lewin

this thread is not about you. my advice has always been directed to help the op address the weight gain problem, not this back and forth BS that helps no one. 
you got our opinion out. we're all unique. that's great. stereopticons clearly has nothing else to add beyond that. can we respect each other's opinions now?

I would first seek evidence that such an action would be in any way beneficial. I suspect not.

So a couple of quickies. 
1) I wouldn't be so quick to throw your PI under the bus, from what you've stated it appears she hasn't done anything but try to advise you as to what your best options are. 
2) I also wouldn't be so quick to assume the new PI you're trying to join is saying no to you because of your previous PI. There could be a wide variety of reasons why he said no. 
3) This is one of the crucial reasons why it is so highly advised to go to a school with multiple labs you'd like to join (possibly with rotations). So that if one doesn't work out, you have back up plans. 
So all this being said, it doesn't sound like the department is doing anything bad perse, but rather, you decided you wanted to change labs after your first year, but had no lab to go to (in your own school). This is not the school nor faculty members fault, but rather a bad situation and poor planning. I also wouldn't go all out saying they are out to get you either. From my experience, the school and faculty members want you to succeed, but there are guidelines and rules, and just because they don't make exceptions for you doesn't mean its anything personal or they want you to leave the school. 
Finally, for obvious reasons, schools don't like it when you join and then leave. A future school may be concerned they'd accept you, only to have you leave a year in. Now this being said, it doesn't mean the school will immediately rip you apart in a letter, or that you're doomed and no other grad school will take you. If you really can't find anything in your program that you like, then I think maybe leaving would be your best choice. Keep in mind, the GRE is good for 5 years, so you may not have to retake. 
At the end of the day, it's not the end of the world. It's fine, these scenarios suck, but they do happen and people do get past them. Let this just be a lesson so you don't make the same mistake twice (i.e. go into another grad program without any back ups). Good luck!

Serious point - This won't matter because (almost) nobody should see you using your phone. We had a potential grad student visiting who was playing with his phone while I was giving him the lab tour. Did not reflect well. Keep it in your pocket unless you're alone.

Yes. Learning how to wait for news (grants, awards, reviews) is part and parcel of academia.

Yes. Learning how to wait for news (grants, awards, reviews) is part and parcel of academia.

I'm familiar with Uli and replication issues generally. I don't respect how he decided to rank everything from people to programs to journals, with the implication that there's something sketchy captured by his index, without subjecting his methods to peer review.
My point about Rushton, which I admit was a deliberate jab, is that he is pretty widely considered a racist but even when he was alive I wouldn't have told people to avoid your program because the other people there are great. (Without divulging too much, I have personal connections to the program.)  So, avoid "people" whose work is being questioned I can agree with but "places" is a real stretch.
To be frank, if a student wants to be even wiser and has a good enough record to be choosy, they shouldn't work with anybody who's a real "new methods" zealot either. They might end up running registered replications for five years and never develop an independent program of research.  e.g., to steal your line I wouldn't touch Uli with a ten mile pole.

You should ask each program because there's no universal definition of "fully funded" vs. not. These details might be on a website but, in my experience, might only be covered at interview day or after you get an offer. Very institution-specific.
But generally, even "fully funded" means that you are covered by a combination of tuition waivers, TA or RA work, and fellowship money. Is your second example box hypothetical? Because tuition rarely has a list price of $0 - it's often waived or covered from other sources. (This was the source of the recent debate about congress considering whether tax tuition waivers should be taxable.)   In a sense, it looks like you're describing two different forms of "fully funded" programs.
"Not fully funded" could mean anything from "only tuition covered, no stipend" to "no money or funding opportunities from us whatsoever." For example, the notorious NYU "Master's in general psychology" program that they throw as a consolation prize to lots of unsuccessful PhD applicants is >$25k tuition/year that you have to pay out-of-pocket, and there are generally no fellowship, TA, or RA opportunities available.
 

You should ask each program because there's no universal definition of "fully funded" vs. not. These details might be on a website but, in my experience, might only be covered at interview day or after you get an offer. Very institution-specific.
But generally, even "fully funded" means that you are covered by a combination of tuition waivers, TA or RA work, and fellowship money. Is your second example box hypothetical? Because tuition rarely has a list price of $0 - it's often waived or covered from other sources. (This was the source of the recent debate about congress considering whether tax tuition waivers should be taxable.)   In a sense, it looks like you're describing two different forms of "fully funded" programs.
"Not fully funded" could mean anything from "only tuition covered, no stipend" to "no money or funding opportunities from us whatsoever." For example, the notorious NYU "Master's in general psychology" program that they throw as a consolation prize to lots of unsuccessful PhD applicants is >$25k tuition/year that you have to pay out-of-pocket, and there are generally no fellowship, TA, or RA opportunities available.
 

Yes, you do have other options. One is to ask School X to give you more time to confirm the interview invite. However, this isn't really the best thing to do if you don't actually have other invites on the same day yet. 
I would say it is more professional to give preference (in dates) to schools that invited you first so if the other schools don't invite you by the time of School X's deadline, perhaps you should find alternate dates for the other schools instead of cancelling on School X. The exception is the case where School X is really low in your priority list, but I personally would still try to reschedule another school before changing my mind on School X.

I think there's a miscommunication here. The contents of your application do matter, but in terms of whether you should spend money on conferences or not, its the networking opportunities that matter. Poster presentations aren't really held to a high regard when evaluating CVs, and every senior academic I've met has warned against organizing a symposium because it is a time-sink unless you manage to get a big-named person on board (i.e., you grow your network). For the most part, any good research at these conferences are either already published, in press, or will be in press in the next few months and those that aren't just get dropped and there's rarely a repository for posters/talks for you to cite anyway. Now if your supervisor is telling you that your CV doesn't matter for post docs that's just irresponsible.
There are certainly smaller conferences (depending on your area) where good networking can be done (but they might not be local enough for you depending on your location) such as the Midwestern Psychological Association or the new Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science conference. Of course, I only mention these two because when I look at who's attending, its people who I would be interested in working with for a post-doc so smaller conferences may differ for you.
If you're dead-set on these smaller conferences, why not try to address your supervisor's concerns? Are there any researchers who you want to work with going to these conferences? Or is it just going to be a line on your CV? Of course the latter isn't that bad if you're planning on applying for scholarships and need to show research productivity in some capacity but as you progress in grad school, conferences shouldn't be CV fillers but instead a way to meet new people who you can collaborate with.

Some students are funded to attend conferences... e.g., when I was a grad student the dept covered one trip per year and my advisor would cover another from his grant if it was a good opportunity. Some conferences also have travel funds available if you apply. I know this doesn't help your situation but I'm mentioning it for potential grad students who might read this... the "absurdity" might not generalize and, when visiting, it's a good idea to ask about travel funding and expectations.
 
A little bit, naive yes. And you phrased it as a false dichotomy so I fixed it to be more accurate. It's both things. Meeting someone at a conference who likes you can mean that they give your application a closer look, or they talk you up to other decision makers in the department. And this isn't any different than any other job.  Someone once told me, "Every talk is a job talk," meaning that you're making an impression, good or bad, to someone who might be reading your application later.
 

I'm familiar with Uli and replication issues generally. I don't respect how he decided to rank everything from people to programs to journals, with the implication that there's something sketchy captured by his index, without subjecting his methods to peer review.
My point about Rushton, which I admit was a deliberate jab, is that he is pretty widely considered a racist but even when he was alive I wouldn't have told people to avoid your program because the other people there are great. (Without divulging too much, I have personal connections to the program.)  So, avoid "people" whose work is being questioned I can agree with but "places" is a real stretch.
To be frank, if a student wants to be even wiser and has a good enough record to be choosy, they shouldn't work with anybody who's a real "new methods" zealot either. They might end up running registered replications for five years and never develop an independent program of research.  e.g., to steal your line I wouldn't touch Uli with a ten mile pole.

I'm familiar with Uli and replication issues generally. I don't respect how he decided to rank everything from people to programs to journals, with the implication that there's something sketchy captured by his index, without subjecting his methods to peer review.
My point about Rushton, which I admit was a deliberate jab, is that he is pretty widely considered a racist but even when he was alive I wouldn't have told people to avoid your program because the other people there are great. (Without divulging too much, I have personal connections to the program.)  So, avoid "people" whose work is being questioned I can agree with but "places" is a real stretch.
To be frank, if a student wants to be even wiser and has a good enough record to be choosy, they shouldn't work with anybody who's a real "new methods" zealot either. They might end up running registered replications for five years and never develop an independent program of research.  e.g., to steal your line I wouldn't touch Uli with a ten mile pole.

I think a caveat to this is to look at your specific POI's placement rate. Top schools have excellent placement rates because their professors have excellent placement rates. You want to be working with the faculty members who drive these effects.
Not to name names, but my undergrad advisors came from an ostensibly mid-ranged school and got into a school that was of a (substantially) higher ranking. He wasn't an exception in his lab as other individuals achieved this as well. This was driven exclusively by his supervisor who had excellent placement rates and was only (temporarily) at the mid-ranked school because of what can be summed up as 'academic politics'. So yeah, there are exceptions but that's what they are, exceptions. And while aggregate-level data is informative, you will want to do additional sleuthing to make sure the trends the data is showing is applicable for the situation you are about to place yourself in.
@kitcassidance: to answer your original question of what a "safe school" is for you–look at your profile. Look at the profile of your POI's students (a lot of them post CVs, so you can make guesses on what their profile looked like when they applied). Does yours seem to match theirs? Are their profiles consistently stronger or weaker than yours? That's how I'd probably calibrate what a 'safety' school is for me because a safety school for one person could just be a regular school for another. But of course, don't waste money on schools you wouldn't actually want to go to regardless of whether you consider them a 'safety' or a 'reach'.

Saying there are no safety schools is accurate in the sense that acceptance rates are low regardless of program ranking.
But I'd be concerned if anybody came to the conclusion that all programs are equally difficult to get into, or that it's not important to attend a top 10 program or the best program you can. I can't speak for clinical paths, but for academia it's important to get into the highest prestige program that you can because academia is "downwardly mobile" and "a caste system" and "steeply hierarchical" where much of the faculty hiring comes from a small core of top programs. Put another way, on average, you're much more likely to move down than up in the BA-MA-PhD-Postdoc-Job progression--the study I linked found that only 9-14% of students will get job placements higher-ranked than their PhD institution, and that about 25% of institutions produce ~80% of the tenured faculty.
 
 

Whether she does or not, universities usually have rules prohibiting faculty-student relationships. Instead of telling her, my suggestion is to seek out your university's counselling services and tell them exactly what you wrote here -- they could have someone you can talk to about your feelings so that they can be worked through in a healthier way.

You should read up on implicit bias. It sounds like a version of that may very well be going on. It's alarming because there is research to show that letters of recommendations for female candidates are weaker than for corresponding male candidates, even if the writer isn't aware (e.g. here, but you can google for lots more). They may also get fewer opportunities, like to do with research, as you describe. (There are lots of other consequences, small and large, but perhaps less relevant here.) It's hard to know what to do about it; the best answer I know is talk about it openly as a community and take training to combat it. It doesn't fix the problem, but it reduces it and makes it manageable. It's harder when someone denies what is plain to see, but they may still benefit from a collective conversation on the hazards of not paying attention. If done, it should be at least department-wide and not targeting any particular professor (it affects everyone, regardless of gender, unfortunately). You didn't mention your field, but some fields have become very active at raising awareness of this issue. You could seek help from your field's professional society or from a local university-run organization, if one exists. No quick solutions here, I'm afraid. 

And just because one asks to keep a matter confidential, I don't know that the request itself binds the recipient of the request.

Pointing out inconsistencies in a post isn't "victim blaming," it is pointing out inconsistencies in a post. 
IMO, you are trying to have it both ways. You want readers to think that you're squared away and you want readers to think you're a victim of an undergraduate "bullying" you. You (again) point to your experience in government, your intimate knowledge of the dynamics in your department, and yet express continued surprise that the "individual responsible for the undergraduate program" sided with an undergraduate over a graduate student.
My reading of your posts is that you attempted to throw your weight around in the department and tell professors how things should be done, things went differently than you anticipated, you took umbrage, and now you're here.
My reading is that you've been told to drink a cup of STFU and to stay in your lane. My reading is that undergraduate tuition and fees are important to members of your department and they're willing to put up with behavior that you don't like. The way you have been told appears unprofessional, maybe actionable IRT your school's policy because of the violation of your request for confidence. Then again, I wonder about what information you're choosing not to disclose.
However, going from there to allegations that your careers are being threatened does not make sense to me. A professor has the discretion to write or not as he or she sees fit. One is not entitled to glowing letters of recommendation.
IRT your intent of asking "qualified individuals," you got good guidance--don't ask the acting chair for a letter of recommendation, you don't need it-. And then you argued with the posters who provided it.
Since you asked in your OP, here are some suggestions.
If you're going to present a biased account and selective of your experiences to strangers, don't take offense when strangers ask questions or point out inconsistencies. If you're going to use a phrase like "step up" multiple times, then maybe think twice before painting yourself as a "victim." Avoid the temptation of telling your bosses how to do their jobs unless you're absolutely certain your guidance is going to be well-received. You said it yourself, the department is aware of this UG's behavior. By you pointing it out in an email to your professors, you called them out for at least the second time this term. (I am still not sure why you sent an email to multiple professors before talking personally to at least one of them, especially given your work "in government.") Keep in mind always that money talks, even in the Ivory Tower. Don't allow yourself to be trolled by undergraduates' email or posts on social media.

Sounds like you'd never need to even ask this person for a letter. I wouldn't. So you just need to know that he won't actively seek to harm you by reaching out to people and bad-mouthing you behind your back. That would be an unlikely and extraordinary step for someone to take, so I don't think it's something to lose sleep over. But to be on the safe side I think it's probably best to stay the hell away from this person, so they can find someone else to get pissed at. It doesn't sound like there's any kind of long-standing grudge against you, so hopefully out of sight, out of mind. 
At the same time, you might take this as a lesson about how situations like this one can get out of hand. What the prof did is *not* okay, but it's a potential teachable moment: when you create a written record (email) and distribute it widely, people can use it not as you intended. Conversations are often better as a first step to solving disputes like this, especially when it's not clear to me that it's your place as a grad student to instruct undergrads on what they should or shouldn't do (unless you have some official capacity that allows you to do that). It's also unfortunately often the case that the power structure of workplaces (academia included) is such that you need to pick your battles wisely and sometimes doing a little extra work is better than engaging in a fight with a superior. When you choose to criticize how someone does their job, you can expect pushback, even if you're entirely correct, so you should always factor that into your plans. This is not criticism of what you did, just a suggestion for learning from it. You can choose to pursue this problematic culture in your department, but you should do it fully aware of your position in the pecking order and how much you opinion counts. If you aren't in an obvious position to bring about change, it's worth thinking about how you can still influence things in a positive way.

It certainly won't hurt your chances, but it's not expected that applicants will have done so. Frankly, your chances of getting a paper accepted in a good journal are pretty slim, and your chances of doing so in time for PhD applications are even slimmer (the process takes months and years, even if it's accepted at the first journal to which it's submitted).
 
Learning this is part of professionalization in your discipline. That you don't know yet is a pretty good indication that you shouldn't be trying to publish your work, since you aren't yet able to identify appropriate and good journals.
Generally speaking, one doesn't usually search for journals. Rather, one submits work to journals with which one is already familiar. You get familiar with journals by reading the work that's published in them. You want to be publishing in the same journals that you read the most. Your field probably has a mix of generalist and specialist journals. Your first task is to start figuring out which are which, which are the most prestigious in each category, which are slightly less prestigious but very good, etc. Googling around can help, but you're going to learn a lot more from (1) reading work yourself, (2) seeing which papers from which journals get assigned in graduate and undergraduate classes, and (3) seeing where established scholars who work on the same kinds of things as you do are publishing their work. For that last one, you should be skimming the CVs of people whose trajectory you hope to emulate (current PhD students, postdocs, assistant professors, associate and full professors, etc.).
In theory, anyone can publish an article in a double-masked peer-reviewed journal, yes (although perhaps not any random person). In practice, the odds are stacked pretty high against that happening. Remember that once you get a PhD, you're a world-level expert on your subject. The kind of work that gets published (especially in good peer-reviewed journals; predatory and vanity presses are another thing) is world-class research by people with years--decades, even--of experience in the field. Rejection rates are field-dependent, but they usually range from 90-98%. That means that the quality is very high. You need more than just good ideas or good writing skills: you need to have a thorough mastery of your subject matter. And that's not something that you can pick up on the fly. It takes years of work: years of reading, writing, refining, presenting, getting feedback, etc. 
Think of math. In theory, yes--any old McDonald's worker could develop a good and interesting proof of a theorem (for example), and get it published. But the level of math required to do that kind of thing is much higher than most people ever get to. High school calculus isn't going to cut it. So that McDonald's worker would have had to spend quite a bit of time learning about, e.g., number theory, category theory, functional analysis, etc. It's entirely possible to do that on your own, but it's hard and most people aren't likely to succeed. The same holds for other disciplines. Things get a lot harder if your field of study requires data or lab equipment.
If you're an advanced undergraduate, then you've already got much more background than the average McDonald's worker. But it's still not usually enough. And if the journal doesn't implement double-masked review, then your odds are a lot slimmer (precisely because credentials matter for those journals). 
No, no, and yes. Although the same kinds of structural obstacles that I outlined above will apply here, too. At this stage, your default assumption should probably be that you're not ready to publish, unless someone with a PhD in the subject has read your work and suggested that you try to do so.

Write the program and ask for advice on what to do. I'm not sure if by "not submitted successfully" you mean something like "I failed to click the right button, nothing was submitted even though I thought it was, but I never received an email confirmation" or more like 'I submitted and got a confirmation, but later learned that actually the submission was corrupted or there was some other problem". If the latter then you should be perfectly fine, you just demonstrate that you have a confirmation email of timely submission and ask to fix whatever's wrong. If the former, then I think you need to email, apologize, explain the situation, and ask for their mercy. They will have to make a decision about what to do. The sooner you call/write the better, since it's already Friday, and a week after the deadline. 

Long story short to all of your questions: if you want to do clinical work in any capacity, you need to pursue a clinical degree and be licensed to practice. The PhD in clinical will focus on research more heavily than PsyD (and is more likely to be funded and, by consequence, competitive). You can’t go from a degree like experimental or social to clinical work as easily from clinical to non-clinical. You could always get a degree in experimental or social and have clinical partners, but if you have any direct interest in working directly in administering protocols to patients, you have to be in clinical.
 
From what I read, you need to identify what your specific research and clinical focus is and go from there. I had a really niche interest, and I applied to 10 schools (and got in at several, now attending my top choice PhD in Clinical). You basically just said you are interested in any “psychology” program (including clinical), so _to me_ it doesn’t sound like you have a centered focus. This can be extremely problematic when applying to programs, as programs want to retain their trainees and not lose them after a year or two because they have “too hace of an interest.” 
 
So, I guess my question to you would be what are your specific research and clinical interests? 

Not all Canadian universities work the way Ottawa seems to, and even at Ottawa there are program based differences. The Chemistry department at Ottawa (and most of the rest of the sciences), for instance, has a comprehensive exam that marks advancement to candidacy- so a chemistry PhD student using "candidate" at Ottawa during the first few years before they pass the comprehensive exam would be using it improperly. 
McGill certainly has advancement to candidacy/candidacy exams in a number of departments. 
This also might make you re-think how you read "student" relative to "candidate", since you may well be mis-interpreting people at your own school outside of your department.