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

View only
What is your Academic Institution?Should ACEPT sponsor a centralized training site directory?Should ACEPT sponsor a centralized match process?
Midwestern University YESNo - we should do the central directory but not this process if it is going to cost money for students. That will cause problems as graduate students typically do not have a lot of extra funds.
Midwestern UniversityNoNo
Midwestern UniversityNoNo
Midwestern UniversityYesNo
Midwestern UniversityYesNo, students have enough fees and should not have to pay to apply for practicum as well.
Adler UniversityI support a centralized directory. I am neutral about the fees because I won't be paying them, but I would not want to pay them as a student. The most important aspect of a directory is that it is updated with correct information and any sites that are not currently accepting applications should be removed from the directory. Sites should be required to fill in all applicable fields. I like that the current listings feature check boxes for materials required--this helps with organization. A feature that allows you to select multiple sites and that will generate a spreadsheet of all documents required (generated from the fields completed by the site) would be extremely helpful! I support a match process for practicums to do away with the pre-notification and notification process as it currently stands. I am neutral about the fees.
Adler UniversityYesYes
Midwestern UniversityI like the idea of a centralized directory because then everyone receives the same information and students know what sites are actually open to considering them for practicum placement. However, if students have to pay additional fees to have this happen, then I do not think it is worth it. No - I prefer the notification process because I like having options in case I rethink my rank order later in the process. I also do not want to pay the fees for the centralized match process.
Midwestern University YesYes
Midwestern University I support a centralized directory due to past issues with outdated information on Universal Site Forms. This would allow for all programs to access up to date information for each site. I do not support a match. The current process allows the student to have more choice in their practicum selection. Also I do not support the added cost of a match.
Midwestern UniversityI feel the $50 per student is expensive when multiplying it by every year. We already have a lot of other expenses and loans to take out. Further, when applying as a diagnostic and therapy student, many of us still are unsure of the type of settings, populations, etc. we would like to work with. Moreover, many sites have similar things to offer early on in this stage. This makes ranking sites difficult. However, I would consider applying the Match process for Advanced therapy students. By then, students should have a better idea of their career goals and have a better idea of what they are looking for in a site and setting. This will also allow Advanced Therapy students to get a feel for the match process before having to do it for Internship.
Roosevelt UniversityI think a centralized directory would be good for students to ease the process of finding information and ease directors jobs as well by not having to update information for us. I would just hope that they would be kept up to date and have all the information necessary for us to apply such as the address, type of site, type of populations, type of therapy, diagnostic vs. therapy, range of clinical issues, hourly requirement, accessibility to public transportation, application materials needed, beginning and end dates of practicum, info on supervision, etc.I'm worried that if this took place, people would have less say in where they are placed for practicum. For that reason, I am against it. It's also difficult to rank sites because a number of factors are considered (e..g, distance, goodness of fit, supervision preferences, client populations). I think it would be too hard to rank sites in this way. I know this is what happens for internship, but I believe having the flexibility to choose and hear from sites about offers is the better approach. I like the process now because it allows students to decide where they are accepting offers. However, I think the current process could be vastly improved. I don't believe that a 1 hour hold is sufficient time to accept or deny an offer because other sites may get back to us later. I think it would be less stressful for both parties if students had a longer time or until the end of the day to get back to sites without penalization.
Midwestern UniversityIn support of a centralized directory but not sure about the minimal fee, because "minimal" is subjective. It'd be nice to know a ballpark amount range before answering this question fully.NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! There's no need to go to a match process. If a student wants experience with neuropsychology or some other specialty area, they should've have to simply hope they get matched to a neuro/specialty location, or otherwise get matched to a place they don't really like for fear of not getting matched at all.
Roosevelt University YesYes
Adler UniversityYes. So long as the dues are not reflected in tuition/fees for students.No. Students already bear the burden of paying for school/training and do not get paid for the work/effort put in at practicum sites. It's unreasonable to expect students to pay an additional fee to be matched for unpaid labor.
ACEPT UniversityA centralized directory could be an ideal source of accurate information; however, as a student, I believe it may not be as useful as hypothesized. More specifically, some universities and respective programs do not encourage applications to any/all ACEPT sites, thus universities and programs will likely continue to maintain their own databases. For example, if a certain site has a reputation for poor supervision, a Director of Training may discourage students from applying to said site, thus keeping use of their own database to include these remarks and limiting the actual use of the centralized database except for possibly cross-referencing contact information.While a centralized directory/match portal would hopefully alleviate misinformation and provide a more cohesive process, I believe any fee imposed upon students is extremely unfair as it should not be assumed students are able to afford these expenses. This is especially true as students would be forced to pay these fees because, as you know, students are required to obtain practicum training. This would also be an unfair expense for training sites that already struggle with adequate funding. More specifically, many community mental health centers that are able to function solely because of unpaid externs may not be able to afford to opt-in to this process thereby eliminating a training site and thus reducing that site's ability to provide adequate services to the community.
Roosevelt UniversityNo, I would prefer not to increase ACEPT dues.I would prefer to keep the system as is. I appreciate how the current system does not have a cost. With multiple interviews, the cost of transportation to sites in different locations adds up. I think the match system takes autonomy away from students to process their decisions and have choice in declining and accepting offers. I would like the system to stay the same.
roosevelt universityno no
Roosevelt University A centralized directory may be helpful, but only if organized well with filter search capabilities for location, cta access, position type, clinical interests, etc. I do not support a minimal fee for maintaining such a database on the student end. I believe that participating ACEPT sites should be responsible for maintaining their entry and paying the listing fee on an annual basis. Students already pay numerous costs and sites benefit from having students to train with them. Students have non-ACEPT site options which they will likely utilize if you impose a fee on students. Also, how minimal would this fee be? I strongly disagree with this idea. The centralized match portal will force students and sites into decisions. I believe the flexibility to choose the site and student of best fit should be left to the site and student. Especially given that there are costs associated with this system. I would not pay to participate in a system that takes my choice away. I believe that students should receive all offers by a certain date and have 2-3 days to decide which offer to accept. It takes pressure off of students and sites as they will not be tethered to an arbitrary notification day timeline and will have time to truly consider their options. Requiring students to respond to offers within an hour is disrespectful of our many other obligations. Many of us are on practicum, at work, at school, and have families. We may be unavailable to answer an offer so quickly and it requires us to check our email rather than focus on our work. The practicum application process is made more stressful by these strict timelines and complex rules. Students should be able to decide which offers to accept within a reasonable timeframe.

Ideally, I would prefer a notification day where I receive all offers and then by midweek I would respond to all offers with my decision. I do not require an algorithm to do this for me. Instituting a match program would force both students and sites to rank without considering factors such as team dynamics and that some students may need some time to evaluate all available offers before deciding which fits best.

Graduate school is already expensive and introducing additional fees adds pressures rather than considering what is best for the students and sites. Students already bear costs of professional clothing, transportation, and forgoing job opportunities for several years. This process introduces more bureaucracy and monetizes a stressful time in training. If you cannot introduce a database at no cost to students, then I would prefer our current system.
Roosevelt UniversityI think a centralized directory has the potential to improve the information available to students as they consider and apply to sites. I'm tentatively in favor.No. I do not support a centralized match process. I also do not support a fee for students to apply to practicum sites. Graduate students are already financially burdened and placing additional financial requirements on them is irresponsible, particularly given that a match process is unlikely to improve student or site experience of the application process.
Roosevelt University No I would not support a fee increase. I think the annual fee is not reasonable. Students should not have to pay to be able to work somewhere, where they already are not making money. Many students are already pinching pennies.
Roosevelt University No I would not support a fee increase. I think the annual fee is not reasonable. Students should not have to pay to be able to work somewhere, where they already are not making money. Many students are already pinching pennies.
roosevelt universityNoNo
Roosevelt University Students should never be required to apply to practicum. Students should never be required to apply to practicum.
Roosevelt UniversityI enjoy the idea of a centralized directory, however I do not believe it is to the point that we need a fee increase. This sounds informative but also stressful for students. And considering the cost of grad school students should NOT have to pay for anything! That’s absolutely ridiculous! A centralized database, with updated information on each site and portals/websites to apply to sites directly should suffice.
Loyola University ChicagoIt would be nice to have more unity among the site directories. I would support the fee increase. I am content with the current notifiations process. I would feel more anxious if I see a list of sites that I applied to and see rejection among the list. That would bring more anxiety with 'pending' from other sites.
LoyolaI’m fine with the directory. Less certain about the match. With the internship match process, it often seems that students don’t have too much say in the final match result. This is more troubling when students have to potentially move and make big life decisions which won’t be as large of a factor with practicum. I like the freedom of receiving prac offers and then making an informed decision from these offers and my interest.
Loyola University ChicagoI am in support of ACEPT developing a centralized training directory. It would be an added benefit for students if this site contained both ACEPT and non-ACEPT sites. If the cost of this could be supported by the APA this would be most ideal. Would not be in favor if costs were incurred by students.Not in favor of a centralized match process. Starting with a centralized directory would be an adequate first step. Not in favor due to costs to students and lack of agreement among sites regarding usefulness of centralized match process.
LoyolaI’m fine with the directory. Less certain about the match. With the internship match process, it often seems that students don’t have too much say in the final match result. This is more troubling when students have to potentially move and make big life decisions which won’t be as large of a factor with practicum. I like the freedom of receiving prac offers and then making an informed decision from these offers and my interest.
LUCOpen to it centralized directory.I don't need a match process and am fine with the way things are. I would rather not pay anything.
Loyola University ChicagoI think as a first year student, I only have a fairly new experience to the ACEPT process. Nonetheless, it may be more beneficial to have site directory that is more reliable. Often what some of the ACEPT applications that had been previously been completed by the sites, had inconsistent information with what each site required for practicum consideration at their websites. I would support this decision, the only concern is that if there are fees that applicants will have to pay for this directory, it may deter or limit me from applying to ACCEPT sites.I haven't experience this process but feel that it would be beneficial for pre-doctoral students to be familiar with the process as they move on to their post-doc internship experiences. Again, my only concern is being a financial burden on many students who already have limited funds available as a doctoral student.
Adler University No. With the fees inevitably being disseminated from the university to the students program fees it does not appear to provide enough of a benefit. The current apt site works fine. Also, it is nice to have access to other non-ACEPT sites that would be willing to hold an official offer until Pre-Notification Day if a student is part of an ACEPT school. Absolutely not. The fees alone are a deterrent. It is unfair to add additional expenses to students in this way, but ultimately my concern is that a match process would not help the students. Having the Pre-Notification/Notification day allows students to have confidence and control over where they will be going. A ranked list would be more stressful and students would be picking without all of the facts. For example, I have interviewed at several sites over the years where I assumed, based on my experience level and interview, would have completely discredited me from consideration, only to be given an Intent to Offer email on Pre-Notification day. If it was a match process i would have ranked my site list according to this thought; I wouldn't have ended up training at my top site and the site would've lost a student they wanted. The system now allows students time to reflect on where they would like to train with all of the facts and offers, which a match process would not fully provide. Additionally, I feel that students interviewing for their first practicum (usually diagnostic) would have a very limited frame of reference for strategically ranking sites, which would potentially hinder their training experience. Students on internship are okay with a match process because they have a strong basis of knowledge for how interviews/sites work and the self-assurance needed when making future training decisions, which students at the externship levels simply lack. The only real benefit to a match process I can see is that it would force sites and students to fully abide by the ACEPT guidelines, such as not holding multiple offers.
Roosevelt UniversityAs a graduate student, I support a centralized directory. I believe this process would increase ease of access for both students seeking practicum opportunities and for individual university training directors. It would be important that the funding be allocated from the ACEPT operating budget, though, as stated above, with no increase in cost to students participating in the application process.I do not support the creation of an APPIC-like match process for yearly practicum applicants. I believe this type of match process would cause added stress for students and I do not anticipate it would be beneficial to the student population at my university in particular. By the second year of practicum applications, students are generally well-versed and capable of navigating the practicum application process on their own. Adding in a match process would restrict autonomy of students and create an unnecessarily complicated process. Also, while the fee is understandable, any additional cost to students is highly undesirable. The cost of graduate school is already quite high and this added cost would be a burden to many. Thank you for your survey of those involved in the practicum application process and for your time and consideration of this input.
Roosevelt UniversityI do not agree to use a centralized directory. There is ease and simplicity with the established program. As a student, i would be extremely disappointed if we were expected to pay to apply for practicum each year. This is already something i am anxious about for internship, to imagine to pay for 12-15 applications each year in addition to the expense of internship applications places students at an extreme disadvantage. This is probably the most disappointing news to hear. The costs are incredibly high! We do not have an income as PsyD students, and expecting us to pay to simply apply PRIOR ago internship is disappointing. Please do not change the current system!!!! We as students know the process and are easily able to support other cohorts. If this process were to go through, i would likely apply to less sites to help keep my own personal expenses down. Please do not Change the current system!
Roosevelt UniversityI don't support using a paid service to facilitate a centralized training site directory. The administration of an application fee to students in order to access up-to-date information about a training site and to submit their application places an onerous demand on students who are already financially strained. The training sites are the ones who suffer if their application information is not accurate, up-to-date, and publicly available; therefore, it is their responsibility to expend the energy necessary to distribute information to potential externs through their website or communication with training directors. A centralized match process is an unnecessary solution to the current notifications process. The current process prioritizes convenience and ease for training sites and views student pressure and lack of choice as collateral damage (e.g., a one-hour decision window for the student prioritizes convenience for the site, providing them the opportunity to move down their list of applicants quickly but sacrificing the student's ability to choose their top site if the offer comes later in the day). A match process would equalize power between students and sites, but at an unnecessary financial cost. Problems with the current notifications process are directly responsible for the increasing number of sites that extend externship positions without regard for the ACEPT timeline, and the imposition of a centralized match would be an incomplete remedy for these problems.
Wheaton CollegeYes, there should be a training site directory Yes a centralized match process could be helpful
Wheaton College Yes, a centralized list seems incredibly logical. While a match system would be more organized, I see it as an unnecessary cost.
Wheaton CollegeYesYes
Wheaton CollegeI think this is a great idea. This doesn’t sound like a huge change but does include a fee for students, so I prefer the current method of applying.
Wheaton CollegeYesNo
Adler university YesYes
Wheaton CollegeYes, I think it would help eliminate the need for individual Universal Site Forms from each site.Yes, the stress around Pre-Notification/Notification Day is high for students and I think this match process would help with that.
Midwestern UniversityYes.Yes.
Wheaton CollegeI think a centralized directory would be very beneficial and help with informed decisions of students in applying. I do not believe a match process for students would be beneficial. The current notification system works well. Also charging students to get a practicum site seems unreasonable with all the other costs of graduate school and training.
Adler UniversityI think that such a directory would simplify much of the research and application process. I would recommend part of the system aim to help sites maintain up-to-date information about the site and application information each year, as that has been a significant issue in the past. However, I am concerned about the costs students would be expected to pay. Ideally, it would be a model that splits the cost between the students and the sites, but even then I expect a lot of push-back. As students, we are already "paying" to go on practicum through tuition, and having to pay just to look at the sites and apply would likely discourage and upset many students.I think such a match process makes more sense. Additionally, it allows not only the sites to interview the applicants, but also the applicants to interview the sites more, allowing students to have more of a sense of control over their own practicum experience. However, I reiterate my concerns about the cost given to students. The ideal would be splitting the cost between the students and the sites, if a cost must be given to the students.
Wheaton CollegeI am in favor of a centralized directory and would be willing to support a minimal fee for up-to-date information from sites YEARLY and the convenience of all the information being in a singular place. One suggestion would be to have sites have an annual due date (i.e., December 1st) to have site details updated from the previous year and a singular application (as opposed to each site having their own application). Yes, I am in favor of a match process. I believe this would simplify notification day immensely.
Midwestern UniversityI am in favor of a centralized directory. This will improve access to site information for all students.I am not in favor of charging students to complete a match process. Additionally, based on feedback I have received from APPIC applicants, the algorithm does not appear to make selections as well as advertised and does not provide students with best-fit training opportunities.
Adler UniversityI am for the centralized directory. My concerns are: 1) If our institution does not allow for students to apply to a certain site, how will that be filters in the directory? 2) For those who go to an ACEPT school but are applying to non-ACEPT sites such as neuro or VA, will non-ACEPT sites be listed in the directory as well? 3) More and more sites are not sticking with ACEPT, will there be changes made to the process to allow benefits for both students and sites?I would prefer the Match process over the current notification process. I like that we are pre-notified by sites, but notification day is confusing and I don't think all students/site follow protocol all the time. I think having a pre-notification day in which sites say they will or will not rank someone would be a good compromise between how current system works and how internship match process works. I do not think the fees should be delegated to the student at all. If institutions want to add that into a training fee, that would be fine. But making a student pay $35 at time of match is not feasible for many students. My other concern is for those who do not follow ACEPT, how will the match work for them? And, then those students wouldn't be paying a fee. So then it would also be unfair fee system for students who match verses are placed before match. (Hence why it should be a training fee implemented by the department rather than on an individual application process).
Wheaton College Yes, I am in support of a centralized directory. Given this information, I am opposed to the match process as compared to the current notification process. Personally, I have enjoyed the current notification process, specifically, that we have the ability to receive an email notification with our acceptance/rejection status and then have the opportunity to let it pend until all other emails have been received before making a decision.
Adler UniversityI don't have a problem with this. I don't want to pay a fee, but that's on student government to negotiate with the school.I think it will be similar, so idk really. I don't think it will be much of a change besides the fee.
Adler UniversityA centralized directory does sound like a good idea. However, the cost does seem concerning. I would want reassurance that the cost wouldn't trickle down to students or to sites that already are in a financially difficult times. It also seems having one person or a group of people that are responsible for checking for changes from sites year-to-year would be a great idea.I do not think a match process for practice is necessary. I think the process currently allows for more space for decisions on the behalf of students. By this I mean students have a greater ability to consider all of their options during the weekend after notification day. This time period can be very useful for future planning and making concessions. I believe the process by which sites communicate with applicants and vice versa is an effective one. I also oppose any solution the incurs added fees on students or participating sites that does not substantially and significantly improve upon the current process. I fail to see how this new match process would improve upon the current system.
Wheaton CollegeYes, we should switch to a centralized training site directory. Yes, we should switch to a centralized match process.
Wheaton CollegeI am strongly in favor of a centralized directory. I believe this would be in students best interest and limit additional phone calls/emails to sites to answer routine questions. I am strongly against a match process for students. I believe this adds both additional stress and financial burden to students. While the current process is not ideal, I cannot imagine going through a match for 3 years and then having to go through the match process for internship. Additionally, the resources needed to operate a high quality match system seem above what ACEPT would be able to offer. And I think anything but a high quality system would be a disservice to students.
Wheaton college YesYes
Adler UniversityI am in favor of this. It would help for all students to be able to see the site options more clearly. For externships, I've enjoyed the chance to think about my offers and then choose one. I actually found this less stressful than the APPIC process. I think that the way the notification system works now comes with some stress, but ultimately gives students a lot of control.
Wheaton CollegeYesI am unsure about this option. The additional fee component is not appealing, and as I am a first year student and have not been through the match process yet I do know know how in need of updating it may be.
Adler UniversityPreferred the format as is currently.I don't believe it is necessary, besides students are already short for cash during graduate school and this would be an added cost for many.
Wheaton CollegeYes. I think a centralized directory would reduce unnecessary burden on sites and schools to maintain an updated list of sites and the specifics of their training programs. Sites should be required to respond to all questions on the standardized form, which should include the following (at minimum): 1) Whether the site only takes advanced students; 2) Days/hours per week and time of day (i.e. evenings, etc...)required; 3) Updated supervisor/training director names and contact information and preferred method of contact; 4) Populations served in terms of age, presenting concerns, and demographics; 5) Theoretical orientations they practice from and in which they provide supervision; 6) Training offered (didactics, case conferences, individual/group supervision, etc...) and time allotted to each activity; 7) Modalities available to students (i.e. play therapy, couples, family, individual, etc...); 8) Application information detailing the preferred format, where to send the application, number of recommendation letters, and any supplemental materials required. No, I do not think a centralized match system would be to the benefit of students. As I go through the internship application process and prepare for the impending match day, I have a newfound appreciation for the ACEPT process. The ability to have some agency over where you end up in the event you receive more than one offer reduces anxiety - though it can certainly present it's own challenges, it's a great problem to have. I fear that students would have less freedom to shape their training experiences (to the greatest extent we're able) if the match process was modeled after APPIC's. For myself and in my observations of peers, the stress of the APPIC match process greatly exceeds the stress of the ACEPT process, in part because of the increased sense of the unknown and the obligation to go wherever one matches. One year in the ACEPT process, one of my friends got offers from two sites she really liked, but gained information about legal concerns related to both in the interim between the interview and notification day that forced her to have to reject both offers and go into the clearinghouse. If the ACEPT process is modeled after the APPIC match process, students should not be obligated to go where they match to protect them from potentially multiple years of detrimental training environments as much as possible.
Wheaton CollegeI believe that a centralized directory would make the process of applying and navigating site information far easier and accessible for students. The match process would likely reduce the time needed to determine if a student and site would work well together or not based on the ranking. Also, I believe that 50 dollars annually is not too much to ask of students, although it would be nicer if sites were able to contribute financially as well.
Wheaton CollegeI would like the centralized training site directory as long as students don't have to pay. No, I would prefer the process currently used.
Midwestern University Yes Yes
Adler UniversityI would be open to this change if it is for the betterment of the ACEPT match process and the pros outweighs the cons. Is it more affordable and efficient than the previous option? If yes, I would consider and support this new change.
Adler UniversityI would be open to this change if it is for the betterment of the ACEPT match process and the pros outweighs the cons. Is it more affordable and efficient than the previous option? If yes, I would consider and support this new change.
Adler UniversityYes. I believe this would provide fair and consistent information regarding site training, supervision, etc. to applicants in a way which APT does not. My hope is that with such a centralized system training sites and directors would be more diligent in providing up-to-date information for prospective applicants. In turn, I hope this would allow students to make better informed decisions about where they apply and accept offers from for practicum placements.No. I find there are many benefits to the current way in which the practicum interviewing and acceptance process works. First, I do not believe a centralized match process will truly benefit students, but likely would benefit schools and training sites. A centralized match process removes the final decision of the student to make a choice about where to accept for a placement in the event they are given multiple practicum offers on notification day. Being able to weigh one's options from potentially multiple offers is a huge benefit to students. I think this is especially true earlier in clinical training, where students may be less sure about where their clinical interests lie. I also have concerns about how schools would implement requirements for ranking; for example, policies are inconsistent from one training department to the next, and schools altering their application or interview requirements in order to portray a better match rate would ultimately disfavor students. Additionally, students should not be assessed any fees for participating in the practicum application process aside from the individual submissions of their application materials. The cost of graduate education in professional psychology is already burdensome, and asking more from students for the sake of participating in a centralized match process is unnecessary. I feel this to be particularly true if the fees go toward the company running the match process; the practicum application and acceptance process does not need to be turned into a commodity or opportunity for profit.
Adler University A centralized directory would be helpful. I think there could be a benefit in having students participate in a match process to prepare for internship but I believe that one of the benefits of not doing it is that it allowed for students to have a say in their training experiences more so than a match would. I think the current structure allows for students to weigh their options with all of the information. I imagine students who are in their first or second year of practicum might have a harder time knowing what they would want or how to pick their rankings.