lewin

If they want your GPA they'll ask for it. In my lab we ask every candidate to send CV and transcript, so there would be no avoiding it. So in sum, it depends on the lab.

All research is good experience but getting an NSERC looks better because they're more exclusive. Will it make a huge difference? Probably not. I would think that clinical programs would care more about CIHR, but as far as I know CIHR doesn't have an undergraduate research award. If you can't apply for NSERC anyway then why worry about it too much?

"It was due to a health issue that is now resolved," is a good standard phrase to use that they recommend in job interviews. The last part reassures them it won't be an ongoing problem that might impact your grad school performance.

This is true, people love that Pennebaker LIWC software. I'm on a paper that used it for a study--very light on the descriptive, heavy on the quant angle (e.g., correlating the text ratings with other things).

Social psychology is not qualitative, it's strongly quantitative and, in my experience, even looks down at qualitative research as like quaint or amusing but lacking the ability to rule out alternative explanations and therefore ultimately just fodder for talk introductions. Prototypical reaction to qualitative finding: "Oh, that's an interesting idea. How can we test it in an experiment?" I can't recall reading anything in a social psych journal that was descriptive or qualitative. More so, social psychology is strongly experimental. I flipped through the most recent JPSP and my casual tally found about 2/3rds of studies were experiments, not just correlational. I agree with the others that you should do the research you like; I just mean that if you want to do qualitative then social psychology is barking up the wrong tree.

If anything this could help. They know that if they accept you, you're very likely to come.

Just to chime in, it's polite to decline quickly if you know with certainty that you won't attend somewhere because they might be able to offer the spot to somebody else. One recommended process is whenever you have three offers, decide which is the worst and decline that one ASAP. That way you can still think about the top two, but the third could go to someone else. Otherwise, I agree with everybody else that it's perfectly fine to say that you had planned to wait until you hear back from the places where you interviewed before replying definitely.

That would typically mean a research talk, anything from 15-50 minutes. It's very unusual to ask an undergrad to do this though--how many undergrads have 50 minutes of research to talk about?--so might be worth asking him to clarify what he means by seminar. Regardless, could a good opportunity and put you in a nice position for next cycle, if you're still interested in working with him then.

I heard through the grapevine that Waterloo's social offers went out this week.

Maybe I am, and maybe I'm not. Is that threatening to your sense of meaning? If so, go derogate an outgroup and you'll feel better. Yes, I'm kidding. I do similar research from one of the non-TMT camps.

Here are some lines to practice for your interview*: "Yo Schimel, I heard that TMT is old news and it's all about uncertainty now." "Death is really only threatening because it makes people feel out of control. I bet if people felt in control over their deaths mortality salience wouldn't have any effect." "I'm really more interested in studying the meaning maintenance model. Can you introduce me to Steve Heine?" * Only do this if you'd rather not actually work with him.

Authorship is hardly a crumb, in academia it's the main course.

I also don't think it's inappropriate to ask if they'd be willing to fly you out, if an in-person interview is important, and if you ask in the right way. By "the right way" I mean that you acknowledge that it's really expensive and wouldn't fault them for saying no. Are any of your programs near each other? When I did my visits I combined two schools into one trip so that they could share costs. Hope one of your programs isn't Fordham. On other threads I've seen people report that they insist on in-person interviews and won't pay travel expenses either. Jerks.

To be clear, the convention is psychology is that the person who contributed most is first author. The challenge is that contributions are sometimes difficult to define. Early graduate students often think they're doing a lot of work by, e.g., running participants or analyzing data because that takes a lot of hours so their work is salient to them. But they don't see the contributions of the advisor -- writing, shaping the paper, or having the idea in the first place.. these are all "harder" and count for more. Early on, usually the prof is first author because it was the prof's idea. (Funding the study shouldn't count for anything here.) That is, grad student thinks: "I should be first author because I had an idea, ran the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the method results." Prof thinks: "That idea was based on my past work and I refined it, I gave the project a theoretical framing, and wrote the intro and discussion." In the both situation both people might think they should be first author. My bias is that the prof has contributed more in the above example. One reason new profs might more often be first author is because they have a lot of ideas that they want researched and will want their grad students to mostly work on those ideas. Most established profs might care less about what you work on, so long as it's interesting to them. Also, it might not be that new profs are stingy but that senior profs are too lenient: Senior profs might be more willing to give grad students the chance to be first author when, objectively, they might not really deserve it (e.g., even if it was the PI's idea) because the senior prof doesn't need the publications. I was an early grad student of my advisor and it worked really well for the reasons you said: motivated to publish and make a name for himself, had lots of opportunities for me to be involved in. My early publications were not first-authorships because they were projects he initiated, but later ideas that were more mine I'm first author on.

Now known as "Western University", to the chagrin of many students and alumni.

(Source) I'm completely wrong, I guess the passport requirement is only for Canadians entering the U.S. Awesome news for you!

When I've been that grad student I've seen myself more as a resource than an interviewer so, like the others, having questions to ask is good. When I ask questions they're just the regular getting-to-know-you stuff ("What do you do for fun?" "Is anyone moving with you?") because I can use your answers to sell you on the university ("Oh, your partner is a chocolateer? That's great, our obesity rates are among the highest in the nation!") I'll ask about research too because that's what grad students talk about. It's just a thing we all talk about, there's not a trick question. There have been only two times that, in my opinion, potential students have flunked the question, "What are you interested in researching?" Once was when the candidate said "I have no idea" and the other was when he/she said, "I'm really more interested in teaching than research." The first case left after one term and the second has maintained those poor priorities until this very day and might graduate, but won't get an academic job.

It's definitely worse since 2008. There is no way that there is 1 job for every 2-3 PhD graduates. Or that might be true if you consider nontenured positions; almost half of university teachers are adjuncts nowadays. [ETA: The New York Times reports it's three-quarters.]

Fixed that for you. Blame your government's post 9/11 fervour: Citizens used to be able to cross the Canada/U.S. border without one but you guys changed that rule at least five years ago.

Taking undergrad courses is moving backwards. Do research instead.

Any prof who faults you for not following an arbitrary unwritten norm (that many profs disagree with anyway) isn't somebody you want to work with. ETA: Unless it's like the above, where it was actually a written expectation on their application. But that's unusual.

Pre-graduate school publications are so rare that I'm sure a publication in any discipline would be a credit to your application even if it's in social. I just mean, don't necessarily run to a new lab just because this new lab has the potential for publications. Most studies don't produce usable data--so you might need to run 20 studies to get enough for one significant paper--and then most papers get rejected a few times. I recently had a paper published that took four years from ideas to acceptance, which is not uncommon. I suspect 99% of honours theses are never published. Mine was and it still took 3 years for the paper to come out (i.e., I was mid grad school). I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, I just mean to emphasize that you should focus on the place with the best experience--and that will provide the best reference letter--and if a publication comes out of it then it's icing on the cake.

Having interview weekend during SPSP is just plain stupid and I can't imagine they're doing that. Most of the profs should be at SPSP too! Is that date actually confirmed by somebody? Otherwise I'd just wait and see.

A new era of budget cuts maybe? In my application season, years ago, UBC, Western, Waterloo, and Toronto definitely all flew people out (in social anyway).

I can't read SFU without thinking about another common phrase that acronym stands for. </tangent>