Piagetsky

Yeesh.  I mean it's not the best thing that he's looked upon as a "bad" scientist, but also, what he'll be saying about you has nothing to do with that.  If you feel like he makes a bunch of claims about his work without having evidence, I might encourage you to come up with someone else who doesn't evoke such a response from fellow scientists.  But if you decide to keep him, the adcoms are evaluating you, not him.  I might reach out to an unbiased 3rd party (maybe an academic advisor?) to see what they would do.  Be honest with them and they might have some good suggestions.

Definitely the first I've heard of it...

Wait a minute--are you saying there's some kind of job market crisis in the humanities?

Lorax, you're pitching this like it's a new problem; the job market has been absolutely crap since the 1970s. Yes, the current climate is even worse, but it's been a bad decision to go to any non-funded program for over forty years.
In 2015, institutions that do not offer full funding, including a livable stipend, are, frankly, predatory, on par with the worst of the for-profits in effect if not in intent. They exist to enable their students to trap themselves in cages of the students' own devising, and recruit (as we see in this very thread) by pitching the possibility of (extremely limited) success as the likelihood of the same. CGU clearly falls into this category, and it is right that it should come under attack. 
To the OP: a doctorate is a professional apprenticeship. It is, in other words, a job. Do not work for free.

There's no use comparing yourself at this stage in the game. We all take different paths. What matters is that you're pursuing your passion. There are truly no 'shoulds' or 'should nots' when it comes to academic and professional careers. I've worked with PhD students who were in their late 40s, and others who were early 20s! 

Cognitive dissonance is more about rationalizing our behaviour when it misaligns with an attitude. e.g., Conservatives used to care about senate reform. Harper gets elected and does nothing about it, so people start to minimize the importance of senate reform (i.e., weaken their attitude in order to justify the lack of action).
You're asking a big question. At the most basic, Social Identity Theory talks about ingroup bias where we derive positive feelings from promoting our own social groups and derogating others. Broadly, you're also talking about "motivated social cognition" where we shape our thoughts in service of other goals (e.g., to be right, to feel good, to promote our group at the expense of others). So people see a meme disparaging Trudeau and conservatives are inclined to believe it (because it supports their prior beliefs) and liberals are inclined to be skeptical (because it contradicts their prior beliefs). The most specific term you're looking for is probably "biased assimilation" or "confirmation bias".

I don't usually bring it up on this forum, but I do have moderate expertise in this area.
Kill the LSAT. Law school admissions is very numbers-driven, and by LSAT perhaps a bit more than GPA, so your plan to spend a lot of time studying for it is a good one. (https://officialguide.lsac.org/release/ugpalsat/ugpalsat.aspx) Keep up with your extracurriculars and job(s?)—I can't tell from your post whether you're still working at anything, or if that was in the past—to a maintenance degree, but I wouldn't look for ways to get more involved at this juncture. But I have to ask—have you researched what the legal job market is like? Have you researched how to minimize your debt on graduation? Some people argue that this is an okay time to go to law school, given how applications have plummeted since 2008, but you have to keep in mind the NO GOOD VERY BAD legal job market waiting for you on graduation. (I have no idea whether family law has better or worse than average employment prospects, though, or whether an average family law salary can easily cover an average amount of law school debt.) I recommend that you read a lot of Above the Law—it's one of the best sources to get fully informed about what's going on in the legal profession right now and, if you decide to proceed, get strategies for succeeding in this market.

Why doesn't SSHRC make these awards in time for applicants to present that as part of their application?  It's a huge deal, that funding!

Last time around I was rejected from all schools, too. It's an awful feeling, but it's not a poor reflection on you personally. Don't beat yourself up. Give yourself time to be sad, and decided whether or not you really want to go to grad school. 
If you do, fantastic! Here's what I did:
I retook my GRE's and spent a lot of time studying.  Volunteered in a lab (even though I had graduated). Took an online graduate certificate course from a mildly well known university. Attended two local conferences (undergrad/university level) for a poster presentation. Started a major project in the lab, and hopefully we'll have some publishable results. Wrote an article that was published in a student journal.  Attended some online webinars that were related to my research interests.  Rewrote my CV & Personal Statements. Applied for an outside grant. Got a paid job with the title of Research Assistant, even though it's not remotely related to what I want to study. Made sure that I had an excellent research fit with the programs I wanted to apply to this time around. Now, I can't say for sure if any of that helped or pushed me over the edge. Application cycles definitely vary from year to year and school to school. I also recognize that I've been privileged to have some extra money floating around so I could spend it on GRE stuff, online courses (which are terribly expensive), or spend time volunteering in a lab. There are other opportunities out there you could take advantage of if you're pressed for time and money, but don't stress out if you can't add all these things in to the mix. I also waited an additional application cycle so I could spend more time building up my CV and making sure I knew what I wanted to study. It's time consuming, to be sure, but I like to think that something in that list made it worth the while  
 

Don't think too many committees would blink an eye at two Ws on a transcript.

When I was planning to apply to grad school, I asked a clinical prof about this exact thing. She said that it's not necessary, and to instead focus on gaining as much research experience as possible. So, I didn't do any clinical volunteer work. I had a number of interviews this year and was offered admission to a couple schools. One interviewer asked me how a past volunteer experience affected me and my decision to go to grad school, or something like that, and I discussed previous volunteer work that was not clinical (mind you, it was a youth mentoring position). Either way, the interviewer was pleased with my answer (got an offer at that school) and that was the end of the discussion of volunteer work. None of my other interviewers ever brought up volunteer experience. 
This may differ in the US - perhaps they put more weight in clinical volunteer experience. I don't think it would hurt your case, but I also don't think it would strengthen you over someone who has more substantial research experience.
The other thing is this, you may not find volunteer work in time to have anything to draw on for your apps anyway. Clinical volunteer work involves rigorous training, so by the time you're actually doing the work, you'll be applying to schools. Something to keep in mind.
Good luck with your apps this fall! And feel free to let me know if you have any other questions  

Do you have any kind of research experience? If not, you seriously need to find some (e.g., go to a research-oriented master's program). I heard that even reputable Psy.D. programs put more and more emphasis on research experience. Don't know about school psychology though.
You could take Myers-Briggs test just for fun, but it isn't something you should take seriously. And don't ever mention that test in the statement or interview for Ph.D. programs.

This is exactly what you want to do! Just be very professional, come up with a few good questions about their poster/presentation, tell them you're interested in their work and ask if they're accepting students. I'm planning to attend at least one conference this year specifically for this purpose. It gets you on their radar, and if you get an interview, you'll be less nervous because you've met them already Good luck!

Canada and USA have very different cultures surrounding university when it comes to reputation more generally but even specifically in clinical psych. It really comes down to, at least in my opinion, what you want to do with your degree. I can't speak for USA, but from my understanding reputation of the school matters in clinical practice as well as research/academia. From my experience, in Canada, reputation of the school means very little in terms of clinical practice, almost all schools are pretty good and equal at getting their students licensed in the province they are in. In terms of jobs in clinical practice the school you went to doesn't make a difference (I've worked at 4 private practices and referencing the schools reputation or even school in general a psychologist went to even during the hiring process never came up once), rather your experiences and skill set derived from externals matter much more. 
However, if your goal is to work in research and remain in academia, yes the school you went to and it's reputation matters, but to be honest what I have seen is that it's rather the opportunities/funding available for research at higher rep schools in comparison to lower ones actually make the difference not the actual reputation itself. What I mean by that is that higher rep school have more funding available and other opportunities (collaboration, more well known researchers etc.) to do more research in the sense that you come out on top with pubs/conferences etc. However, lower rep schools give that too just have to be more rigorous and go out of your way a little more in going down that path. 
Also if you do go to USA and intend to come back to Canada (I know you didn't say you would just making sure you realize this) theres no automatic licensing available and you have to go through a the process just like anyone else from an international country to get relisenced in Canada/province you want to work in since they stopped APA accreditation.. So sometimes it doesn't match up with the requirements and you need to do extra supervision, courses, testing. Just something to think about.

It's pretty awesome.

Signed,

Native Pacific Northwesterner

Seriously, though, UW is the only place in the States I considered applying.  Love Seattle (originally from Portland)!

It's pretty awesome.

Signed,

Native Pacific Northwesterner

Seriously, though, UW is the only place in the States I considered applying.  Love Seattle (originally from Portland)!

Everyone I know just resubmits the same thing every year, they really don't care. I've also resubmitted the same personal statement, and no one has called me out on it yet (to be honest, they receive so many per year that it's doubtful that they'll remember). 

Repeat, not a good idea to go to a Ph.D. program without funding. Not a good idea to think you can leverage it into funding down the line.

No funding means no funding. They will not pay for anything. Any costs associated with your education must be covered by you. It means a lot of debt. Do NOT attended an unfunded PhD program in English. It is not worth it. 

My U of S rejection letter was just rescinded by my POI! Wooooo!

I'm sorry to hear that and I imagine many of us can empathize with your experience. From this process, the one thing I've learned is that there is no "perfect formula". One thing that HAS stood out to me as being really, really important is the relationship with the professors you're applying to. I applied to clinical programs last year (I'm Canadian) and didn't get any interviews. This year, I focused a lot on building relationships with my three top choices (e.g., volunteering, meeting at conferences) and was interviewed at all three of those schools - I was rejected from everywhere else without an interview. 

School Name: University of Pittsburgh
Date ACCEPTANCE Received: 3/8/2016
Type: Clinical Psychology, PhD
Notified via: Phone
From: PI

Additional Info: I am absolutely THRILLED to have been accepted to this program. It was always one of my favorites and became #1 when I felt really comfortable during interview weekend (crazy, right?!) I was officially given an offer and unofficially accepted. Still waiting for an official email with the stipend package and the fine print.
Happy to discuss details privately and/or talk about application/waiting/grad school life!
 
 YAY!!!!!

There are different ways to respond to this situation. Based on what you said I think it is best to let your POI know that you have an offer but that the school you are waiting on is your top choice and why. Whether you want to do the full disclosure route (give the name of the other school you have an offer from) depends on if you feel comfortable doing so and if that school is a prestigious program. With that being said, not saying where your offer is from shouldn't affect their decision making. 
Good luck!

If it is your top choice program, I would encourage you to be very transparent about that with them. I would probably steer away from lying- if you're looking for a research-oriented career, there is a good chance that you could run into that POI at conferences or other professional settings, an you wouldn't want to develop a reputation for lying. My guess would be that they don't want to make too many offers that get turned down, so they're trying to feel out your interest in them. 

Hello everybody,
I am an ex graduate student in sociology who has "dropped out."
I don't really know why I logged on after nearly 3 years of inactivity on this board. I guess I was just thinking about how stressed out I was 3 years ago, and how different my current life is from what I had envisioned it when I was applying to graduate school.
Anyway.
I just figured I'd write a post to provide a (hopefully) useful perspective from the point of view of someone who was in your situation and ended up doing something completely different with his life. These are just some things that I personally realized after 2 years of grad school; they are not meant to be universal truths, just my personal realizations that hopefully will be of use for some of you who are currently considering a career in academia and sociology.
To remain in academia you truly need an extremely strong drive and self-discipline. Like, really, really strong. And mind you, it's not that you need drive to succeed...you need it even just to remain in it. Three years ago I was really convinced that I did feel an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, a deep desire to just "live the life of the mind." Also, I was always an outstanding student, I am a fairly smart person, so what could go wrong? As it turns out, these characteristics have nothing to do with what is required to make it through Grad School. I have met people who actually do have what it takes, and it's a lot more than a good brain and a hint of determination: they are the people who treat academia not just as a personal quest for truth, but as a true “calling” that requires utmost dedication.
In other words, in an environment where constrains and direction are very, very weak (even the most micromanaging programs won't get even close to the level of constraint that a 9-5 job entails), you truly need to feel like there is nothing else you'd rather do in the world than be a researcher and a teacher (more on this below), and truly dedicate your time and efforts to succeed. You need to get up every morning and realize that nobody will be giving you instructions, that you need to really build your own future block by block and, more importantly, that as opposed to many (most) 9-5 jobs you get nothing for just showing up.
Not everyone has the level of dedication and self-discipline. Would I have been able to figure out that I did not have this unrelenting determination to be an academic and only an academic before going to Grad School? I don’t know. But I do think that people often underestimate what an important role sheer dedication, more than anything else, plays into the ability to remain in academia.
  Another thing that I did not fully take into account was quite obvious: I found out that I don’t particularly enjoy teaching. I was actually surprised by how many grad students I encountered don’t actually enjoy teaching, and I feel that many prospective academics have this idea that they will be spending their time with their mind deep in data, running regressions, conducting ethnographies, and coming up with clever theories and concepts.
In reality, you need to understand that, although academia places an inordinate amount weight on research, the bulk of your time will be spent teaching. And teaching is a very specific kind of job, I would say unlike any other: some people can find it extremely stimulating and inspiring, while others find it fairly boring and/or frustrating. I do not regret trying to teach, as it’s a unique experience that I will definitely treasure. But at the same time I’d like everyone to be entirely conscious of how important teaching is in academia; I (perhaps naively) was not.
  Career prospects are not particularly bright for future academics. I know everyone is saying this, but I can guarantee you that people do not fully understand the extent of this until they are actually “in the profession.” And, sure, my department was not at the absolute top of the nation, but it is still a fairly respected one. Yet, although more élite schools certainly provide better prospects, the truth is that, regardless of rankings, making a livelihood in academia is extremely, extremely hard, and the odds of ending up working as an adjunct are very high for everyone. Landing a TT job is not impossible, but landing a good TT job (as in, decent pay in a good location) is absurdly hard. Even then, you need to be conscious that average salaries for sociologists are low; realistically, once you graduate IF you manage to land a TT job (and that’s a big IF), you will be making roughly 60k a year (of course, depending on location…but for reference, an AP at the “good” CUNY schools makes roughly 70-80k, and that’s New York!).
You may look at these figures now, when you are 25 and think “wow, that’s a lot of money”, but considering that you will realistically be making that money when you are 30 (and again, only if you are the absolute top of the bunch) it’s not really a great deal. And mind you, I’m not saying this to discourage everyone; some people won’t care, namely those who really have “the calling” (see point 1) or that just don’t care that much about money. But others will care when it’s time to build a family, buy a house, pay for your children’s education, and so on. One of the reasons I took the hard decision of leaving academia is that I realized that money is not as unimportant to me as I thought it was, and I really started to learn about financial planning; please do read about these issues, and try to be entirely aware of the future implications of going to grad school. My intention is simply to make sure that people deciding about graduate school are fully aware that from a financial point of view this is a very delicate decision.
  At this point you probably think that my next advice will be “Oh my god, never go to grad school, it’s the worst decision you could make.” Well, yes and no. If reading points 1-3 really made you strongly doubt about your decision, I would say that perhaps it would be wise to get a “normal” job for a few years and figure out whether or not you really hate the corporate world enough to go into academia. But if what I wrote so far didn’t make you doubt, then you definitely should go ahead and try the academic path; worst case scenario you can just drop out after a few years with a good experience on your shoulders and no regrets of not trying to do what you love (or think you love).
Because—and I can’t stress this enough—dropping out is not a failure! It’s simply a decision that can have great outcomes. I feel like some people remain in their programs because the idea of “leaving” feels like letting people down, like “not being good enough.” The reality is that academia is a specific career path, some people enjoy it/are good at it, some others don’t/are good at other things. There are plenty of very smart people outside of academia, and there are plenty of stimulating jobs outside of academia. I, for one, don’t regret leaving; of course, the corporate world can be frustrating and I don’t have as much free time as I used to. But I am making more money than I would have realistically made in 4/5 years, I have a good career path ahead of me and I am already saving to build a family with the woman I love. Some people wouldn’t trade this path with the freedom of academia, but I personally would not go back. All I am saying is, if you are really set on academia right now, please do keep in mind that there is a life outside of academia, and leaving may be the best option for you, no matter how much you feel like you are “giving up.”  
Well, this was a long post. But I hope some of you will find at least some of my advice useful. Of course, feel free to ask me anything, I’d be happy to answer any of your questions J