Match Statistics - 2021 - Phase I

2021 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

 

We are pleased to report that 3,365 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions in Phase I of the 2021 APPIC Match. A total of 44% of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, two-thirds (67%) received one of their top two choices, and about four-in-five (80%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 584 applicants were not matched to an internship position in Phase I, while an additional 190 applicants withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List. A total of 410 positions remained unfilled.

There were 166 internship sites (22%) that had at least one unfilled position. This includes 109 of 658 (17%) accredited sites and 57 of 86 (66%) non-accredited sites.

Internship Supply and Demand: After several years of a relative "balance" between the numbers of applicants and positions in the APPIC Match, a somewhat different picture emerged this year. The table below summarizes the increase in student participation as compared to last year along with a decrease in available positions. The number of applicants now exceeds the number of positions by 364, which is the largest gap since 2015. Furthermore, the number of applicants now exceeds the number of accredited positions by 624.

---

		2020 MATCH	2021 MATCH	CHANGE
Applicants:	Registered for the Match (Phase I)	3,891	4,139	+248	(+6%)
Positions:	Offered in the Match (Phase I)	3,863	3,775	-88	(-2%)
	Accredited (APA or CPA)	3,513	3,515	+2	(+0%)
	Non-Accredited	350	260	-90	(-26%)
Number of registered applicants exceeded number of positions by:		28	364	+336
Number of registered applicants exceeded number of accredited positions by:		378	624	+246

---

As can be seen in the above table, the number of accredited positions remained stable while the number of unaccredited positions decreased. This decrease may have been due, at least in part, to the recent mission-driven APPIC policy change that began requiring APPIC membership in order to participate in the Match. The pandemic and resulting economic challenges may have also played a role. Furthermore, this change is consistent with a multi-year trend in which the number of non-accredited positions in Phase I decreased from 952 in 2015 to 260 this year.

With regard to this year's increase in applicants, the following table summarizes the one-year change in registered applicants in Phase I across doctoral program areas:

The 2021 APPIC Match statistics are provided below, in four sections:

• Applicants
• Internship Programs
• Doctoral Program Participation and Results
• Summary of Program Rankings

---

APPLICANTS

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 8.0 Applicants.

---

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS

NOTE: A "training site" can offer more than one "program" in the Match. Each "program" was identified in the Match by a separate 6-digit code number.

NOTE: For comparison purposes, last year (2020) 768 sites received a total of 55,416 applications. Mean number received in 2020 = 72.2 (SD = 59.3), Median = 59, Range = 1-367.

NOTE: 24 programs at 22 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 41 positions, which remained unfilled.

Non-accredited positions represented 6.9% of all positions but 29.8% of unfilled positions.

Included in the numbers for accredited sites shown above are 37 sites that were designated "Accredited, On Contingency". These 37 sites had 92% (131 of 143) of their positions filled in Phase I, with 31 of the 37 sites (84%) filling all of their positions.

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 6.8 Different Programs.

---

DOCTORAL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND RESULTS

---

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM RANKINGS

The following report contains additional statistics on how successful programs were, on average, in matching with applicants during Phase I of the APPIC Match.

There are several important issues that must be considered in attempting to analyze program success based on the rank numbers of matched applicants.

DEFINITIONAL PROBLEMS: Because each applicant submitted a single Rank Order List in order to match to a single position, it is easy to identify his or her "first choice," "second choice," etc. However, for an internship program, determining first or second choice applicants is a far more difficult and complex task. First, many programs attempt to fill several positions; if a program has three positions to fill, an applicant ranked third by that program can in effect be considered a "first choice" for purposes of the Match. Furthermore, a significant number of sites submitted multiple Rank Order Lists for a single program, sometimes ranking the same applicant on different Lists with different rank numbers. Also, the reversion of unfilled positions between lists adds a further complication to this analysis.

We worked closely with National Matching Services in an attempt to resolve these difficulties and to develop a reasonable method of presenting this data.

STANDARDIZED RANKINGS: For the purposes of this analysis, we converted each site's rankings to a "standardized rank." This is best explained by example: if the number of positions to be filled from a Rank Order List was three, then the first three applicants on this List were considered to be "first choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 1. The next three applicants on that List were defined as "second choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 2. And so on.

PHASE I MATCH RESULTS BY
STANDARDIZED RANK NUMBER ON INTERNSHIP PROGRAM LIST

(Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding errors)

To interpret this chart: Of all positions that were filled in Phase I of the Match, 31% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 23% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 54% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 71% were filled with "third choice" applicants or better.

Of course, comparing these numbers to applicants' Match statistics should be done with extreme caution, given the significantly different ways in how "first choice", "second choice", etc. were defined in each analysis.