PokePsych

quite many people I've heard about start in the uni housing and then go house hunting in the meantime. 

I don't think Ivy's really have that different standards from other R1 universities tbh. In general you want to have a minimum score of 310 to be considered; ideally with both scores at least above the 80th percentile. However, I got into an R1 with a 88th and 72nd percentile score for V & Q respectively. I think your AW wouldn't be the problem much. 
It really depends on the rest of your qualifications though. You're above 310 (usually the lower bound is 300 though, but above 310 is better), so in general you should make the first cut. Keep in mind that most admission committees no longer rely on GRE scores as any reasonable indicator of potential (research experience is way more important), but it's often used by the school itself as a cutoff score for funding (that's what I've heard from a couple of institutes now). If your profile is strong otherwise you probably don't have to worry. 

back on topic;
I'm currently reading 'How to Write a Lot' by Paul J. Silvia - it's a bit over 100 pages, so it's not a long read. You can get it on Amazon. It was recommended by quite some faculty I've worked with over the years (you may ask if someone has a copy). Although I personally don't have a lot of problems with writing a lot, it is helpful in many other ways and gives valuable tips on how to 'plan' writing and so on.
Writing time is not just actual writing. You want to also spend time 'planning' your writing. you wanna spend some time on the outline and order of your arguments, set goals on what you wanna do on a day, etc. I do have a 'writing schedule' for a given month/week usually. For me, creating an outline first also helps me with remembering what I'm actually doing. I usually block out 3x 4 hours in a given week to work on writing (usually the afternoons I don't have class/other responsibilities; although it's also occasionally mornings - but I make sure I have at least 8 hrs per week fully focussed on writing) to write. I've also done 2 hours after lunch each day, but my current schedule doesn't allow me to do so. Sometimes I don't need this much time, but then I'll just use it to read things I'm interested in that are maybe not directly relevant to a paper I'm working on, but could be helfpul in the future. When I'm having writing sessions, people that work with me know that I will not be checking my email regularly during those hours (i.e., the 8 hrs that I'm devoted to writing) - if at all, but there are other ways to contac tme for important things. 
I usually start by going quickly over what I wrote the previous session, weeding out any 'very wonky' sentences in the process and it helps me to remember what I was working on, although this step is not always needed. Then I just start writing. Sometimes I may just write the general outline of the paper; I add references later because I know what info I want to include. I often add more information and so on later, but I write a general body with all the arguments and the like first and put things like (xxxx) as a reference if I'm not sure who and what (sometimes I remember). I personally find it easier to just flow on like that than constantly move back and forth between checking references and writing - also because I already know my outline. When the general body of the intro is finished, I will usually start adding references and more information if I come across missing information (I find it personally easier to just 'add' an extra sentence with relevant info). I can also spend a session working on a lit review and taking notes on relevant information in a doc and use that for writing my outline later on. I also usually pre-write my methods and results , so I don't forget any analyses and just sorta fill in the blanks and outcomes (i.e., As can be seen in Table x , there was a *** between variable X and variable Y, *stats*/ Blabla was assessed using Scale X (alpha/Mean/SD)). After doing that I move on to the discussion because you need the results for that. But I do dot down some things I want to mention or go over while writing other sections. I generally work with keywords or short sentences to remind myself what the outline is/should be. Note that this order is not fixed. Some people also prefer to write methods and results first, and the intro later. It also depends on whether I'm collaborating with someone and so on - that's why planning and having an outline is so helpful.
Because I have regular writing time, I also do not really have rituals to get into writing except getting a big coffee. My ritual is literally just closing all my other browsers (except EndNote maybe), make sure I have coffee, put on my headphones (I usually just listen to some jazz radio station on youtube - that's the other browser I'll have open) and just go. I usually will have a pop-up for my uni-email account, although I sometimes disable that too if I really want to focus on something difficult. Because your ritual takes about an hour, you may figure a way to use time from the ritual for actual writing - I'm not saying all, but just slowly get faster in the writing itself. If you plan your writing in advance (such as what you want to do, have an outline, etc.) it may save you some time later on. I also know people who keep a writing log (spend the last 5- 10 min of their session writing down what they did and goals for the next day), similar to how people keep a datalog where you summarize what you did with your data (you want to do that too).
As for writing anything 'good' - I wouldn't necessarily focus too much on the output itself. Sometimes I can spend a whole session just writing a poorly, but it is easier to edit something than just write it from scratch. If you plan your text well (like flow, order of arguments, etc.), I think it will also make it easier to write something 'good'. Don't be discouraged by the fact that you may spend quite some time outlining your paper, because it will help you in the end for sure! Writing is not the actual amount of words you wrote down in a given time; it involves a lot more.
 
As for other tips;
- try to figure out what good times for writing are for you. I'm not very functional the first 1 - 2 hrs in the office, so I try to use that time for other tasks such as replying to emails, downloading papers, reading easy things, and meetings if possible. I do find the first 1-2 hrs good for editing too, so if I have a morning writing session, I usually use it for editing and data analyses (i.e., fill in the blanks in my methods/results).
- Let other people know you have certain time scheduled for writing and don't care about what they think of that. 
- Make realistic and attainable goals and stick to that. It could be goals as 'write an outline of the intro', 'write 500 words', 'finish analysis X', etc. You'll figure out over time what is attainable for you.
- Be cautious not to just spent your writing time 'worrying' about writing, deadlines, etc. Actually use it to do things.

I agree that going to the program that is the better fit, offers the best opportunities, etc. should be a higher priority than your stipend. However, you also should consider what sacrifices you will need to make if you go to a program with an insufficient stipend. (By "insufficient" I mean a stipend that would not cover your basic cost of living. - which is, unfortunately, the case in some programs.) I have peers at different universities that have needed to take on side jobs or private student loans to pay the bills during graduate school. This can detract from their ability to focus on what they need to in graduate school and prevent them from taking full advantage of the opportunities available to them. As long as your basic needs are covered by the stipend, I would agree that your values and what you want out of graduate school/what programs can provide that should be your biggest consideration. 

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam has a research master's that's actually very evolutionary psych focused because a big portion of the faculty are evo psych people. They're not particularly Culture focused, although you may have some luck with Balliet who does cross-cultural work these days and van Lange who did the climate theory thing. Not necessarily competitive either, but if your goal is a PhD in Europe it wouldn't hurt you. Getting *back* in the US may be a bit more difficult. But that also goes for U of A and some other places. 

nothing different from other international students really.
Also - there will be a decline of international students in general, as nobody is able to obtain a student visa at the moment - regardless of nationality (Canadians may be an exception, they have slightly different procedures).
So I guess things, at least in psych, will just become very American-centric if this continues and takes the American, white, middle/upper class psych as the standard of everything. Nothing new, but at least that was changing, partly due to the presence of international students. 

Other than these valid points - a lot of PhD programs don't even have specific areas in their program (only 'psychology') and a lot of people do interdisciplinary things (e.g., social neuroscience is a field?!) This distinction makes so not sense....

FYI, I have emailed admin to inquire about the change. 

Just adding to the growing group to say change it back! While I recognize clinical psych is a large focus of the forum, there are LOTS of other sub-disciplines that use threads. If I was new to GC and wasn't clinical, I wouldn't know that this space was for me, too. 

As an aside, if they intend to open new boards for different psych fields, that's a huge error in judgment. We need interdisciplinary contact, even if it's at the application stages.
I think someone goofed. They leapt on an idea and didn't really think it through.

I'm a clinical psychology doctoral student and I approve this message.

change it back

This exactly. Frankly, this is a stupid, exclusionary change. Clinicians obviously felt comfortable posting here before, and non-clinical psychologists deserve a place on gradcafe. I am really not seeing the benefits of this decision. I support changing the name back. 

As a non-clinical person, I found this board very useful. I'm afraid future non-clinical psych applicants won't know to post here.

Although I am clinically-focused, I will second this question. Surely the admins recognize that psych consists of many sub-disciplines, with the variety of graduate programs reflecting this? Would it be that difficult to either revert the forum back to general psych, or to at least create additional subforums?

As a developmental/education/quant psych person, I feel excluded

is it me or did they change the name of this forum "clinical psychology forum"? Feeling the erasure of  social/dev/IO psych ?

have a clear idea of your research + how it relates to the PI in a way that gets them excited? Other than that not much - they'll likely already know who is their first choice

Some universities do pay for your partner (aka mine fully pays my husbands fees)

I'm a bit confused on why our friends are either 1) undergrads  'representing youth' or 2) grad students who 'are in a different life phase). Other than that many of my friends are not grad student, some of the most ambitious, 'mature', future-oriented people I've met are among my undergrad RAs. Some of the most party-fun people are grad students. I wouldn't stereotype either as such. 
And that even goes for professors - some come out to bars to have drinks or go to techno parties, others indeed only read. I think you can find people fit to you in any environment.

I know one of my RAs was in an interview with 8 others for one positions - so seems likely!

I think there are still employers doing that. I also think the applicant pool is declining since most fellow international students do not plan on staying here after the increased racism, the COVID handling, the uncertainty (depending on who is the president), and obviously the whole joke that this election was and how people are responding. It's  not like we have any rights really.
It seems the field of finance is more likely to stay in the US (they need the lack of regulations :'), whereas tech has started to recruit people more in places like Canada or certain European countries given that visas are so much easier there. So I think it also depends on which 'field' you'd like to work in. Similarly, such places often GIVE green cards/permits very easily to those who graduated from a university grad program in their country, thus attracting such companies. We really regret  not going the Canada route.
At the same time, Biden did have as a proposal that he wants to give STEM grad students green cards - but given the shape of this country, I don't think that policy would be high on the priority list.
 
 
 
 
 

It's not about he didnt support them or me - coz he absolutely did. But it's also about us supporting each other - and that also means I can't ask him to sacrifice everything for me and my career goals. I still had a good thesis project - just not as great or cool as it could have been and I certainly missed out on opportunities to connect, network, and get some name value on my resume. 
I also didnt apply to some schools because of him - job opportunities, the area etc. Sacrifice is an essential part of every relationship I think. But I would make the same choices again.

the website doesn't show things well sometimes -see other posts after me as well. 
 
game show

I'd be cautious about this if it's a program you're really excited about. There are so many reasons professors don't reply that go beyond their interest in you (general policy to not reply, being really busy and it slipping through the cracks, etc). While I totally understand it being disheartening, I wouldn't count yourself out, especially when so many people have said they've gotten in with either no or a very canned response.