lewin

I don't know anything about this school or education programs, but I know of at least one psychology program that does this and, in my opinion, it's just a cash grab. The PhD program is world-class, but the MA program is expensive and students get no resources or funding. You already have a master's, I can't imagine how a second one would help.

It's great to be passionate about one's career, I'm driven by intrinsic interest too. Same boat as you!

But passion doesn't put food on one's plate. "Bad job prospects" is something people should be worried about and I think sometimes academics don't think about this enough. For example, a professor I know advised students that their priority should be to get the best grad training and post doc position possible, even if it means significant debt. When tenure-track jobs were relatively guaranteed (20-30 years ago) that strategy made sense. But now, who would take on $20 or $50 thousand in loans when they might not get a job afterwards? Much too risky.

If more people realistically considered their job prospects and decided not to attend graduate school it would be better for everybody. In the end, it's a hard truth that if you can't get paid for your work then you need to find something else to do. Otherwise that's a hobby, not a job.

I'm giving myself two years applying for academic jobs. If it doesn't happen in that time I'm going elsewhere. And I'd rather stab myself than be an adjunct instructor with a 3-2 teaching load and no job security making $25,000 a year.

(BTW it's good your flexible on location, that's almost mandatory nowadays.)

Unless things are drastically different in your field, NSERC USRAs are awarded mostly on the basis of academic performance (after all, they are intended to get more students their first research position because they are a low risk investment), not on research performance. They are also awarded prior to the project being completed/worked on, so whether or not a project was an NSERC project does not really affect the quality of research. Of course, there may be correlations between strong students and strong researchers (so that people who are good researchers might also be the type of student that win NSERCs).
 
In my opinion, the best benefit of holding an NSERC is the opportunity it gives for you to gain a research position at a good lab / project of your choice. At my undergrad department, if you had an NSERC for the summer, you basically could work with any professor you want. If you didn't have an NSERC, then whether or not you get a position in the group of your choice depends on if the prof has funding for you (or is willing to use funding on you). But, if you are independently capable of securing your own paid full time research assistant positions, then while the "shinyness" of NSERC on your CV is nice, having an NSERC or not isn't a big difference. I think grad schools will be looking for quality and quantity of your research experience.
 
But, I'm still a bit confused about what you mean by "figuring out whether it's worthwhile to apply"? Applying for awards and grants while doing other stuff (e.g. research) is pretty standard as a graduate student, so if you are eligible for the award and if you think you have a decent chance, then you should apply for it. Good research + NSERC is still better than good research. And, NSERC might pay more and/or save your supervisor money = more money for you to do other things. Unless you mean you have to choose between NSERC full time in one lab/group vs. working part-time in multiple groups? That is trickier and probably depends on your field etc. My opinion is that in undergrad, full time on one good project at a time is better than part time on many projects at the same time.

Also it's been a while since I looked at the requirements, but I think the NSERC USRA can only be held with somebody whose lab is NSERC funded. In that case, I suspect it would be more useful for you to work in a clinical psychology lab than in a lab that does less relevant research (cognition? perception?). And as a grad student you'll probably be applying for CIHR, so that "NSERC leads to more NSERC" idea (which I've heard too) is less relevant for clinicians.

"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.

Be extremely generous with marking if you know you suck at teaching.

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.

^I want to clarify something.
 
It's not true that employers are not "allowed" to contact people that you don't list as references.  There's no law preventing them from doing this, there's nothing legally or ethically wrong with it, and in fact employers do it all the time.  If you list someone as a prior supervisor/employer on your application, even if you don't explicitly list them as a reference, the employer can contact them.  In fact, even if you ask them not to contact your supervisor they still can without legal ramification - although few employers would do that.  And it's not 100% uncommon for employers to find contact information for former employers you listed.  It's not even that hard.  AskAManager.com has written a couple of posts about this.
 
Think about it from their perspective.  Say you work at ABC Company and Jill Scott applies.  Jill Scott has worked for your old grad school buddy Rob Smith, but she didn't list him as a reference - all of her references are co-workers.  You trust Rob Smith's judgment AND you really want to hear from a supervisor of Jill's.  Wouldn't you want to call Rob Smith and find out what he thinks about her?  A good employer would contact Jill first and make sure that there's no legitimate reason precluding them from calling Rob (i.e., she still works there and doesn't want him to know she's leaving) but many employers don't do this.
 
That's why it's up to job hunters to explicitly say whether or not they want prior employers contacted, if they list that employers' information on a job form.  But this is not damaging your career, not in any legal sense anyway.

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

In a nutshell, you are being paid to a job. In my experience, what your advisor is asking you to do is not unusual. 

I'd do as your advisor says -- audit courses if you really want to take something, but don't commit to being a full time student in classes you don't need for your degree. I appreciate the will to study more, but the PhD is about learning to become an independent researcher and producing results, not about doing well in class. If there is a specific topic you want to know more about, pick up a book or article and start reading. Talk to people. Get started on a project that involves this topic. If you want to have a career as a researcher, those will be important skills to have, and now is the time to develop them. It may be more difficult to study by yourself than have someone prepare the materials for you, but you're going to need to be able to teach yourself things sooner or later - both if you become a professor and teach your own classes, and if you go into a research position in industry. At some point, there won't be anyone to spoon-feed you information, and you need to take care of your own learning. 

If you like learning, can't you incorporate it into your research? I find the act of learning about a new sub-field of research, surveying the literature, problem-solving my reactions (why is it that this species isn't behaving in the way it ought to?) and maybe doing some background digging on the theory behind a new instrument is all very stimulating and teaches me a lot. In fact it teaches me stuff better than most classes could!
 
If you really enjoy attending classes, then take a second undergraduate degree or something. A PhD or Masters is about getting out of the classroom and focussing on research. While it is your own money, you want to convince your PI that you are serious about the research project they've assigned you to do. Come across as too interested in classes and they'll think your heart isn't in the project, or that you will be too preoccupied to make satisfactory progress.

This.
 
Lewin pretty much nailed it, but just to re-emphasize, here are the kinds of things I'll be asking:
What can I tell you about this school/program? [Answer questions] Who are you interested in working with (we don't really have a 1-to-1 advisor system)? [Give my thoughts about those people] What is your background (even if I already know)? What are you interested in researching? Where else are you considering? (Interesting fact I learned about you from your application or from conversation) is interesting, tell me about that? How's the weather? And several other insightful questions, I'm sure.   For us, it's really about getting to know the candidates and helping them understand what it's like to be a student here.
 
Because the questions aren't that hard, here are some tips on how to make a good impression:
Be able to answer the questions above.  These are softballs, so if you can't answer them, I'm going to wonder why you're here.  Have questions of your own. Most of the grad students will want to be helpful to you, so give us that chance! Even if you asked the last 3 grad students all the same question, you never know when one of them will tell you something you haven't heard yet.  Get used to asking the same questions over and over, and get used to giving the same answers over and over. Try not to get annoyed when 15 people ask you "so, what do you want to do here?" Don't be a jerk.  This should be self-evident, but just in case: the grad students are looking at you as a potential classmate/friend/colleague.  Nobody wants to work with a jerk.  Frankly, most of the time, being a jerk (especially to the students) won't ruin your chances or get an offer rescinded, but still -- don't, okay? These are also your potential classmates/friends/colleagues, and you don't want to start somewhere with a reputation for being a jerk. Do be yourself (even if you are a jerk, I suppose?).  Because this is your potential cohort, you want to figure out how well you will fit in.  Again, you probably won't make your decision based solely on social fit with the grad students (and you shouldn't, obviously), but it's nice to know. That's all.  Remember, unless they are jerks (and if they are, and you are, then match made!), grad students are sympathetic to your position. And if they are jerks, don't sweat your performance -- odds are good that everyone knows that guy is a jerk.  We've all been where you are, many of us very recently, and we want you to be comfortable and get all of the information we can offer to help you make a good decision.
 
Good luck!

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.

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.

You probably know this, but it's worth noting in case others reading don't: many, many professors and programs prefer not to admit their own students.
 
The biggest reason for this is cross-fertilization of ideas; the theory is that it is better to pull in graduate students who have had other perspectives taught to them, to keep things "fresher." The follow-up to this is that many hiring committees will wonder whether a student who got a PhD from the same school as her undergraduate degree has been exposed to a sufficiently broad number of approaches.  Importantly, this means that many schools will shy away from admitting their own students "for their own good" (and also with an eye toward the program's hiring statistics) -- if it could be an impediment to getting you placed, they will think twice about doing it.
 
Certainly, not all programs and professors think this way -- some think it is downright stupid.  But if you applied to your own school, where you are a superstar, and you are not accepted, keep in mind that it may not be your fault!

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.

Well my research interests were very specific and so I only applied to schools with professors in my area. Out of 7 programs I applied to three Canadian schools, two of which were in my top 3. What really sealed the deal for me at my current program was the structure of the program and the perfect match with my supervisor. 
 
I'd say some of the benefits that I've learned about so far are the funding opportunities. I would say, hands down, the Canadian government (e.g., SSHRC/CIHR is probably akin to the NSF) provides way more opportunities for everyone, ranging from first year students to tenured professors. While I can't really benefit now, it is my expectation to apply for residency after I get my masters in the hopes of landing a job here as well. While I don't yet know much about the Canadian job market, from what I've heard it's pretty much the same as the U.S.
 
However, if staying in Canada is not something you are considering, much more of your decision will have to focus on how the program fits your internets and needs. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the quality of Canadian Universities. While my program (i.e., social psych) is really small here, the professors are all incredibly well-known and highly respected in their specialities. Classes are top-notch and student focused (not something most people experience at research universities). I also like how my program is more distinctly divided into MS + PhD rather than straight PhD track because I have the opportunity to complete a master's thesis (whereas at my ugrad they just took comps). Because of this I have had more hands-on independent research opportunities than some of my friends who are second and third year phd students elsewhere. 

It can also happen if programs accept the organizational research showing that unstructured interviews have no predictive power beyond the written record. Also, it's more common in Canada. My old program doesn't do interviews.

Agree with luckyducky. In your new statement it should be implicit how your application has strengthened and improved, but I don't think one should draw explicit attention to a failed application. By implicit, I meant that the improvement will be obvious to anybody who reads both statements even without saying "Since last time...".

Click the link I posted.

I teach and give my students extensions without hassle when they have proper documentation. But the sense of entitlement in this thread, by some, is off-putting. Accommodation isn't something that's owed to you, it's a compromise between professor and student for everyone's sake.
 
I get that life happens, but students should realize that every single deviation from the class procedure, however justified or reasonable, means extra work for the professor or TA's.

This is my favourite what are my chances of all time. Are you sure you're interested in clinical psychology? You could apply at Columbia Business School or MIT because some of their research seems relevant to your interests. Princeton might be great too, Emily Pronin does research on how music speed influences thought processes. So many possibilities!

Hey guys,
I am wondering what people think my chances are of getting into a Clinical Psychology PhD program. I just submitted my applications and haven’t heard anything. I have a 2.76 GPA and a 3.0 in Psychology. I have some brief research experience but unfortunately I had to quit because it interfered with my pledge week responsibilities (I’m in a fraternity).  I have some relevant clinical experience giving my frat brothers advice when they had drank too much, which was pretty frequent. My GRE scores are 148/151 and a 3.5 on writing. The president of our fraternity was one of my reccommenders and I think he probably had some pretty great things to say. I also had a professor write me one whose class I got a 3.5 in so I can imagine that one was pretty good as well. I currently DJ at a local bar on campus. I have to be very emotionally aware of what songs people want to hear. I talked a lot about this in my personal statement. I also watch Dr. Phil and Criminal Minds, so I have a pretty good grasp on how the mind works and what would make a good counselor. So wut do u guys think? Again, I’m kind of freaking out here, so any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Random thoughts about the GRE.
 
1. Those familiar with psychological measurement will know that the studies that correlate GRE scores and GPA with grad school success probably underestimate the relationship because of restricted range (i.e., only high-scorers are admitted).
 
2. There's measurement error in GRE scores (and GPA) so I doubt that someone in the 95th percentile that much different than somebody in the 80th. But when people say "GRE scores shouldn't matter" I think they must be talking about minor distinctions at the top end, right? Because I will never believe that somebody who scores the 50th percentile on the general and subject GRE's (or has a 2.0 GPA) is just as likely to succeed as somebody who gets 80th percentile or above (or has a 3.5 GPA). Yes there are contaminants like cultural bias and standardized test anxiety but there's also variance in GRE scores that's due to real knowledge and ability. In part, the scores still reflect ability to read, write, and do math (and, for the subject, psychology knowledge)
 
3. Standardized tests can be biased but so are more informal means of evaluation. See this article for example.   One proposed solution is to retain the standardized tests but bump up the scores of stereotyped groups, which is provocative but seems empirically supported.
 
4. This is completely anecdotal, but I've known lots of grad students and wannabe grad students. I can't shake my experience that good students get good GRE scores and the ones who bombed it I wouldn't take as my grad student on a bet. Frankly, I can't shake the feeling that somebody who studies hard and still bombs it (i.e., < 70th percentile on all subscales & subject) is not cut out for academia... especially bombing the subject GRE. If you don't know intro psychology you shouldn't be a PhD psychologist.