lewin

Good advice, though sometimes hard to predict. Looking back, I see that the places where I got interviews were often where--frankly, by coincidence--I had highlighted possible research questions in my statement that were exactly where the PI wanted to go in the future. A good strategy, that I definitely didn't consider at the time, would be to check their more recent conference presentations. Those tend to be newer or unpublished data. Or if you're really clever, look up the topics of their active grant(s).
Getting back to the point about PI's being "lazy" -- I think it's absolutely right but also no different than applying for any other job. Supervisors of all kinds want students/employees who will help them achieve their goals. To crib from JFK, don't write about what the program can do for you, write about what you can do for the program.
 

Honestly? Stay out of this. It is WAY above your pay grade. The guy that isn't moving his stuff probably knows the consequences of his decisions and is choosing to do it anyway. The reasons why aren't your business. So, stay out of it and try to cultivate other people in your program to work with. Best of luck!

^^above advice is good.
Personally I wouldn't email students until you know you're getting an interview or if you were referred to them.  You should use the questions as an opportunity to help make your decision, not to ingratiate yourself and attempt to affect their decision. One reason for this is that I feel like the PhD influence goes in one direction here, i.e., a PhD student is unlikely to convince their advisor to take a student, that they weren't going to anyway, based on some transient email contact, but the PhD student could certainly influence their advisor to not take a student if the applicant wrote something ridiculous.
When you do email, do it selectively. As a PhD student I once got a long list of questions from an applicant. I spent about a half hour answering them thoroughly... then at lunch with my fellow students discovered that they had sent the same list to four of us, and we'd all answered very similarly. We collectively felt annoyed because of the wasted effort--it was a long list, and we didn't need to all answer it separately.
 

I have a basic signature for most replies and a more elaborate signature for specific audiences, or when I'm talking more as my administrative role or my student government role. I also use the larger signature with students to cut the "Where is your office?" email out of the chain. I do include my email address because some of the ways that my emails get to students use a no reply email address. I also do a fair bit of emailing to people outside the university, and I think the more formal signature is expected more in the business world.
I definitely agree that your student role should be emphasized, as it's the most important. I have seen many, many graduate students (mostly master's students, doctoral students seem to get it better) put the degree they're going for after their name. It irks me. I've also seen graduate students being creative with their titles "Graduate Instructor" instead of "Graduate Assistant," which also irks me.
Internal:
Name
Doctoral Student & Graduate Assistant
Department of X
External:
Name
Doctoral Student & Graduate Assistant
Coordinator Title Here
Graduate Student Government Title Here
Department of X | University of X
email@email.edu | Office: Office Number | Phone: (XXX) XXX-XXXX
Pithy, Inspirational Latin Phrase
 

Hey, first I think you may want to check your sources a bit. There's at least 11 schools that has a I/O program in either the Master or Doctoral level. Check the link here: http://csiop-scpio.ca/education-training/ioprograms.html

From a general perspective, I think you would find that Canadian universities stand very well when it comes to marketability. Depending on your research or field interest, you can find a lot of faculty members at their respective universities that can offer a great deal of tutelage to any student. There's definitely less universities/programs compared to the US, which can make some of the programs overlooked, but we have some good ones too! For I/O, Waterloo and Guelph are the ones that spring to mind first, but that may be due to proximity more than anything. Waterloo, especially, has a strong Psychology foundation, and their closeness to the business and tech industries is renowned. That connection may be very useful for someone interested in pursuing I/O.

Feel free to check out the fledgling forum thread here for the 2016 Application Cycle for Canadian applicants/programs and ask other questions: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/68773-canadian-psychology-applicants-fall-2016/

Good luck!

gellart has it nailed. Do you want to just graduate? Then those expectations sound fine. But if you want to land somewhere at the top of your field then more is required... It's the same in any professional field--just ask an associate who's trying to make partner at a top firm, or a med student who wants a residency at Harvard Medical School.

In experimental psychology PhD, my schedule looks like this:
 
Go in at 8 am on days I have class, 9 am when I don't.
Work work work
Meetings meetings meetings
Go home at 6 pm
Keep working
Stop working at 10 pm
Bed
 
8 am - 10 pm day
 
On weekends I work from maybe 9 am to 6 pm.  
 
I work the LEAST out of everyone in my program.  (Or, idk, do I? I don't have to TA or RA, so I spend most of my time doing my own research.  The people who work longer than I do are usually juggling TAships as well, so that eats up a lot of their time.)
 
Basically, ymmv.  
 
In grad school, you get out of it what you put into it.  I want an  R1 TT job, as do the other people in my program, so I/we work hard. If I didn't, I could get away with 9-5 or less.  Students from previous cohorts worked 9-5 and got jobs at teaching colleges just fine, but they weren't competitive for the jobs I want.  It also partially depends on what kinds of experiments you run. Experiments that take less time to run result in less time spent in lab.

I've met lots of potential students who ended up going elsewhere. Declining in itself doesn't create a negative impression.... the only ones I remember negatively are the ones who made bad impressions in other ways (e.g., egotistical, dim, verbose, socially awkward) and who I was usually happy they ended up somewhere else.   If someone gives you side-eye just because you went to another program, that reflects poorly on them, not on you.  
Frankly I would be more concerned about whether it's worth your time. Graduate student conferences are fine for the experience, but almost worthless for your vita.... so do you want to give a practice talk? Then go for it.

This isn't always a perk because when you graduate you'll be competing for jobs against people with >3 years of publications.

Relevant:

Not that we know that the wrong resume would spell disaster, but suppose it does mean 'no.' What harm could possibly come from sending a second email with the correct resume? You've already got a 'no.' Worst thing that can happen is nothing changes; in that case, you've lost nothing. But there is a chance that things could improve, so why not try? 

Weird thing I learned being on the job market: the places you applied to and didn't end up going to have a way of remembering you in a positive light. As if to say "we knew you were good way back when, glad to see you're still going strong." Even before then, I had multiple occasions of presenting at schools I declined, and not once was there any weirdness. Strong applicants routinely get accepted to more than one school, and schools are used to getting declined for some set of competitors. Unless you were outrageously obnoxious when you turned them down, you have nothing to worry about. 

Unless this school has a really weird dynamic, no one should even care! If they remember, they might even be happy to have you come. Maybe they will tease you a bit about making the "wrong choice" but it should be all in good fun. And if the other grad students, for some weird reason, want to give you trouble, then that's highly unprofessional and well, at least you know who to avoid in the future!

Department stuff: You MUST go and by yourself.
University-wide mandatory:  You MUST go and by yourself.
University-side non-mandatory: You may go but BY yourself.
 
Where do your parents fit?  With your new place and city/town.  If you're worried about "entertaining" them, your parents can entertain themselves (they did before they had kids, right?).  If you'd like, you can give them a list of things you need or want them to check out (i.e. restaurants, markets, malls, compare two Targets, find the best parking spots, etc).  If there's another city/town nearby, they can also drive over and check it out.
 
In terms of including parents in your graduate school experiences,  wait a few years.  Professors are generally gracious about meeting parents (as many are themselves) but they want to know off the bat that you are already independent.  Parents have showed up for dissertation defenses (and some sat in the room) in my program.
 
As everyone said, it is just odd to bring parents to any event for incoming graduate students.  Because that's just undergraduate orientation all over again and nobody wants to feel that way.

The description may say that guests are allowed -- and they certainly will be -- but this is a situation where you have to read between the lines a bit and get a feel for the context of the situation. As pretty much everyone else has said, it would be unusual to bring parents along to a graduate orientation, just as it would to bring parents along to an office party or other work event. You can safely assume that "guests" means "significant others or dependents" in this circumstance. Regardless of the reality of your situation, bringing your parents along would give the impression that you want or need parental approval / observation / guidance etc. I was just about to type something about "politics," but really, it's not even that. It's just being attuned to certain social norms. "Don't bring your parents to grad school functions" is one of those unwritten guidelines you simply have to pick up on.

Grad school's a job. Treat it like a job.

Reading this made me angry and would likely piss off an appeals committee as well. Do not include anything like this in your appeal. Citing personal problems is a lot more honest than claiming you have a disability and accusing the school of not working hard enough to accommodate you.

What is the attraction of going to grad school if you had trouble as an undergrad? It doesn't get easier.

I have heard people advising against conference presentations "too early". They are wrong. The more practice you get at communicating your ideas, the better you will be at it. This will pay dividends quickly.

If it helps calm your fears, ANOVA is usually very robust to violations of its assumptions. Also, based on those bins I would be surprised if it's normally distributed. In university students you'll get a positive skew and in grownups you'll probably get a negative skew.

To be bluntly honest, if you want a minimally funded PhD program in clinical psychology with a 2.6 GPA, you're f**ked. I don't even think a decent masters would accept or help you. First, consider doing something like getting a 2-year funded lab manager position before applying, although those are competitive. This can offset your grades with the best lab experience possible, with maybe even co-authorship on a publication. Second, consider moving to the location of your dream mentor, and volunteer in their lab for at least a year before applying. One reason the GPA is so important is to help paint a picture of what your capable of. If you've already worked well with the mentor, then they might look past the bad grades. Third, save yourself the headache and consider changing your career aspirations to something more feasible, such clinical mental health counseling, PsyD, or even social work. Although fundamentally different, these career areas overlap considerably with clinical psych PhD and is a plausible alternative for those with lower grades.

I don't always mean to be the dream crusher, but while theoretically one might be able to get into psychology graduate school with a BEng--to be frank--your background is not strong and does not contain evidence that you have the requisite knowledge required for graduate-level work.  First, your GRE scores are very weak--I googled the conversion chart and your verbal and psych scores are < 20th percentile and AW < 40th percentile. If anything, someone with an Eng background should have higher-than-average quant scores but yours are not great either (65th percentile). Second, as others pointed out, psychiatry is not social psychology so you can't point to that internship experience as evidence of having the required background knowledge either.
 
About writing a good statement -- anyone can state reasons for why they want to attend graduate school or switch fields, but in addition to that it's important to demonstrate it with concrete experiences and evidence of ability--and the bar is set that much higher when someone lacks an undergrad degree in the subject. I wouldn't expect a M.Eng program to admit me, essentially, on my statement alone. Show, don't tell. 
 
 
But I'm just some internet person, so if you really want to apply, go ahead and apply to see what happens. Have realistic expectations though. You might be able to counteract some of the negatives here by applying widely, and also think about whether your financial situation would allow an unfunded program.

If this is the grading scheme of the university, I would ask a letter writer to explain it in their letter, rather than wasting SOP space on what could just sound like an excuse (since it's coming from the student).

On the undergraduate level, I would talk to my professors after class/before class. I developed a good rapport with them early on and then asked about their research labs and what they were working on. Most of the mentor/student relationship happened outside of the classroom. It happened in the research lab/through email correspondence/between classes. One of the easiest 'mentor relationships' to develop is with your assigned advisor. The trick there is whether or not your were assigned a good one, some advisors are much better or worse than others.
 
Just keep asking questions, be vocal in classes, be "one of those invested kids" and that relationship is built pretty smoothly. 

I've been friends with this guy I met at college for about a year now. He's a graduate student, 29, and I'm a 19 year old undergrad. He's incredibly caring and kind. We see each other at the gym several days a week, which was where we met. About a month ago, we made plans to hang out, and ended up hooking up, just making out, touching, etc. He continued to text me and talk to me after this, but did not make plans to see me again.    So I decided to take the initiative, and asked if he wanted to hang out again. He said yes, and we ended up having sex. That was my first time, and he was aware of it. After it happened, he would text me and ask how I'm doing and stuff but still would not try to see me again, except for at the gym.    So a week later I asked if he wanted to have dinner, and that I would bring a type of food that he really likes. I wanted to do this because both times we hooked up, I would sleep over and he would make me breakfast, so I wanted to return the favor. On the night we were supposed to have dinner, I texted him asking what time, and he replied with, "Thanks so much for thinking of me and the food, you can drop by my place to drop it off, but I won't be able to hang out because I'm really busy with writing" That really shocked and hurt me, because I felt so unimportant to him. I get he's busy, but asking me to bring him food without him wanting to spend time with me was so hurtful. What should I do? Should I ask him how he feels about me?