Jon-Jon Johnson

I also have a friend who was accepted into high tier clinical programs in her mid-30s, so it is definitely doable. From her journey, the biggest thing you will probably have to address is not your age per se but rather whether you are truly ready and able to start down that path given your other sidetracks. Non-traditional students can be seen as bringing a lot to the table that 22-year-olds cannot, but it is also a bit of a question mark along the lines of the programs wondering whether you will end up abandoning the whole thing a year or two in because you need and/or want to return to a job with a regular income (for instance).
 
The above is just an example, and it may be somewhat unlikely that anyone would ever ask or comment directly about it, but the idea is to put yourself in their shoes and think about what would potentially raise questions about your application, and then cut them off at the pass. If you can address them as part of your SoP narrative, that can be a good way to make a preemptive strike and nullify that issue from the get-go. Hopefully what I'm trying to say makes sense; I don't know how good my try is.
 
Oh, and there are more formal things like you needing to take GREs again since your last set of scores is (presumably) now more than five years old, so I would start looking into that as well.

O but it's an easy issue to address empirically.

I assume your "film" focus in your profile is fake and that you applied to experimental psychology programs because I am restricting my claim to phd experimental psychology programs (mostly social and cognitive and clinical).

If we define most as a simple "majority of" and we look at the top 50 (or 100) phd experimental programs in psychology, I would best that most require some form of interview.

And we have access to most of the data in these forums in a different thread that posts the interview/recruitment weekends for many universities.

The rest of the data can be obtained easily other ways.

Haha we just need to find someone who wants to do that work because neither one of us Id imagine wants to.

False. Most experimental psychology programs (social, cogntiive, etc) require an interview. It has been a recent trend in the field, but most of the programs that I applied too, with the exception of one, required an interview before an offer or acceptance. Terminal masters psychology programs typically do not require an interview process, but I think it is also moving in the direction of having one before acceptances.

Let's just say I knows peeps with direct ties to the process there. Gotta stay incognito. 
 
Sorry for breaking your heart though 
 
I still love you 
 
Okay, no more smilies.
 
...
 

I would consider retaking it if you are planning on applying to top tier programs and think you can boost each of them up 2-4 more points. It sounds like you have already checked them against your targeted schools, so that will be your call to make, but you do not necessarily need to stress about 95%iles if your scores fall within range.
 
I disagree about needing an 800 on the subject GRE. I would take it if one of your schools requires it of course, but even amongst top schools where it is required, it is not as well-regarded or critical in the decision making process as the standard GRE unless you are coming from a less traditional background, e.g., non-psych undergrad who needs to demonstrate that the core psych background is there. (There's a reason so many schools don't require that test at all.) Again, higher is always better, but even for the cream of the crop, you certainly do not need a 99% on the psych GRE just to be competitive.
 
Overall, GREs are most important for getting your application past the initial screening where they weed out the low numbers. If your scores are in the right range for the school, the rest of your application takes over from there. Hitting a school's (unpublished) cut-off mark is definitely critical, but when it comes to a final round, no decent school is going to turn away an applicant with a better SoP, recommendations, experience, and/or research match just because their GRE scores are a point or two lower than the competition.

Just to add my blunt two cents, quite frankly, when I see someone describe themselves as "unempathetic" and then I consider the fact that they're probably being generous about themselves, it reads to me like "I'm a presumptuous a-hole with questionable social skills," especially since this is psychology and not a socially-challenged tech field (and I safely say this after many interactions with the most techy of the techs.)
 
Not saying that that's you, of course. Maybe you mean it in some other way that escapes me. However, if that's how any given person comes across in-person, then yeah, I wouldn't be chomping at the bit to have them as a peer lab member.

Just to add my blunt two cents, quite frankly, when I see someone describe themselves as "unempathetic" and then I consider the fact that they're probably being generous about themselves, it reads to me like "I'm a presumptuous a-hole with questionable social skills," especially since this is psychology and not a socially-challenged tech field (and I safely say this after many interactions with the most techy of the techs.)
 
Not saying that that's you, of course. Maybe you mean it in some other way that escapes me. However, if that's how any given person comes across in-person, then yeah, I wouldn't be chomping at the bit to have them as a peer lab member.

Just to add my blunt two cents, quite frankly, when I see someone describe themselves as "unempathetic" and then I consider the fact that they're probably being generous about themselves, it reads to me like "I'm a presumptuous a-hole with questionable social skills," especially since this is psychology and not a socially-challenged tech field (and I safely say this after many interactions with the most techy of the techs.)
 
Not saying that that's you, of course. Maybe you mean it in some other way that escapes me. However, if that's how any given person comes across in-person, then yeah, I wouldn't be chomping at the bit to have them as a peer lab member.

Uhhh YES.  My department will ask if we had particularly strong feelings (good or bad) about the applicants.  Faculty have never accepted someone that one of us has said was unfriendly/rude/arrogant/competitive/non-appreciative of the opportunity to interview in our department. 
 
The grad students end up seeing the applicants a lot more than the faculty, and you wouldn't believe how many applicants BLOW IT by saying something in front of a grad student that they just should NOT have.  Go in with the attitude you have and you will not be admitted into my department--we really do not want to work with someone who thinks they know more and have more life experiences than us--you don't even know anything about these grad students and this is how you view them!?  And even if you DO know more and have more (notice, not better) life experience, does this mean you cannot be friendly, polite, and interact with them in a professional way??  That kind of attitude would surely be communicated back to the faculty, the faculty whose loyalty is to the current students, who put their trust in the current students assessment of your character. 
 
How about you just act like a nice, happy, normal person who is appreciative of the opportunity to meet with current students at the place you might live the next 5-8 years?  Also these are the people who you will see more than anyone else for those years, so how about you try just being nice to them and maybe make a friend?

I think approaching it from the angle of "I probably already know more than them" isn't really going to be productive in a science which is highly collaborative...   Same problem with those who don't feel the need to discuss science with those who are slightly out of one's research bubble.
 
Being amicable is part of the job, or at least for those who are successful at it.

UCLA clinical invites have all been extended at this point. From past experience, they usually have not sent official "check this website for your rejection letter" emails until late February.