APPIC Postdoctoral Committee: Proposed Changes of APPIC fellowship notification
Aaron Gubi
Postdoctoral Selection Common Hold Date (CHD) Proposal
Request for Public Comment
Click on the following link to view a very brief video overview of the CHD process (Video Link). We believe the video will be helpful but stress that reading through the entire document is necessary to more fully understand the CHD proposal and to provide meaningful feedback.
The link and instructions for public comment are at the bottom of the document.
Link to a PDF of the CHD document Common Hold Date Proposal Final.pdf (appic.org)
Dear Members of the Postdoctoral Training Community,
The APPIC Postdoctoral Committee and the APPIC Board of Directors believes that establishing overall organization and consistent selection processes are in the best interest of applicants, programs, and the larger postdoctoral community. While substantial progress has been made in building community among postdoctoral programs, we recognize the importance of continued efforts toward creating a more cohesive and structured selection process. Of note and importance, there remains an increasing imbalance of postdoctoral positions relative to postdoctoral applicants, such that there are significantly more positions than applicants, leaving many positions unfilled annually. Given this current reality, any selection process will result in unfilled positions; while this is an undesirable outcome for a program, this is due to the imbalance, rather than an inherent problem with the process. Data indicate that the majority of applicants secure postdoctoral positions with their top-ranked programs, which is not surprising given this imbalance. However, sufficient numbers of programs and applicants have experienced stresses and limitations related to the Uniform Notification Date (UND) system to warrant consideration of an alternative approach. Therefore, the APPIC Postdoctoral Committee is exploring an alternative process for postdoctoral selection, namely, the possibility of using a Common Hold Date (CHD) process to replace the current UND process.
We believe the CHD may provide a simpler and more flexible process that will serve both applicants and programs well. Attached you will find a brief description of the basic principles of the CHD, followed by a draft of the potential CHD guidelines, and finally a series of anticipated questions and answers.
We invite individuals involved in postdoctoral training and selection (e.g., postdoctoral training directors and supervisors, internship training directors, recent and prospective postdoctoral applicants, committees, councils, and divisions) to provide public comment on the proposed CHD process. Please read through the document carefully and provide your feedback through the link at the end of this document. We welcome all feedback and are particularly interested in what you think would work or may not work with the proposed CHD process, and if you anticipate that the program or organization you represent would support following the new process for future selection cycles. Feedback obtained through this comment period will inform the final version of future APPIC Postdoctoral Selection Guidelines, should APPIC adopt the CHD process.
The Common Hold Date (CHD) process is intended to: 1) allow for a more flexible and fluid process such that mutually beneficial program-applicant pairings can occur under less time-pressured circumstances as compared with the UND, 2) relieve the pressures and binds historically caused by short offer hold times that come prior to the UND, 3) offer applicants improved opportunity to make maximally informed decisions, 4) continue to foster organization of the postdoctoral selection process, and 5) in time, disrupt annual creep of early offers by altering programs’ sense that making earlier offers significantly advantages them.
For the purposes of this public comment and clarity in understanding the proposed CHD process, we have selected 2/22/23 as a potential example of a future CHD. Should the CHD guidelines be adopted, the actual date may be different.
Basic Common Hold Date Principles
● Programs are free to make offers whenever they choose, following interview completion.
● Applicants can hold only their single top-ranked offer until the CHD, 2/22/23. Applicants should promptly notify all programs that are lower ranking than their held program that they are withdrawing from the selection process at those sites.
● Applicants can accept a program offer at any time, and upon acceptance, should promptly notify all other programs with which they have interviewed that they are withdrawing from the selection process at those sites.
● If an applicant declines an offer, the program may then immediately extend the offer to their next top-ranked applicant.
● Programs and applicants act in accordance with the understanding that offers made by programs and held by applicants are binding and cannot be retracted.
● Clinical neuropsychology programs are not expected to follow these guidelines. Programs that are predominantly research focused are encouraged to follow these guidelines to the extent possible.
DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR COMMON HOLD DATE (CHD) GUIDELINES
CHD Guidelines
Making offers
1. Programs can make offers to their top-ranked applicants as soon as all of their interviews and ranking lists are complete, extending as many offers as they have available positions. It is strongly recommended that programs refrain from shifting their interview schedules earlier or making very early offers. Although the CHD guidelines do not define a date that programs need to make offers by prior to the CHD, programs are encouraged to consider a reasonable offer window within a few weeks of the CHD.
2. At any given time, programs can only extend as many offers as they have available positions (e.g., If a program has one position, it can make one offer. If a program has two or more available positions or two or more tracks or focus areas, the program can make that number of offers).
3. Programs are to allow applicants to hold an offer until 10:00 AM EST on the CHD of 2/22/23, regardless of when the offer was made. Programs may periodically check in with applicants who are holding offers for updates on their decision-making status or process but should not pressure them to accept the offer before the CHD.
4. Offers made to applicants are considered binding until the CHD at 10:00 EST on 2/22/23. Offers can be made verbally but must immediately be followed by an email confirming the offer and with a statement that it can be held through the CHD at 10:00 EST.
Receiving, Holding and Accepting Offers prior to the CHD
- Applicants can accept a program’s offer at any point (e.g., if an applicant receives an offer from their top-ranked program prior to the CHD, they should accept the offer upon making their decision). Applicants should immediately notify all programs for which they are still under consideration that they have accepted an offer for another position and are therefore withdrawing from further consideration.
- If an applicant receives an offer prior to the CHD and the offer is not from their top-ranked program or they have not completed all of their postdoc interviews, the applicant should request to hold the offer until the CHD. If the applicant holds any offer, they should withdraw from the selection process at any lower ranked sites. The applicant may also choose to reach out to higher-ranked programs to ask about their standing and when the program will be extending offers, or where the program is in the offer process.
- Applicants may only hold one offer at a time and should promptly decline any offer that is lower on their ranking list than a preferred offer being held. If an applicant is holding an offer and receives another offer from a program that is higher on their list, they can accept or hold that offer and should immediately notify the lower-ranked program that they are declining that offer.
4. Once an offer has been accepted, the program should immediately notify applicants with whom they have interviewed that the positions for which they have applied have been filled.
- If an applicant declines a program’s offer prior to or on the CHD, the program may immediately extend an offer for that position to its next ranked applicant who should also be allowed to hold the offer until the CHD (if given prior to that date).
- Although we believe that most offers and acceptances will occur prior to the CHD as the process unfolds, applicants that hold an offer until the CHD must notify the program whether they are accepting or declining the offer by 10:00 AM EST on the CHD (2/22/23). Otherwise, the program can retract the offer via email communication and extend it to the next-ranked applicant. On the CHD, programs may continue to extend offers for all remaining available positions and should allow applicants to hold those offers for at least two hours.
Acknowledging receipt of offers
- Prior to the CHD, applicants should acknowledge receipt of postdoctoral position offers received through email or voice message as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours after receiving the offer, even if they choose to hold the offer. Failure to do so could result in the program retracting the offer.
2. For postdoctoral position offers made on the CHD, applicants should acknowledge receipt of postdoctoral position offers received through email or voice message within one hour of receiving the offer even if they choose to hold the offer. Failure to do so could result in the program retracting the offer.
ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS WITH RESPONSES
The APPIC Postdoctoral Committee anticipates the following questions and potential concerns with the CHD process and offers the following responses:
a) Will the CHD work? What happens if I don’t fill all of my program’s positions?
o We know there are substantially more postdoctoral programs than applicants. With this imbalance, no system of selection could ensure that a program will fill all of its positions. With the current UND (Uniform Notification Date) process, many programs have expressed the belief that the system does not work because “they lose applicants to other programs” who make early offers and do not follow the UND. Given the current supply-demand dynamics, we need to redefine what it means for a postdoctoral selection process to be effective. We have data indicating that the current process, although stressful, yields good outcomes for applicants, with 72% securing their #1 ranked program and 90% of applicants securing their #1 or #2 ranked programs. Although many postdoctoral positions may continue to remain unfilled with the CHD process due to the current imbalance, programs will likely feel less constrained by the CHD process given the increased latitude in making offers. Programs will likely also find it more apparent that when they “lose” applicants, this is due to the applicant securing their preferred program, and not due to the CHD process or not making offers early enough. It is hoped that through the cascading nature of the process, programs will have more confidence that unfilled positions are a result of a position/applicant imbalance and not the selection process.
b) Will programs accelerate their postdoctoral application and selection process and make offers even earlier in effort to get a leg up on other programs?
o As noted in the CHD process, programs are strongly encouraged to not move the dates they make offers earlier with the intention of “getting a leg up” on other programs. Annually, postdoctoral selection processes have been creeping earlier and earlier, which challenges both programs and applicants. With the CHD process, extending earlier offers simply lengthens the amount of time applicants have to hold an offer and does not necessarily advantage a program following the CHD, reducing the incentive to shift selection earlier and earlier.
o We acknowledge that some programs will not follow the CHD and may choose to make earlier offers with hold-times shorter than the CHD. However, we are optimistic that more programs will comply with the CHD process than the UND since it simplifies the process for all and provides more flexibility to programs with respect to offer timing. If the CHD system were widely adopted, we would anticipate a reduction in the annual creep of postdoctoral selection season and potentially a less stressful selection process.
o Programs will indicate the approximate date they intend to make offers in public materials and UPPD listings, and will also indicate if they are abiding by the CHD.
c) What about programs that choose not to adhere to the CHD process and do not allow applicants to hold offers until the CHD?
o We acknowledge that some programs will not follow the CHD guidelines. However, we believe that more programs will adopt the CHD guidelines than the UND since it provides more flexibility to programs as to the timing of their offers. We anticipate that programs currently following the UND will likely adopt the alternative CHD, and we are optimistic that many programs currently not following the UND will be willing to try the CHD; this would bring more programs into a common system, which is optimal and will improve the effectiveness of the system.
d) Programs may be uncomfortable allowing an applicant to hold an offer until the CHD, given the concern that the applicant will eventually decline their offer, and the program will lose their other applicants in the meantime.
o We anticipate that programs will feel less “handcuffed” by the proposed CHD system than they do under the current UND because programs would no longer be constrained as to when they can make offers. Programs would not be required to wait to extend initial offers as they were with the UND. Further, if an applicant rejects an offer, the program will be free to immediately extend the offer to their next top-ranked applicant. Though there is inherent unease in recruitment processes and this is currently elevated for programs in light of the imbalance, we are optimistic that these features of the CHD system will reduce program discomfort and reservations about adopting it.
o It is unlikely that the majority of applicants will hold offers until the CHD. In fact, we believe that the vast majority of positions would be filled prior to the CHD through the natural process of cascading extension and acceptance of offers. This will offer the benefit of a selection process with less inherent time pressure. Positions not immediately filled through initial offers may still be filled in a relatively short time frame given the following:
▪ An applicant holding a program’s offer will accept that offer if they learn their higher-ranked program filled a position, or
▪ An applicant holding a program’s offer will decline the offer if they get an offer from a higher-ranked program. This allows the program to make an offer to the next applicant on their list.
o Based on annual applicant survey data, we know that 90% of applicants secure their #1 or #2 ranked program. Therefore, we can anticipate that many initial offers will be accepted immediately, and we suspect that many offers that are held will be resolved in a matter of a few days, rather than being delayed until the CHD. As stated previously, inherent in the current imbalance of more applicants than programs, it is understood that even with the CHD process some positions will not be filled; while an undesirable outcome for a program, this is due to the imbalance, rather than an inherent problem with the process. The CHD process would allow programs to check in with applicants holding offers as long as they continue to allow the applicant to hold the offer until the 2/22/23 CHD. This will allow program directors to gather information about how long an offer may be held, reducing some anxiety and uncertainty.
e) Why is there not a reciprocal offer component to the CHD process? What is an applicant to do if they receive an early offer from one of their lower-ranked programs not following the CHD?
o The Postdoctoral Committee considered several iterations of reciprocal offer processes but none seemed viable as they all would involve retracting an offer made to a more preferred candidate which would be inconsistent with ethics and general fair selection processes. The reciprocal offer component of the UND has also been experienced as complex and confusing by many applicants and programs.
o Applicants who receive an offer from a program not following the CHD, could:
● Accept or decline the offer.
● Request to hold the offer until the CHD or as long as possible, anticipating they may receive an offer from one of their higher ranked programs prior to the CHD. As indicated in the draft guidelines, “The applicant may also choose to reach out to higher-ranked programs to ask about their standing and when the program will be extending offers, or where the program is in the offer process.“
f) Is there any precedent for a system like the CHD being effective?
o The CHD process is similar to the selection process used by doctoral psychology programs, whereby applicants may receive offers from various programs, hold an offer until a commonly accepted date, and accept an offer from their preferred program prior to that date. It is a familiar process to psychology trainees; implementation would reduce aspects of postdoctoral selection and recruitment processes that are currently confusing to applicants. Of course, the effectiveness of the CHD system will, in part, depend on the degree of adoption of it. The APPIC Postdoctoral Committee is hopeful that a higher number of postdoctoral programs will agree to follow the CHD than currently follow the UND, which will increase the effectiveness of the system.
g) How will applicants and programs know how to follow the proposed CHD guidelines, if they go into effect?
o The APPIC Postdoctoral Committee will implement multi-pronged educational efforts to facilitate an effective selection process, including educating postdoctoral applicants, internship training directors, and postdoctoral training directors about the CHD processes and how to manage various scenarios that could emerge. The Postdoc Committee would provide updated written materials, revise the UPPD, facilitate community conversations, and meet with any Training Directors or organizations with questions about implementation.
How to enter your Public Comment
Click on the following link to add your comment https://tinyurl.com/35uezea8
- Enter your name
- Enter the institution where you work or the organization you represent
- In the comments field, please indicate:
- Your general impressions of the CHD,
- The aspects of the CHD that you think would work,
- The aspects of the CHD process that you think may be challenging, and
- Do you anticipate that the program or organization you represent would support following the new process for future selection cycles, should the CHD process be adopted?
- Feedback obtained through this comment period will inform the final version of future APPIC Postdoctoral Selection Guidelines, should APPIC adopt the CHD process.
Public Comment will be accepted through 5/20/22.
Contact Wayne G. Siegel, ABPP, Chair of the APPIC Postdoctoral Committee with any questions at sie...@appic.org or 612-467-4024.
Thanks,
Wayne
Wayne G. Siegel, Ph.D., ABPP
Licensed Psychologist
Board Certified in Clinical Psychology
Director of Training/ Psychology Supervisor
Minneapolis VA Medical Center
Psychology Training Programs Websites
Pronouns: He, him, his
--
Assistant Professor
1000 Morris Avenue
Union, NJ 07083
gu...@kean.edu