Dedi

I think this is a valid thing to think about. I know that it's no fun being called on in class to answer a question on the spot, and this practice is usually unnecessary in most classes. 
The way I think about the hardship of presenting to a class for students with anxiety or other issues is to not surprise students with these requirements and expectations. They are told on the very first day what is expected in each class. Often, the course involves a final project at the end with a 15 minute presentation. Or, they will be required to get into groups of 2 or 3 and trade draft papers for peer review. Or, there may be a 5 minute presentation every week. Or, there will be grading strictly based on participation---you must speak at every class in order to get points (common in graduate seminar classes). 
In fact, I always tell all of the students exactly what the expectations are during the first day/week of class. I believe in making expectations fair and upfront. 
My point here is that I agree with you that, as instructors, we need to consider that our students have different needs in order to succeed in the classroom. But this does not mean that you have to compromise your teaching goals. In my classes, public speaking, presentations, and participation are a critical component of the core learning goals for both my class and the program's overall curriculum. I try to help students with anxiety as much as possible by informing them of the expectations beforehand and thus they can seek whatever help they might need in order to succeed in the class (Of course, I also let the students know I can be a resource, but I understand that sometimes the students prefer help from someone not involved in teaching them or from someone with expertise in their situation).
So, I would be an instructor that would set expectations like "all students must keep a copy of all their work until final grades are awarded" and if I need another copy of an assignment, I would definitely ask, and expect, the student to provide it. But I'm not going to just say "You must provide it by X date or else!", and if the OP was my student, I would certainly try to find out if there was a hardship in getting an extra copy to me and be as reasonable as I can.
In general, it's important for instructors to think about different needs and difficulties that our students might face. But we should also not assume our students are not capable of X and then treat them as if they cannot do it. Instead, I believe in empowering my students with the knowledge of what is expected so that they can do what they need to do in order to succeed.

I know! I was super flattered/shocked that she would do that for me. I'll ask her about recommendations for neighborhoods but I don't want to scare her away so I won't ask her to drive around! I just got a really nice gut feeling from her and she told me she would be more than happy to be my PI.

It has happened. Not even two semesters in and I have become what I promised I never would. I just realized that I have gone a full four days without showering. 
Have you ever seen a professor that not only looks disheveled and tired but also looks like they haven't been able to squeeze any bathing  in for a while? I always told myself that wouldn't happen to me, I could skip makeup and doing my hair but cleanliness is still a must. I have had 4 days in a row where I am gone form home from 730am-11pm... and I just simply forgot that bathing is something I am supposed to do, I guess. I wake up, drink coffee, go to school, come home, eat something, go to sleep, repeat. 
Anyway, that was the most glorious shower I have ever taken. 

Does asking rhetorical questions really help further the conversation? How about vague one-liners?
 
I don't think anyone here can answer the "common sentiment" question. What are you hoping would be different at a small research university compared to bigger ones? Is it interaction with the students or research/teaching requirements and how they are weighed for tenure? I'd say you should try to investigate and find out how that works for your field in some of the schools you have in mind, because it seems too vague for us to be able to answer. These days even teaching-heavy institutions seem to want a serious research component in their candidates' portfolios, but of course there is less of that in those schools. The question is probably whether you would be expected to bring in your own grants, (and if so, how much money we're talking about). The higher the teaching load, the lower the research expectation. As a very general rule, though, I would expect that smaller departments would allow you more one-on-one time with students in both a research and teaching capacity, yes. Even in larger schools, though, you could be that accessible faculty member who students enjoy talking with. It might not be a requirement, but if you make yourself available, students will seek you out. 
You're only a first-year, so I would give this more time and try to figure out how much of a research component you'd like to have in your future job, and go from there. If you want a lot of both, that probably means you want something more in the research university realm. If you want to concentrate more on teaching with little/no research, then it's the teaching schools. It's early for you to be making decisions, in my opinion. You should at least get your feet wet with one large project, then you can think again. You might also think about finding a way to teach your own course, which is quite different from TAing for one (though the fact that you are enjoying that does mean you're likely to also enjoy being the primary instructor of a course).  

I never was grilled in an interview, not once.  I also don't bullshit at all and I really knew my research well.  From my interview and those along the interview trail said, the ones that got grilled for stuff like that are people still in undergrad and they either don't have a lot to talk to about your personal research experience and/or they are trying to decide if you know what you are talking about.  Memorizing your research shouldn't need to occur.  You after 5 years should know your own research better than anyone else. If you can't explain it with a few questions that is a problem.  Generally its a "if they can't answer the basic questions easily then they dig deeper because they aren't sure how much you know".  Therefore the better and more at ease with your own research from the get go the better. 
I talked in depth about my research and extrapolated upon their questions.  They don't want to know each and every protocol but like to see how you are thinking and what challenges you encountered. 
I interviewed with many different PIs some that I had expressed interest in, other that I hadn't (ad comm members) etc.  You need to familiarize yourself to be able to carry on a technical conversation with them.  The ones that were in my field knew exactly what I was talking about but I also am working on research so you don't get so detailed that they can scoop your idea.  I would read 2-3 abstracts of the most recently published material from this PI/lab.  Be ready to ask insightful questions and not just sit there and go "uh huh!" and "Yeah that is really cool, I find that interesting". 

I guess what's "usual" is different for different fields, because in my field, it's very rare for a TA to be fully responsible for the course (we would likely call that person a "Teaching Fellow" rather than a "Teaching Assistant", too). 
My feeling about TAships is that they can take unlimited time. Therefore, it's super important to set expectations before you start. I always sit down with the professor teaching the course and talk about what is expected and compare it to how many hours I'm supposed to be working (based on whatever agreement your TA offer has). For example, at one school, a TAship is 9 hours per week per course. So we talk about things like: okay, the prof wants me to attend all the lectures (3 hours per week), hold one office hour per week, read the same assignments (1 hour per week, let's say, since I should be able to read faster than the students), and grade homework. We look at the time budget and find that I have about 4 hours per week to grade homework, and if there's like 40 students in the class, then I have 10 minutes per student. So, we agree on the amount of homework to be assigned so that I can finish grading in just 10 minutes per student. Maybe the instructor prefers to give long project-style homework that might take 30 minutes to grade, which means they can only assign one of these every 3 weeks instead of having weekly assignments. 
Some other instructors will give the TA the solution to the problem sets/homework, but others will require the TA to solve them on their own first. So, this must be added to the time budget too. And sometimes instructors want TAs to create the homework themselves so that takes up time as well!
And this discussion is not necessarily all one-sided (although since they are your boss, it could certainly be that way). For me, I'm lucky that when I want to do something in particular, my TA boss has always welcomed it. For example, in recent years, I wanted to teach one week's worth of lectures, which would require more hours of TA work in order to prep. So, we shifted my other responsibilities around so that I spent less time grading and more time prepping for the lectures. I wouldn't expect this of course, but an example of how discussions of expectations will benefit everyone.
Finally, an important thing to remember is to make sure you are defining "success" as something achievable. It is impossible for a TA to please everyone. I only have about 5-10 minutes (depending on the assignment and the class) to grade the weekly homework. Sometimes I wish I could give a lot more feedback to the students, but if I spend more time on my TA work, I'm neglecting other aspects of my life (research, my own classes, my family, my hobbies etc.). I've stopped measuring my "success" in TA work as "how much stuff got done", but instead, "how effective are my use of the resources I have". I strive to spend my 9 hours per week to improve my students' learning as best as I can!

First, I want to say that this is a very legitimate concern and something worth thinking about. I am glad that you are taking on the work of raising these concerns and I am sad to hear that the response you got was completely inappropriate and inadequate. Sadly, this is a common response I've heard when doing similar things and from colleagues doing similar things
My current department is small (< 10 profs) and until 2011, there were zero female faculty too. We now have two, both hired in 2011. @PoliticalOrder raises a point that I commonly here: "We tried searching but the best candidates were not female (or other minority)!!" This is a complicated issue that I can't address all in one post, but as academics, we bear a lot more responsibility to creating a diverse community than simply saying "oh the best candidates aren't female, sorry". And for a group of 10+ faculty, it seems really unlikely that every single time, the best qualified applicant happens to be male. (In my field, about 30%-40% of faculty-eligible scientists are female so this should only happen < 3% of the time, if by chance, but see note below).
There are a lot of reasons why female faculty aren't being hired, such as, but not limited to:
1. Female candidates are not applying because the department is all-male and that the environment there seems to be not friendly to women (given that the programme director dismissed @piglet33 so simply, it's not far of a stretch to postulate that perhaps these repeated actions by the faculty has earned this department a reputation in the field). This is something that is worth addressing, because if the department is claiming to want only the best faculty, then they should take actions to ensure that the best faculty actually want to be there.
2. Unconscious bias exists in the department and female applicants aren't truly being evaluated equally and fairly. There has been many studies to this effect. And, there are many other studies showing there are ways to greatly reduce or even eliminate unconscious bias. Things like blind reviews or even a briefing/acknowledgement that unconscious bias exists, even for "dispassionate academics", makes a difference.
3. Related to #2, a currently not-diverse group of people might have more limited perspectives and a more narrow definition of what is "successful". When they evaluate candidates, they might be looking to find someone that is similar to them. However, there are many avenues and routes to success that could be missed when only using this narrow metric. Diversity matters, e.g. see Page 2014.
These are just a few thoughts. I want to expand a bit further on something I said above, about how for a population with 30% women, the chance of 10 people being all men is less than 3%. This is a simplification, I admit, because these 10 people were not chosen all at once and the population wasn't always 30% women. There is also a further complication that departments don't hire every year---let's say they hire one position every 5 years. For a minority population (e.g. women), there will be fewer applicants, and because good applicants are rare, then good women applicants may be even rarer. What if, for example, in 2010, the best candidate was male, but in 2011-2014, the best would have been female, but the department already hired in 2010? This could lead to all-male selection too.
But there is a solution! (More than one of course). I will use gender diversity here as an example. The solution my school has implemented (we have really ramped up our work on diversity in the past 2 years) is for the University to have a school-wide slush fund help with hires in the "off" years. Let's say a department was planning to hire in 2010, 2015 and 2020. And they hire a man in 2010. They would be encouraged to keep the job search for 2015 open between say, 2011 through 2015 (it's common for faculty searches for my school to go unfilled from year to year). Then, if they find a woman candidate in the "off years" that is exceptional, they can appeal to the University-wide fund. The University, which has increased faculty diversity as one of its goals, will provide extra funding to the department from say, 2012 to 2015 to help offset the cost of an "early" hire. This allows departments to get the best talent, to increase diversity, and avoid missing great applicants from minority populations due to the small number problem. This is just one example of creative thinking that can help change the status quo (of course, this is an example that costs a lot of money, but there are other solutions too).
---
Overall, to @piglet33, I just want to say that you should feel welcome to vent! And that there are many that support you. I think you are definitely right to strongly consider this as a factor in deciding where to go for PhD programs. I'm a male, so I'm lucky to be part of the dominant population, but I try to be aware of the diversity of places I go (conferences, schools, meetings, workshops). I would definitely think twice about joining a department that lacks diversity (and lacks any attempt to change that). 
It can also be tiring and draining to deal with these problems alone. As shadowclaw suggests, there could be groups on campus. There are also groups online. In my field, there are several diversity/equity/inclusion FB groups where professionals (students, postdocs, faculty) that care about these issues discuss them together. I have to say that it's very helpful and uplifting to see that other people care, and especially other faculty members and those in positions to make change. 
And you should not feel that you must be the sole champion of this cause in your department. This type of work is emotionally draining and also takes time away from research productivity. Ironically, this is part of the problem too! Academics in under-represented groups tend to take on more of this work, which makes it harder for them to compete with the majority group that does not have to take on this work. And, even in departments that want to increase diverse voice, it's a problem if there is say, only 1 woman out of 15 professor. That woman might be asked to serve on all sorts of committees (hiring or otherwise) to lend a diverse voice (see #3 above). But this creates an unfair burden on the woman (not to mention the extra pressure of tokenism! likely part of the reason why when there are zero women, it's really hard to recruit the first one). Unfortunately, a lot of well meaning people do this by mistake (by "this", I mean not realising that by asking the same people to serve on many committees, it's an unfair burden).
So it's perfectly fine for you to choose to take care of yourself first and focus on finishing your Masters, getting into the PhD program of your choice first. At the same time, I really hope that you find supporters in the majority group that will help you with changing your department's environment. And to those who are reading this---lack of gender diversity is not just a "women's issue", it's something that affects all of us! It's important for those of us in majority groups to take on some of the work to increase diversity and take the burden off of our colleagues.

I'm still in a bit of shock in regards to how well this semester went. I haven't gotten my grades back yet, but the evaluation from my rotation advisor was full marks for everything, I got nothing but positive feedback in my grant-writing course, and haven't scored below a 90% in the intro course they make everyone in my program take. And just now, I got an email from the professor for my one elective class, which was a very difficult class conceptually (most of my cohort thought I was crazy for taking it), and apparently I have done better than any other student in any of the graduate courses he has taught before.
I hope this doesn't come across as bragging, I'm mostly just surprised at myself for doing so well! Hopefully this continues into next semester, I'm taking a course that my next rotation advisor described to me as "legendary" for its difficulty.

This is a hard thing to figure out and I think it's really important to learn. I'm still trying to figure it out. Right now, my strategy is to work on it for 1-2 weeks and then see how much progress I've made / how feasible the idea is. For example, I might come up with what I thought would be a clever solution to X but then after 1.5 weeks of work, run into a lot more nuances and issues that I did not originally think of. It might not be as easy as I thought so I would put the project aside indefinitely. 
It's sometimes hard to judge how much progress in 1-2 weeks is "enough" and I consult with my advisor and other students to get a well rounded set of opinions. 
I know this is not really a full answer, but the key points I think are: 1) you have to actually just go and try it for awhile and see if it works and 2) don't be afraid to just give up / postpone a project after working a couple of weeks on it---learning what doesn't work is still helpful for you, and it's much better to stop after 2 weeks (maybe even waste the 2 weeks) than to continue working for months without results.

In general, you never know if you'll solve a problem or get stuck. TakeruK described a reasonable thought process. It's hard to be more specific without knowing more details. One thing I'll add is that it often helps me to know how "stuck" I really am to talk to others. Even just formulating the question and thought process helps, and if multiple smart people who I've shown the problem to are stumped, that tells you something. If they have suggestions, then I have new leads to follow and I can figure out what I think about them. Also, sometimes taking a break and doing something else for a while can really help.
I think your question comes in the context of "I have too many things to do already, is it worth it to work hard at solving this problem, when I have all these other things I could be doing." That's a hard one. It depends on so many factors, such as what else you have going on, what stage of your career you're in, if there are upcoming deadlines for anything, what potential outcomes you expect the project to have, if all goes well, and more. It's easy to overcommit, so getting the balance right is a learning process. I think it's important to be strategic and to prioritize according to what makes sense for your career right now. 
I personally need to have multiple projects going on, I can't really do just one. When I get stuck in one place, I have other things happening that I can move to and not get stuck for too long. The way I choose what to work on often ends up being decided by external factors. I have a deadline for X application/grant, and it would be good to have Y paper out by then to show skill Z. Or there is a conference deadline coming up with theme ABC at a nifty place I want to visit. Or a co-author is really into working on a joint paper, so my attention goes there. Or I'm teaching about X in class now, so it's convenient to work on a paper in this area, too. It really depends. Right now I'm working with monthly to-do lists that I revisit and adjust every month, that try to take into account the other things I have to juggle (such as teaching, service, my life). Some papers I would really love to be working on have to get postponed to a later time, because it's just not feasible to do them now. I try to take good notes so that I finally get back to them I know what my thought process was and what needs to happen next, but I accept that I can't do everything that I want. 

Going off of the "multiple projects" perspective, I kinda try to do different tiers of projects. When I was writing research proposals for faculty positions, I got the advice that out of your projects, at least one should be very "doable" (i.e., you know you have the skill set and can make it work), several should be intermediate (you think they'll work, but there are parts you haven't worked out as much) and at least one should be a "reach"- something that would be really cool if it worked out, but needs significant background work or takes a significant leap past what's already been done. 
When I'm designing projects/papers personally, I do the same thing. There's a smattering of low hanging fruit- things that might not be world-changing, but are solid work and need to be done- and then there are projects of increasing difficulty, including some which well may be beyond my capacity. 
As also mentioned, it's something you learn a lot by feel as you progress- you get a better feeling for your abilities and limits the more you test them. 
One other thing to learn is when to shelve a project. Sometimes you think something is totally achievable, and then as you get further into it you find that it's more and more of a reach, and taking more and more of your time. It can be really hard to take something you've put a lot of time and work into and shelve it, but a lot of times it's necessary. Sometimes you can come back to it fresh and make better progress, or sometimes there are advances in the literature that open up a different approach down the road, and make a previously inaccessible project suddenly plausible. 
Learning when to stop throwing good time after bad, and how to shelve a project so you can return to it are amazingly valuable skills! I've seen PIs not get tenure because they couldn't shelve a pet project, and ended up going down a bad road because of it.

You are right that academia is a place where things are blurry. This is because your experience depends a lot on your advisor. Two students who are performing exactly the same might be deemed "satisfactory" by one professor and "unsatisfactory" by another professor. I don't think this is entirely fair, because having inconsistent expectations does lead to inequalities across students in the department. And, for small schools like mine, there is usually only 1 professor doing exactly one topic, so it's not just a matter of "If you don't like the professor, work with someone else" because it really means "if you don't like this professor, you have to work in a different subfield". In addition, my field is also really small, so if many professor in a subfield are this way (it's possible for a subfield in my field to be almost entirely dominated by alumni of one or two faculty at a top 10 school), the entire subfield is now pushing away people. To this end, we're working on more standardized expectations of both professors and students. However, academia has very strong feelings about keeping autonomy of researchers and faculty, and to some extent, there is always going to be some room for interpretation by each professor.
While I hope that information makes you feel better that things may change in the future, the reality is that right now, that stuff won't help you. To answer some of the questions that you raised in this thread (either directly or indirectly):
1. How often would a professor compare a new student to old student? All the time. In fact, I think this is one of the main metrics that faculty member use to evaluate graduate students. On the LOR forms, faculty are often asked to rank this student compared to all of their other students. This is also a topic of discussion when a faculty member is presenting their student for acceptance to candidacy or other graduate school milestone. Since it is very hard to set absolute guidelines for performance in grad school (where everyone is doing different things), the standard criteria is "How does this student compare to other students?" Are they progressing as expected? Are they taking more courses? More TAships? etc. I agree with you that it's not very fair for the professor to compare you with his former students only, but that may or may not be a "kick in the pants" type comment rather than a formal evaluation. I think you can at least rest assured that when it comes time for the department to formally evaluate all of their students for funding, they will do so by comparing you to all students in the department, not just the small sample size of your prof's old students only.
2. When will your advisor deem you worthy/not worthy? I agree with you that one semester is too short to kick someone out. But your advisor is not saying "Based on your performance this semester, I am kicking you out". Your advisor is saying "So far, your work this semester is sub-par and I want you to improve". This is not a final evaluation of you---you can think of it as a mid-term review or just giving you some very important feedback. After all, it would also be unfair to wait an entire year, then make a final evaluation "You're kicked out because of poor performance this past year", when you had no warning or indication at all that you were underperforming.
In my program, during Year 1, we take 30 hours of courses per week (including time for reading and homework etc.) and are expected to work about 20 hours on research per week, plus a few hours for department seminars etc. During this time, we must come up (with help from our advisors) with two research ideas and carry them out. We don't have to fully complete them, just a proof of concept that it is a viable research idea and that we have encountered most, if not all, of the unexpected nuances and problems that would arise. At the end of Year 1, we defend both projects in front of a committee of 5 professors (including our project advisors) in a 3 hour oral exam. After this exam, the committee deliberates and determines whether or not you get to continue in the program or you leave with a Masters (or leave immediately with nothing). One very very important aspect is whether or not your advisors recommends you to continue onto a PhD with them. Your advisors being happy with your progress is the most important part---the other committee members are just there to make sure your advisors aren't being overly lenient or overly harsh and that the quality of student that continues is in line with department norms.
So, in my program, the direct answer to your question is after 1 year (or 3 semesters). However, your program is not making the same determination! Again, we get feedback from people at all points during the year so that we are able to do the best we can on the end of year exam. I think your advisor is following good feedback pedagogy by providing you with early feedback now, when you can still take action on it. It would be utterly useless if the only feedback you got was the final evaluation. I'm sorry that you don't like the content of the feedback and perhaps the advisor could have presented it in a better way (I wasn't there so I don't know), but I highly recommend that you reframe this information as constructive feedback designed to help you succeed, instead of a damning evaluation of your performance. 
3. When do people write papers? This depends a lot on the field. Most people in my program will be working on stuff that will eventually go into a paper almost immediately. There is no "transition period" where you only do classes and TA work. From the first day, we are doing work that will lead to a paper. I know this varies a lot from field to field though. Depending on the nature of the work, students in my program typically publish their first paper in year 2 or year 3. For people working on theory/mathematical modeling, a paper can be finished as early in year 2. For those running experiments or working with large amounts of data, the first paper may take longer to complete. 
In summary, here is my advice to you moving forward:
A. As others said, talk to other students in your program about normal progress and expectations. Talking to other students here is a good idea, but remember that things vary a lot from program to program and even advisor to advisor. So, while you will still benefit from hearing more perspectives, it's important to not apply something from another program or advisor to your situation without careful review.
B. Remove your own perceptions and ideas of what is "fair" so that you can properly hear the advice behind the feedback. I agree with you that your advisor may be unfair in determining your performance as sub-par. However, don't focus on that part. There is obviously something they are unhappy about if they are saying this. Find out what it is. You might have to talk to them more about a performance review and ask for specific areas to improve. As Eigen said, this may be a sign of lack of clear communication.
C. Still be yourself though. In step B, I suggest that you remove your own perceptions so that you can hear the "other side" but this doesn't mean that everything you think and feel is wrong. You are still you and you may be right that the advisor is acting unfairly. But you have to first distance yourself in order to understand what the other side is saying. Once you comprehend their point of view, then you can re-insert yourself and decide whether or not you want to do the things they are asking of  you. Sometimes professors ask for unreasonable things---e.g. they might ask you to work 60 hours per week and you may decide that this is not what you want to do. 
D. After B and C, think about where you want to be in the future. Maybe you want to first try out doing everything the professor wants you to do in B and see how you feel about it. Eventually, you will have to decide if working with this advisor is the right fit for you. Finding this out sooner is better than later! This is why I think doing "B" is really important---the longer you just think your advisor is being unfair and ignoring what they say, the longer before you are really able to decide what you would want. If you want to work with another advisor in the department, once you decide that, start talking to other professors. If you want to quit and start again at another place, get those steps in place.
E. Finally, I want to just disagree with VentureIntoNothingness's comment about academia being a cut-throat place and not for the weak. Sometimes, people accompany this with "needing thick skin". I really hate it when advisors and academics present it this way because it suggests that it's okay to bully or harass others in academia because we're "so cutthroat" and "weak students need not apply". This does not create a good atmosphere for our work. I agree that it is important for students and academics to be mature and aware enough to properly self-evalaute, handle constructive criticism and determine their own weaknesses (e.g. Step B above). But this is a far cry from calling those who cannot do this "weak". Also, I think the attitude that "academia is cutthroat, not for the weak" is a fatalist point of view that reinforces negative behaviour (such as bullying and harassment) rather than work on both improving students' ability to self-evaluate and handle critique as well as creating an inclusive work environment where bullying and harassment has no place.
(Note: I know that maybe VentureIntoNothingness did not mean their comment to condone bullying and harassment but instead meant it in the positive ways I wrote above. I don't mean to pick on you, VentureIntoNothingness! It's just that I see many academics defend bullying or other nasty attitudes with the cutthroat/not for the weak/needing thick skin phrases and maybe you are using them without meaning them in the same way!)

Hi guys! 3rd year PhD student in Molecular Bio, here. I lurk this thread each year to add my 2 cents or help out when you guys get lost or are freaking out.

What Azia said is very true. I'm lucky to be in a place where there are several graduate institutions close together, so I get to see not only students that come into my own program, but also those that come into other programs. GPA and GRE are important, but only to a degree. The things that seem to be most important these days are your ability to show that you know what you're in for in a research PhD (aka, you've done real research for more than 6 months), that you're a good person, and that you have people who can vouch for all of this and that like you (letter writers are possibly the MOST important). There is rumor that some adcoms which remove the school names, and gender/other identifying information from applications before they submit to the committee, though I haven't seen evidence of that with my own eyes. I think it is a positive step for the future of science that they're focusing more on you rather than your numbers; some people don't test well, but you put them in the lab and they solve huge problems.
I've seen students, and actually interviewed with some of them, that had beautiful applications as far as the numbers go, but when they interviewed, the person in their personal statement didn't match with the person. They were not good fits as they essentially lied, and I wouldn't have wanted to be in a program with students like that. When I got here, they were not. Then there are applicants with mediocre scores who accidentally gave a muted version of themselves in their personal statement, but their letter writers gave them their due credit. Then when they interview, you see how amazing they really are, and they get in. They go on to do wonderful science.

I am an example of a student who came from a state school with a mediocre GPA and GRE scores, and I am doing well in my PhD studies. I won't comment on my application essays as I can't ever compare my own work to others. I'm biased. I passed my qual at the end of my first year and will soon have a paper out. I have no doubt that I will graduate. Yes, I came in with 6 years research experience because I worked in labs all of undergrad and MS, but that didn't teach me to survive in a PhD program. Why am I successful? I work hard, just like the other students in my program, which come from varying backgrounds from all types of different schools. Your previous experience may help you a little, but you all start on square one, no matter where you came from, and to me this makes it even more essential to pick a place where you feel comfortable. I did NOT choose my program based on rank. I chose programs to apply to that had research I was interested in and appeared to have an environment I wanted to be in. Some were top 25, some were ranked below 50. For me, rank doesn't matter. I also chose a mentor who doesn't only focus on the success of the research, but also focuses on my career development and my progress as a student. This is important; many a PhD student has gotten lost because their PI can't be there for them when they are needed.
Okay, end rant. Message me or reply to this if you have questions.

For those of you worried about interview notifications. In fall 2012, I got my first invitation and rejection on December 20. Then I didn't hear from anyone else until the second week of January. My last two schools didn't send invites until February. You've got time. Try to relax.

I also have to ask this: Why do schools care so much about Quantitative and Verbal reasoning? In research programs, especially, shouldn't Analytical Writing be more heavily emphasized given what it purports to measure? Related to this, some professors I've talked to who outright stated that the Verbal/Quant GRE's don't factor into their decision making process have actually stated that they look at Analytical Writing. Yet references to GRE's in graduate programs that advertise what they look for almost exclusively talk about Verbal and Quant. It seems counter-intuitive that the one score that could actually be predictive is largely being ignored in favor of the other two....unless they are being used as cut-offs.
I've heard the opposite: the analytical writing score is largely ignored because, despite what it purports to measure, it only shows you how much word vomit you can make up in 30 minutes. Seriously, they don't fact check this stuff. You don't have to cite anything--and the longer you write (even if it is rambling, like many people do, and not concise scientific writing) you're bound to get a better score. I've been told I'm a very good writer because I'm straight to the point. I got a 3.0 on the writing portion, most likely because I didn't "write enough." Also, in real life you have time to check your work and revise it (and some people, such as myself, have bad first drafts). My guess is that there is no correlation between analytical writing scores and graduate school success, much like Q and V. Supposedly I have large deficits in my writing, according to the GRE, but I seem to make it around just fine.

I also have to ask this: Why do schools care so much about Quantitative and Verbal reasoning? In research programs, especially, shouldn't Analytical Writing be more heavily emphasized given what it purports to measure? Related to this, some professors I've talked to who outright stated that the Verbal/Quant GRE's don't factor into their decision making process have actually stated that they look at Analytical Writing. Yet references to GRE's in graduate programs that advertise what they look for almost exclusively talk about Verbal and Quant. It seems counter-intuitive that the one score that could actually be predictive is largely being ignored in favor of the other two....unless they are being used as cut-offs.
I've heard the opposite: the analytical writing score is largely ignored because, despite what it purports to measure, it only shows you how much word vomit you can make up in 30 minutes. Seriously, they don't fact check this stuff. You don't have to cite anything--and the longer you write (even if it is rambling, like many people do, and not concise scientific writing) you're bound to get a better score. I've been told I'm a very good writer because I'm straight to the point. I got a 3.0 on the writing portion, most likely because I didn't "write enough." Also, in real life you have time to check your work and revise it (and some people, such as myself, have bad first drafts). My guess is that there is no correlation between analytical writing scores and graduate school success, much like Q and V. Supposedly I have large deficits in my writing, according to the GRE, but I seem to make it around just fine.

I also have to ask this: Why do schools care so much about Quantitative and Verbal reasoning? In research programs, especially, shouldn't Analytical Writing be more heavily emphasized given what it purports to measure? Related to this, some professors I've talked to who outright stated that the Verbal/Quant GRE's don't factor into their decision making process have actually stated that they look at Analytical Writing. Yet references to GRE's in graduate programs that advertise what they look for almost exclusively talk about Verbal and Quant. It seems counter-intuitive that the one score that could actually be predictive is largely being ignored in favor of the other two....unless they are being used as cut-offs.
I've heard the opposite: the analytical writing score is largely ignored because, despite what it purports to measure, it only shows you how much word vomit you can make up in 30 minutes. Seriously, they don't fact check this stuff. You don't have to cite anything--and the longer you write (even if it is rambling, like many people do, and not concise scientific writing) you're bound to get a better score. I've been told I'm a very good writer because I'm straight to the point. I got a 3.0 on the writing portion, most likely because I didn't "write enough." Also, in real life you have time to check your work and revise it (and some people, such as myself, have bad first drafts). My guess is that there is no correlation between analytical writing scores and graduate school success, much like Q and V. Supposedly I have large deficits in my writing, according to the GRE, but I seem to make it around just fine.

1. Direct the conversation. Should I be asking questions conversationally? Should I be asking about the direction of her future research? Should I let her drive the entire conversation? I want to be engaging, but also send the message I'm motivated and have the potential for research in graduate school. 
Technically, you should be interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you--you are going to be investing 4 - 6 years of your life in their program. With that said, keep the tone conversational because you want to appear approachable. Definitely ask thoughtful questions about their research, but be prepared to go off-script (realistically, you should have a strong enough grasp of what they do that you can hold a conversation on things you didn't necessarily prepare for).
While its good to ask questions about funding, don't ask if the information is available on their website. Instead, ask about what resources the school has to facilitate research (e.g., research labs, equipment).
2: I  already know that she want to talk  about my summer internship with her former graduate advisor. Their respective areas of research are very similar, but other than that internship and one other poster I presented as an undergrad, all of my other research experience (two years undergrad and three years working at a university/ research institution) aren't really related to social psychology. Has anyone else gotten admitted into a program of specific interest while having a wide range of other experience? How do I convey that although my CV doesn't show it, I really want to pursue SOCIAL psychology. 
If its a "wide range of experiences" and not necessarily one specific field, then its justifiable--you experienced many areas of psychology in your undergrad, and found your interest to be in social. Additionally, if you can spin your diverse experience in a way that informs your research interests in social psychology then I'd say it puts you at an advantage.
3. Any other tips to prepare for this meeting? 
Remain calm and confident. Keep brief notes on talking points in front of you--that's one of the benefits of a phone interview.

I want to second rising_star's suggestions. Please take some time for self-care! I find it's really important to do this to get through all parts of grad school. 
I also want to say that what you are feeling is actually "normal" in the sense that it's a common experience for many new graduate students to feel, especially in the first semester/year. I don't mean it's "normal" as in "this crappy way you're feeling is your life now and you just have to get used to it". Definitely not that at all. I am just saying that these struggles are common and it does not mean that you're not meant for grad school or that you're not meant for academia! In Canada, we do 2 separate grad programs for Masters and PhD and with both grad programs, the start was a little tough, very similar to what you're describing. What helped me a lot was hearing that established academics and professors who I respect tell me that they had similar struggles too!
Little things that people I know (and I have done) to fight "burn out" and self-care:
1. See a therapist. I hope your school has a lot of options that are free or covered by insurance. 1 in 5 students will see a therapist during their time in school. They are a resource that are meant to help us and seeing one doesn't mean you're broken! Also, if making an appointment is too scary, see if your school's health center has drop in therapy times. My school offers them one or two nights per week in the evenings.
2. Schedule and prioritize time to call/Skype home. We often wait until we have "free time" to do things like this, but I think we should just schedule it. Make it one of our day's priorities, same level as homework or grading. Taking time to take care of yourself is part of grad student work. 
3. Do things you enjoy! Join a sports club or take classes at the school gym, if that's what you enjoy. If you have a hobby, join the club for that at your school. Or, find something offered in the city and do this outside of school / off campus (usually school/on campus things may be cheaper though). Again, make sure you schedule this as a priority.
4. Monitor your work hours and optimize them. At one point, I found myself "working" 12 hours a day and feeling very burnt out but then I realised that I was not really effectively working at all. I would spend a lot of time doing other stuff during my work hours, which meant my productivity decreased, so then I worked longer hours, then I got more burnt out and needed more breaks, which meant my productivity decreased etc. It's a cycle. Now, I work fewer hours but try to get more done in that time. I limit myself to about 40 hours per week of work (not including lunch breaks and breaks for things like typing this post!)
5. Travel home! I have not been able to just take an impromptu trip home because it's more expensive and further away than a lot of my friends. But for those who are just a 2-3 hour flight away (or less), I know that many of my friends go home about one weekend every 1-2 months in their first year. Others who live further away will take longer, but less frequent trips. Thanksgiving and Christmas is coming up, so if those are big events for your family (or friends back home), perhaps that would be a great time to "recharge". For me, Canadian Thanksgiving happens a month earlier and my family doesn't celebrate Christmas, but I was able to get the same happiness from my new US friends.
6. If traveling is too expensive, then take time to do touristy things in your new home! Pretend that you're here as a tourist for a long weekend. Take an extra Friday or Monday off and see the sights. Or do one of the other things that you enjoy instead (reading, hiking, etc.) i.e. a "staycation". 
7. Know that it gets better! Speaking to the passion/inspiration part of things, I find that the minutiae of academic life very boring. I get what you mean by not enjoying historiography. There are aspects of my field that are absolutely important but I find completely boring and have no passion for. That's normal. It's okay! As you say, you know it's important, so it's not like you are dismissing it, it's just not your cup of tea, and that's fine. You don't have to be in love with everything you do and every part of your field. Sometimes I feel putting that pressure on yourself makes you feel even more burnt out.
8. One of the best ways to get me interested in my passion is talking about it with other people. Usually, the week or two after a conference is highly motivating and energetic for me. After several months of just working on something, looking at the fine details, it's really nice to step back and take a look at your work from the big picture point of view, which is what happens when we discuss our work at a conference. It may be hard to go to one during your first year, but if you know that these types of actions benefit you, you may be able to "simulate" it on campus. Maybe you want to take one half-day each month to write up a big picture summary of your work. Or, spend some time reading the big picture review articles. Or, start a discussion group with other students/postdocs and talk about big picture things in your field. In a lot of my peer groups, we try to avoid talking about work when we are socializing, but once a week, we purposely get together to talk about science over lunch!
Anyways, I hope some of these ideas are helpful in one way or another. I just want to say that what you are feeling is shared by a lot of other current and new graduate students too!

I have the opposite problem--There are few people in my cohort that go to this specific campus (there are three that make up the whole University) and they are in different labs. So I feel pretty isolated. My undergrad professor advised me to try to look out for opportunities that meet with the same people regularly (even if not in my cohort or department).

Keep in mind my corrections are only suggestions.  For clarification on the whats and whys, ask away. 

You're going to have to cut somewhere. SOPs tend to be 1-2 pages (my top choice program required 1 page max) and beyond that gets too tedious, especially when you have other applications to go through. Your sentences tend to be long so cutting out words from those sentences would be a good start. I'm not sure what the purpose of the first paragraph is--when writing such essays, every paragraph and sentence needs to have a purpose (a lot like scientific writing). The first paragraph in particular is long-winded. Be concise and to the point. What have you done, what do you want to do now, and what do you want to do for the future? While I see essences of all three questions, they are muddled by unnecessary words.
Hope this helps! 

Everything has been really wonderful.
I have been able to handle my courseload while holding down a job.
My professors seem to genuinely be interested in me and they're happy to help me in any way they can.
I've been relatively confident in my writing.
I'm enjoying the readings.
There are so many wonderful resources at my fingertips and I'm so grateful.

The only downside is I'm not really connecting with my cohort and don't have time to attend events because I work.
I am afraid this will hinder me in the future. I have been rather reserved. 

It depends on the department. Some departments can accept more international applicants than others.
As an example, Biology at U of T only accepted 3 international students out of ~40 applications this year. The grad coordinator says that next year there will only be two spots..
Psychology can accept more international students, but competition is even tighter.
I got into Biology, but not Psychology at U of T as an international student. It really helps if you have a supervisor willing to take you in (my chances of being accepted went from <10% to >60% for Biology), but it does not guarantee a spot. 
I'm not sure about your field because the sciences might have a different system. If you want to know for sure, I would ask their graduate coordinator. The worst they can say is that they cannot reveal that information.

I'm guessing that they haven't updated their page yet for the upcoming application cycle.
Btw, hi. I am a US citizen that applied to Canadian schools exclusively last year. I got accepted to 2/4 programs. My major in undergrad is psychology and animal behavior (minor in biology) and am now in the biology program at University of Toronto. I applied to and did not get accepted into the psych program at U of T, but I'm okay with that because the supervisor was the same (:
I'm also happy to take questions!
 

I don't think we have chatted before. I also applied to UBC Animal Welfare and uWaterloo Health Studies and Gerontology (my research interests are extremely interdisciplinary). The impression that I've gotten is that external funding as an American applying to Canadian schools can be tricky. My #1 suggestion is to network with POIs, whether by email or if you happen to catch them at a conference (even better!). If your interests catch their eye, they can be on your side not only for admissions but for funding as well. 
From what I've gathered, the two main external scholarships in Ontario are OGS and the OTS (there's also Vanier but very difficult to get). Both are pretty competitive, and both have different processes. OGS requires you to submit a form online with your research plans, letters of rec, etc. while OTS requires a nomination from the grad department. This is where your supervisor networking can come in handy, because a supervisor can nominate you for the scholarship (I received the U of T internal Connaught award, which also has a similar nomination process).
I'm not familiar with provincial scholarships outside of Ontario. Many programs are going to offer a reasonable amount of funding. uWaterloo had a catch, though--your first year is funded in the Master's program, while the second year is unfunded. I don't know if this is true for all programs in uWaterloo, but the program I applied to had that condition.