ACEPT Match Forum Question 2019 (Responses)
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
 
BDEFGJKLMNO
1
What is your name?What is your role with ACEPT?What is your Institution?Should ACEPT sponsor a centralized training site directory?Should ACEPT sponsor a centralized match process?
2
Erin ConwayTraining SiteCerebrum Neurotherapy, Counseling, & ConsultingI think it’s a good idea. I think it’s a good idea.
3
David SzyhowskiTraining SiteMetropolitan Correctional CenterNo. I do not believe there is anything significantly deficient about the current system by ACEPT to have a listing of sites provided to the students. I am unsure how this new system will change things in a fundamental way. I still think students and sites should continue to find the best match through traditional means. I would be in favor of different proposals which do not deviate significantly from what has been done in the past few years. No. I do not see where this program will actually benefit students or sites to any great degree. For many years have I seen students struggle through a process which attempted to approximate the APPIC process, only to have the students left stressed, anxious, and less empowered due to the process. This will only add to the stress that they feel...placing their selection in the hands of an algorithm. I believe if you review the quality and content of the responses to the previous survey you will see this is not a matter of simply comparing the number of yes to no votes. The comments are telling about what stresses both sites and students will feel compared to what is largely the benefit of "efficiency." These match days and match processes are difficult enough as they are without adding this layer to it. Unfortunately when I first saw the "idea" it had the tenor of a foregone conclusion by the ACEPT board. I seriously hope this attempt to centralize the process with a computerized match does not go through. There are several other schools and programs out there who are functioning fine without ACEPT and the current match system. I think their approach is more sensible.
4
Kara WolffAcademic ProgramTrinity Christian CollegeYes- the centralized directory would be helpful for students and participating programs. I'd appreciate attention to the role of MA students in the process, as many access the ACEPT training organizations. If we continue to only use match day for Doctoral students then this may create more problems (or less) depending on how it is set up. Whichever is decided needs to be clearly distinguished between in this process.
5
Katie SalyerTraining SiteCancer Wellness CenterA centralized training directory would be much more efficient and effective compared to the current effort of emailing sites an updated form every year. Communication has been terrible due to this cumbersome process as some academic sites have not acknowledged receipt of the form or the ACEPT website may provide outdated contact information. We have seen a reduction in programs sending applicants in recent years despite much effort to maintain contact with programs. The current directory system is very ineffective and inefficient. All that said, as a non-profit institution we do not have funds currently allotted to such an effort. We are committed to our training program, but the additional fees would be something we have to add into our budget. I might wonder if there could be different levels of membership to account for different training sites?We are probably not informed enough to know how a centralized match process would change our experience. We are generally in favor of a more expedited process but do not feel we have strong feelings or input about how that would be managed at this time. Once again, as a non profit, we are not easily able to provide funds toward such a process, but we are committed to our training program and the ACEPT cooperation and therefore would do our best to participate fairly. We would simply hope that costs can be kept as minimal for sites as possible. Thank you for the hard work you've put into exploring these options and taking such feedback!
6
Sari H RosenbergTraining SiteShared Vision Psychological ServicesI support the development of a centralized directoryI support the development/implementation of a centralized match process. If avoidable, I do not believe students should have to pay a fee.
7
Vitaliy Voytenko, PsyDAcademic ProgramWheaton CollegeYES!!! This would be a HUGE UPGRADE to our current archaic and extremely inefficient system of emailing updated Universal Site Info Forms to academic programs. This will bring all the site information in one place for programs and students, and provide additional leverage to get the practicum sites to update their information in a timely manner. In addition, this would also provide an incentive for "ACEPT-abiding" member sites to formally join ACEPT. Maybe. I would give it a hearty Yes, if we could get all of the "ACEPT-abiding" sites who are currently not members of ACEPT to formally join. Otherwise, it can limit the students' practicum options to ACEPT-member sites only.
10
Dr. Sandy Krusenon-ACEPT RespondentHeritage Professional AssociatesYES - would make it easier for students to become aware of each site and for sites to quickly communicate information about their siteNo - I we would be strongly against this, partly bc we are not an ACEPT site (and have no immediate plans to become one unless it becomes a more attractive option for sites) and also bc it would create heightened intensity/anxiety around the match day process (beyond what already exists). The fee involved also makes it less appealing.
12
Patricia Francis, OP, PsyDTraining SiteCentral DuPage Pastoral Counseling CenterI favor the idea and would support a minimal fee increase.Current process is very time consuming for the training site. If the $90 per site is just one fee for whomever we list, the fee seems reasonable. If it is $90 for each student listed, seems not so reasonable. Sites might list fewer students to save money.
17
Carroll Cradock Ph.D.Training SiteThe Circle/ElCirculoYes to a centralized training site directory. Recommend students may view all sites;The academic institutions should each pay for their students’ use of this system on a pro-rated system. Neither students nor sites should be charged for use of this system Recommendation: Academic institutions should each pay pro-rated fee based on the number of their students’ who use this system. Practicum training is required by academic institutions which receive student tuition payments for practicum courses. An electronic selection system should be considered part of the cost this academic requirement.
Yes--Favor the match system for transparency, fairness and efficiency.
23
Jessica Marshallnon-ACEPT Respondent
Outreach Community Counseling Center
My experience with the centralized internship directory run by APPIC has been primarily positive. However, given that there are a smaller number of sites available in the Chicago region, I'm not sure about the cost vs benefit for our context. This would probably affect the academic programs' administrators more than the sites.I think a centralized match process would be incredibly helpful, provided non-ACEPT members had the option of participating. This would create a fairer process and increase the likelihood that both students and sites are matched with their best fit. The most challenging aspect to work out would be that we often adjust how many diagnostic vs advanced practicum positions we offer based who has already accepted. Allowing reversions like the ACEPT match would help facilitate this, but I recognize that would be more costly. I would be willing to cover some of the cost of a centralized match service as a site. I don't think it would be fair to place the financial burden fully on the students.
30
Ben PyykkonenAcademic ProgramWheaton CollegesupportI would support this, but it is very difficult without universal engagement.
35
JoAnn Nishimoto, PsyDnon-ACEPT Respondent
Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL
yesOK
Loading...
Main menu