us said--no insisted: NO NO NO. Try for something else!

    I am so sad to read these about these young people's disappointments. It was all avoidable. They should have been counseled ahead of time, and told the truth, not merely been set out there to take their chances in that hideous lottery. If our son had insisted he wanted to become a clinician, I would have urged him to look at MSW, or else crack the books and try for med school and psychiatry.

    This thing as it is seems to be a fraud perpetrated on otherwise intelligent and trusting young people. I am glad to be out of the higher education profession at this point, but still, I am sad to see what my former colleagues have allowed to develop.

    Well, you all are in, aren't you? Now where is the ladder?

  • CAUTION: You may be angered!
  • Posted by PhD, Clinical Psych Candidate , We need to protect our jobs from unqualified people on February 27, 2008 at 5:35pm EST
  • A a future psychologist, from a research institution who also required me to clinical have training: I have completed 1000 hour practimum, and 2 CAPPIC half time interships...BUT WAIT...

    (because of my job, I work with patients/clients of mental health services)

    We can talk negatively about the lack of training set out by "other" Clinical psychology programs, but what about the other "professional" entering OUR field and TAKING our jobs, with MINIMAL training or "qualifications." For example:

    13 units: Dual Diagnosis-Employment Concentration Certificate

    39 units: Certificate in Drug & alcohol studies

    60 units: AS Degree in Drug & alcohol Studies

    16 units: Human services certificate

    72 unis: AS in Nursing...YES..I have there are some nurses that function as the therapist.

    Psych technicians, Psych nurses, ...

    The entire Social Work field, licensed clinical social workers, social workers, master/bachelors in social work.

    We as a field, as a profession, need to stand up for the value of our training and our education.

    It looks like ANYONE can be a THERAPIST/COUNSELOR...why do we need psycholosts with 7 to 10 years of college? We as a profession need to give ourselves the respect we diverse and educate the public as to the value of our services.

  • Posted by Michael on February 27, 2008 at 5:55pm EST
  • The basic cause of this problem is simple: too many doctoral programs enrolling too many students. The roots of this oversupply of doctoral students in clinical and counseling psychology are more complex. When I started in my Ph.D. program in clinical psychology at a major research university in California in 1975, there were four APA accredited doctoral programs in clinical psychology in California that admitted a total of fewer than 40 new graduate students per year, most of whom received full or partial funding. This created a lot of unmet demand among potential students and employers and led to the founding of free standing professional schools, CSPP being the most notable, which admitted large numbers of students with little funding for them. Although CSPP eventually obtained APA accreditation, many did not, and for good reason: most of them were terrible programs with second or third rate students. Then various second tier universities began to add programs, primarily because they are relatively inexpensive to operate and they generate considerable revenue, especially since few students in these programs get substantial funding. These developments weren't really a problem for the profession as long as the APA maintained reasonable standards for accreditation. There simply were two classes of programs whose students didn't compete much. The students from APA accredited programs competed with each other for APA accredited internships which provided stipends for the interns and almost all of them got placed. Students from unaccredited programs competed with each other for second or third tier internships that typically paid nothing or very little. Students in unaccredited programs often got screwed, but most of them knew the risks of entering these programs and took on those risks voluntarily. Then somewhere along the way the APA began to accredit these doctoral programs, seemingly regardless of their quality. Voila, scads of students chasing after too few internships. If the APA would establish more reasonable and rigorous standards for accrediting doctoral programs and if quality internship and postdoc programs would require applicants to come from APA accredited programs, this problem could be solved fairly easily. But I don't see that happening. There are too many vested interests in keeping the situation as it is.

  • Basic Economics
  • Posted by Robert Gore, Ph.D. , Associate Director of Clinical Training at University of Southern California on February 27, 2008 at 9:35pm EST
  • With great sympathy for the doctoral candidate who wants us to stick up for the value of doctoral training, we're up against fundamental principles of economics. A free market system endeavors to get as much of the work as possible in the hands of the cheapest laborer. The name of the game is eliminating "excess profit". We can't buck this tide for very long.

    Imagine trying to get the public to care. How would you do it? Can you possibly imagine how expensive it would be to try to get the average person to grasp the distinction between a graduate of my institution, the University of Southern California, and a graduate of the online professional school, Southern California University? How could you possibly teach the general psychotherapy client to distinguish between someone with an APA accredited background and someone from an online professional school with an impressive name? And how could you convince them you're not just feathering your own nest at their expense? It will never happen.

    This is the essential tragedy of putting both the training and the care in the hands of free markets, while imposing trade barriers (e.g., licensure and APA accreditation) in haphazard points of the process. We can't decide between a fully capitalistic approach and a tightly regulated one, so we get the worst of both worlds. The APPIC match shows how badly central planning can fail, while the market for psychotherapy services (and the poorly trained practitioners who dominate the field) show the failure of a relatively free market.

    We need nothing so much as guidance from well trained economists who have no reverence for our sacred cows. When the State of Florida allowed its licensure law to sunset, a hamster wound up getting registered as a psychologist. I say we need more hamsters in the field, and the motto of APA should become "Caveat Emptor".

  • Posted by Future Psychologist , Role of APA in clinical psychology on February 28, 2008 at 5:10am EST
  • I applied for internships for the first time this year and matched, so I am not speaking out of anger. However, I found that in addition to all the inherent difficulties involved in the match process, students from my program are at a disadvantage when applying to certain types of sites, because our Ph.D. program is not APA-accredited. Now, I understand that the ideological reason behind accreditation is the control of the quality of professional education. However, our program happens to be a part of one of the most prestigious colleges in the country. The program fits and/or exceeds every APA requirement for an accredited Ph.D. program. Our students have more hours of practical training than the average number of hours in many other clinical Ph.D. programs. However, APA decided that we can not be accredited, because we have too few tenured clinical psychology faculty members. Because we are part of a liberal arts college and not a big university, the program is unable to fund an additional tenured position. However, there are many adjunct professors who teach the clinically-oriented classes (in addition to two tenured clinical psychologists and several other tenured psychologists with other specialties). Because of this technicality, students from our program have to check "Not APA-accredited" box on the internship application. Many of the internship sites stop reading the application when they see this box checked off, as the lack of accreditation is associated with the online Psy.D. programs. However, we are NOT an online program! We are a nationally-known institution, with a Ph.D. program that has been providing high-quality training to students for decades! Why should we be at an additional disadvantage in an already torturous process?! Our students go on to become leaders in the field despite this additional difficulty, and many of the internship sites in our area recognize the quality of education provided in our program, so they are happy to take us (the match for our program is actually higher than the national average, probably due to the type of sites students choose to apply to in order to increase their chances of matching). However, when an internship site does not know the program, they do not read beyond “the box.”

    Is it not another indicator that there is something wrong with the way APA functions and makes decisions if a highly reputable program is often treated as an online-bought Psy.D.? Aren't the challenges faced by doctoral clinical psychology students in completing their training pre- and post-graduation not another piece of evidence of APA failing to serve the function of the organization that is supposed to protect clinical psychology from such crises (or at least have some success with solving them once they occur)? Maybe APA has too much power that it is not used judiciously in deciding the course of our profession. It seems that it's time for a new organization or for changed of revolutionary proportions in APA.

  • Losing sight of the prize
  • Posted by Quality matters on February 28, 2008 at 10:00am EST
  • ". . . [a] highly reputable program is often treated as an online-bought Psy.D."

    Many valid points have been raised, highlighting the complexity of the internship placement issue.

    So let's not muddy the water with inflammatory statements such as this. It is particularly ironic that it was made by someone defending a non-traditional program as insinuating all online programs are equivalent to diploma mills is a tactic employed by many to suggest only conventional university-based PhD programs are truly legitimate.

    Education in professional psychology has expanded from the university/PhD (Boulder) model to the professional/PsyD (Vail) model and has most recently taken advantage of techology and now includes programs offering course work delivered online. (Skill learning is still accomplished through face-to-face modalities.)

    As the original poster correctly pointed out, APA-accreditation is not an unassailable guarantee of quality. But let's not paint the quality concern with too broad a brush.

  • Person vs Online training
  • Posted by Traditional PhD student , Person vs Online training on February 28, 2008 at 1:25pm EST
  • I cannot believe that any online program is near in quality to a in-person traditional program. I have seen people I know who are completing online degrees, and the fact is that ... other people are completing the work for them.

    Online programs are degree mills. There is no quality assurance and they are a disgrace to any profession.

  • Quality training
  • Posted by Northern CA Psychologist on February 28, 2008 at 1:25pm EST
  • A few thoughts about "Quality":

    As a strong advocate for the California Psychology Internship Council (CAPIC), I resent the statement made that internships outside the APPIC system are "of unknown quality" and therefore less worthy. There are other quality internships in this field, and CAPIC represents close to 700 of these positions.

    Those of us who are members of CAPIC, many of whom are products of these internships, and now run CAPIC internships and doctoral programs can attest to the quality of these training opportunities. Just because the quality is not "known" to some in the field, doesn't mean they should be disregarded altogether. In fact, CAPIC has established membership criteria that mirror APPIC's, and the quality of these programs is monitored closely by CAPIC and by the doctoral programs who utilize them.

    As a faculty member of an APA professional school in CA, I must also make the point that size doesn't necessarily equate with quality. Many larger programs do an excellent job training successful, employed and accomplished licensed psychologists. At the same time, there are many small programs who appear to do a terrible job of this. I beleive that many of these small "clinical" programs are producing clinicans that do not even compare in quality to those being produced in the larger professional schools. We need to move beyond equating size and quality. There are always going to be good programs and bad ones, large or small. I think accreditation matters, and I think the CoA does a fine job evaluating quality. If a program can maintain the standards of accreditation then we should accept that at face value.

    Let's move beyond placing blame and making sweeping generalizations, and work together to advocate for fixing our broken health care system.

  • And there you have it ...
  • Posted by Quality matters on February 28, 2008 at 10:30pm EST
  • "Online programs are degree mills. There is no quality assurance and they are a disgrace to any profession."

    Spoken like a true reactionary.
    The reality is that programs run the gamut -- excellent to atrocious and many in between.

    Let us not forget that the "conventional" model still requires that students sell their souls to a researcher for 4 - 7 years.
    This is how to train a clinical psychologist?

    But, by all means, let's continue to divert attention to the internship match problem by spewing inflammatory, unsubstantiated global statements about online programs.

  • Posted by Michael on February 29, 2008 at 12:00pm EST
  • "Let us not forget that the “conventional” model still requires that students sell their souls to a researcher for 4-7 years. This is how to train a clinical psychologist?"

    The Boulder model is a hard sell to potential psychologists whose only interest is in doing clinical work, as this comment indicates. But it's kind of like democracy: it's a bad system but all others are worse. The problem with the lack of or poor quality of research training in many Psy.D. and professionally oriented Ph.D. programs is that the graduates of these programs are susceptible to "theoretical orientations" that are based on faith rather than evidence. Psychology barely qualifies as science, but a thorough grounding in research methodology can help to insulate psychologists from the many quasi religions masquerading as psychological theory (e.g., psychoanalysis and its various derivatives). I would rather have graduate students "sell their souls to a researcher" than sell their minds to some psychoanalytic guru spouting nonsense.

  • Online vs traditional
  • Posted by PhD student , Online vs Traditional (in person) on February 29, 2008 at 6:35pm EST
  • The fact is the most of the people struggling to get into internship sites are those students from online programs with no to little oversite and PsyD students from professional schools. Most of the PhD students that I know from traditional or professional schools that require that the ENTIRE program be completed in person, get the internships they want.

  • Need vs. demand
  • Posted by Academic Entrepreneur on March 1, 2008 at 3:55pm EST
  • Too many aspiring clinicians confound the need for mental health services, which is great, with the demand for those services, as reflected in the willingness of both patients and insurance companies to pay for services, which is small.

    Doctoral-level psychologists have done a terrible job of letting the public, insurance companies and legislators understand the differential value of their services when compared with masters-level clinicians of various stripes. It's no wonder that both salaries and fees for service have been not only not growing, they've been shrinking.

    For a good example of this, see this article on why garbage collectors make more than psychologists. http://www.academicentrepreneur.com/AE/Garbage_collectors.html

    If you're hoping to be a clinician or an academic these days, it's imperative to have multiple streams of income. You can't rely on a salary or a private practice if you want to live comfortably.

    What a shame.

  • You're Kidding Right?
  • Posted by kiding right on March 7, 2008 at 7:55pm EST
  • The last few comments made on this site about low quality professional psychology programs are unbelievable! ALL psychologists in training are taught research methods; one might expect that a future psychologist would do a little research and reading about the issues, types of programs, and requirements for accreditation before making blanket black and white statements. Sounds a little borderline to me and indicative of ignorance and prejudice completely contrary to the ideals of our profession.

    If one compares the CVs of a PsyD and PhD candidate, one won’t necessarily find much difference. All programs are different, with different priorities and concentration. That is a good thing since psychology is such a diverse field.

    Everyone suffers with the current supply demand discrepancy.

    Of further concern is the developing multi-tiered license: dependant on the accreditation of the internship and potentially affecting the psychologist’s future career path, ruling out or ruling in the option of working in the VA system and some states. This becomes particularly important when considering that in the internship clearinghouse many individuals feel pressure and make choices about internship positions based on desperation rather than match to training goals and interests.

  • Non-matched and yes very angry about it
  • Posted by Non-matched Candidate on March 17, 2008 at 5:00pm EDT
  • However not reactionary.

    First of all I am a 6th year student who took time to gain some extra clinical and research experience and then applied.

    My feedback has been disheartening - I don't "fit a mold" - I have research, clinical and administrative training but am not a "perfect clone" for any program - meaning they took people above me who were in actuality less diverse in their training -and I was told again and again "you were great - no problems but we are strongly focused on research/clinical work/assessment - and while you had that you didn't 'fit' our program." Shame on me for trying to be a well rounded professional!

    So it seems that with over 500 hours of individual therapy - over 3,000 total face to face hours - over 80 integrated reports written and with two strong research publications - I just don't fit a mold - too polished and researchy for this site - too clinical and assessment focused for that site - the reasons sound like a broken record of "you don't fit into our box." No-one said I interviewed badly or wasn't qualified -

    I personally know of someone (colleague) that found out from APPIC that mistakes were made putting her information into the system - she did match but not where she "should" have matched.

    The system is broken and in no other profession is the hiring process for trainees allowed to remain so opaque - and one is really black balled if you question the capacity of this system to work - my friend's shituation has shown me that errors do take place and yet the system is set up to discourage students from being able to find out if such an error affected them in their match process. If this were happening in any other profession someone would have sued by now just due to the lack of transparency in the process - but students in psychology are so afraid of the powers that be we take this year after year and don't question the veracity of the process. What about EEOC? How do we know APPIC and the magical computer in Toronto are even playing fair or doing what they say they are doing?

    We are asked to blindly trust the great computer in the sky with our livlihood after years of higher education and mounting debt. I pursued unfunded internships in my local area rather than have another year of tuition, debt and not being able to pursue my career - I was told that would be "exploiting" me - and this process is not exploitative? Sending me back again to work for free as a practicum student and go through this again is not exploiting me and other students? The logic here evades me. I have worked for free for years - why not let me do it one final time just to get this done?

    It seems the system is also run by people that do not want to look outside the box they created for solutions to the problems inherent with that box.

    This is a very broken system and I am tired of the people in charge wringing their hands and exclaiming over it while doing nothing of substance to help students who remain unmatched year after year.

  • Clearinghouse
  • Posted by Barbara on February 26, 2009 at 5:15am EST
  • I have 1400 assessment hrs. & license professional counselor. I was not matched & still waiting for sites in clearinghouse to respond. This process can give you a DSM diagnosis.