TenaciousBushLeaper

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.

school of hard knocks

I have heard from clinical faculty that it does not matter where you get your research experience but you have it and that it is quality experience. 

I feel rather lazy right now, and so I won't answer the OP's initial questions but I just want to mention something I've realized. You don't need to be in a program that specifically states it has a quantitative psych tract to do quant work. Don't let titles limit your search! Good luck all. 

Your interest seem a tad bit scatter. Within psychology, it is usually the case that if a lab does animal work, they usually don't do research on humans as well. I imagine this is so because if you're doing animal work, you now need to dedicate an entire lab to it. But now, what are you going to do with your human participants? Can't have them in the same room where you conduct your animal research can you? 

Anyways, in regards to cognitive neuroscience (a term you didn't mention but one that I will assume your interest fall within it's scope) if you're interested in speech / language & and how that relates to individuals with ASD, then you're probably going to want to look at labs that do neuro-imaging, that is, EEG, MEG, & fMRI. Usually these labs use one or two of the acronym tool soup i just mentioned, some even use all 3. Those are the main tools currently used for cognitive neuroscience (I should also mention TMS). If these terms seem alien to you, google them. 
 
Within the realm of cognitive neuroscience and studying ASD there are a ton of labs you can potentially look into. I myself am most familiar with cognitive neuroscience and cognitive science in general, and not "behavioral neuroscience" which at least to me seems like a term mostly used when doing animal research. I would suggest using google scholar or something similar to search for papers that peek you interest, read them, look at the universities and people associated with these papers and go from there. Also, look at the bibliography of these papers and repeat the steps above. 
 
EDIT

Just wanted to add, you might want to take this time or spend an additional year beyond what you were initially planning on to get some research experience in a lab that best suits your interest. I do not say this lightly.

You're making yourself look silly, stop it. 

I'm not a grad student but this is the schedule of the grad student who works in the same cubicle as I do (in the same research lab). 

In the summer: gets here at around 9 am, leaves at 5pm, also works on Saturdays for about 4 to 5 hours.
 
During the semester: The hours are usually longer since she usually has to teach a course, so you're looking at maybe 9am - (7:30-8pm). I'm assuming she does her reading and everything else that isn't data analysis at home since that's pretty much all I see her do here. Also comes in on weekends during the semester. 

Now you're thinking, can data analysis take that long? Short answer: Yes!

Also, the following scenario is common: 

grad student: hands in results of analysis to advisor
advisor: I like your ideas and what you've done, based on this, why don't you try analysis a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,..... 

Disclaimer: this may vary from lab to lab. 

My advice, get pdf of a typical calc book used for calc 1, and get another one of linear algebra(these pdfs are abundant online and a number of them are meant to be free). Start working through them like...right now up until the point when you have to make your decision. Once you're there evaluate how you've done. 

How far have you gotten into the books? 

Did you manage to work on problem sets every day?

How was your motivation to do this?

Also, I wouldn't recommend spending too much time on a trig prep, for most "early transcendentals" calc books you can do just fine with learning the trig as you go along, when and where you need it. 

Lastly, really evaluate your motivation to do this, you might end up doing not so well in your math courses simply because you aren't as motivated to do all of the required work, on top of the work your doing for your PhD.  

edit: 

by required work I don't just mean w/e homework is assigned (if it's even assigned). I mean that you may or may not have to do additional work, on top of that which is required to make sure you have the concepts down. 

I've had this conversation in the past, and most professors said that, whilst taking stats in the math department may give you broader preparation, you end up learning a lot of stuff that isn't used in your discipline and, conversely, miss out on techniques that are not standard-fare in statistics taken broadly, but which are necessary for your field. If you're interested in statistics per se, taking the MS through the math department may be a good idea, but otherwise you may be confusing yourself and giving yourself extra work without much payback. Also, if your psych department is considerably better than your math department at your school, the stats given in the psych department may actually be stronger. As regards getting a professional edge, I don't know; maybe it would be a good idea to ask people working in your desired field for advice rather than a motley crew of current and potential students.

Why does being from a particular family make somebody qualified for anything? The applicant might be for some other reason, but that's not the same as saying your father did a postdoc here 10 years ago.

Did I say that? I said that giving preference to legacies, over a more deserving student (and I dare you to tell me that doesn't happen) just perpetuates privilege. I'm saying that legacy status helps elevate students based on factors that have nothing to do with the student (which is true). If you can't get in on your own merits, and need legacy status to sneak in to a school, you are taking a spot from a student who deserves it more, and are, in fact, a bad person. (And that isn't even getting into the racial and economic disparities tied up in legacy issues).

I can only speak for UPenn, as the program director explicitly told me in person that they are just fine with psychology, so long as it isn't clinical psychology. 

As for Yale, I would advise Psychology majors to not apply to that PREP program unless they've had the standard science courses (chem, physics, calc, bio), both program directors for the PREP program at Yale have told me they will more likely than not, not consider applicants who don't have these prerequisites (because they admitted a psych major who didn't have the pre reqs and that person did not do well in the program) 

Okay, I didn't realise that this is a post-graduation job, not a temporary/term position while you are finishing a degree.
 
I agree with rising_star that because the R2 school job sounds like you will be given more responsibilities and "own" a project more than just helping another person get their work done, the R2 position sounds like a better route to go! Especially since this is a post-BS job (unless I misunderstood?), you would want to show that you are more than just an undergrad researcher, and I think the level of responsibility in that job will be very good in the future!
 
The R1 school job also sounds very good though. During my undergrad, I took a job like this (my program had us do two 8-month stints of full time research so our degree length was 5 years). The data was already all collected and I came in to do the analysis (i.e. writing scripts). The timing worked out very well for me because I arrived just in time to be a part of a slew of publications that the team produced based on analysis work I was hired to do. The advantage of being the person that is hired for their expertise and analysis skills is that you get the chance to be part of a large number of projects. You'll get to contribute to a large number of discussions and a large number of people will look to you for advice and expertise. This can help you a lot in forming good working relationships with many people. And as I said above, you'll get a chance to be a coauthor on many papers (although co-authorship protocol might vary based on school). Being at a R1 school will help this, after all, the R1 school is an R1 school because they really prioritize research output.
 
To be honest, both opportunities sound really awesome and I don't think you can go wrong with either one. The R2 position will let you have more meaningful responsibilities but at the same time, if that one project you are working on does not do well, then you might be stuck on a less than exciting project. The R1 position will allow you to contribute smaller amounts to many more projects. But on the other hand, being part of a large group might also mean that you are more easily overlooked and you don't get to be the "owner" of any one project. There's a risk that you'll be relegated to just doing grunt work and not getting recognized for it. Both have their pros and cons but I think both will be good opportunities

Are they both enough money to live on? I ask because it sounds like the training you'd be getting at the R2 school would be more valuable and applicable to a future dissertation (even if not the same project)...

Besides the Psychology GRE, she'll also have to do the General GRE as well. Most schools actually look closely at the latter rather than the former. Beyond that, assuming she has the grades and scores well on the GRE, she will definitely need to pick up on some of the fundamentals that will make her application sufficient. Namely, she will have to dedicate some time to actually exploring through work/volunteering in research. There's almost no way around it given the climate that psychology graduate programs are like these days. Without proper training in labs or experimental settings (or clinical if that's what she wants to pursue), she will find it hard to adjust and also be competitive. 

So after the standardized testing, make sure your friend is well aware of what area of psychology she is interested in pursuing and then look for opportunities that allow her to be exposed to that particular line of research and maximize her chances. This may take a year or so, but where there's a will there's a way!
 
Good luck to her!

TLDR (from thread): She has money. She wants to pay someone to do something a certain way. You are not doing it that way. If you do not do it that way, you will get fired. Figure out what that way is or you will be fired.  
 
You have the chance to learn a life lesson without having many negative consequences, I suggest you take it. 

I feel stupid asking this. But before I only considered applying to Phds, but have recently decided I am also going to apply to some masters programs. I know with a Phd you are supposed to apply to a program with a faculty that has similar research interests to yours…is it the same with masters? I know for Phds it is recommended that if you are interested in working with a certain faculty member that you contact them and see if they are taking on students, is it the same  for masters?

A person can only make this promise to the extent that she has independent (grant-based) research funds and the admissions process at her university allows her to hire whoever she wants using these funds without going through official channels (or they are used basically as a rubber stamp). 
 
HOWEVER, a verbal promise is not worth the paper it's written on. What you have is a promise from someone that someone else will take you on as their student, no questions asked and without even talking to you or looking at your application materials. I wouldn't take that to the bank just yet. What I would take from it is that your advisor has connections and will use them on your behalf, which in general is good to have and will greatly boost your application. That said, I don't think it guarantees you anything, just improves your odds.

My opinion is that whenever anyone makes you a "promise" that they are not actually responsible for (in this case, your advisor is not going to be on the admissions committee at these schools), that you don't take their promise very seriously. It's one thing when a professor promises you something they actually have control over (e.g. they'll write you a strong LOR, or they'll ensure you are a coauthor on their paper etc.) but another thing completely when they are making promises on behalf of other people.
 
Sure, your advisor, through their connections and your demonstrated research ability, can do a lot to help you get into a top program. But some academics (actually, some people in general, academics or not) like to make themselves feel or sound more important by making these strong claims. Usually, they are exaggerating. Some people do this to exploit students by making false promises to get more work from them. But sometimes they don't even realise that they are making promises they can't really keep.
 
Either way, it is true that working hard and doing a good job will help you get a position at a top school. Don't do it because your advisor is making some claims. In the end, you are the only one responsible for your future and do the work because you want to, not because of what your advisor said. 

Don't waste your valuable time and money -- those scores are high enough to get you past cutoffs and they'll never be looked at again. Unless you plan on applying to very quant-heavy programs, in which case you might want your Q score to be a few points higher.

Do you have any research experience? If you expect to get into ivy league schools or any reputable program to work towards a PhD in psychology, you'll need some research experience. A program director at Yale had told me that a year of research experience is enough so long as everything else is in order (GRE, GPA, SOP, LORs)

I don't think that's what he's arguing.

It's like saying the auto industry is failing, you go into a mechanic apprenticeship, and hope to get a job as an electrician because you don't want to be a mechanic. The training you're given in an experimental psychology PhD program isn't so easily translated into industry (this deals more specifically with what your research is on, though).

This rigidity in career path is what pulled me towards business schools instead of psychology or even decision sciences. The professors at my school make a good chunk of change consulting for corporations and consulting agencies while still enjoying (or surviving) the life of academics. Furthermore, they also reap higher salaries than professors in psychology -- which is one of the reasons why you see a lot of psychology PhDs seeking business faculty positions, but not vice-versa.

but I think, going into a phd program in cognitive area with the intention of getting an non-academic job when you leave is probably not too practical. because thats just not what you are getting trained to do, to be honest...

One advice I got at the time from then PhD student friends that helped me: Only go if you are absolutely sure that this is the path you want to take. An MA or working in a completely unrelated field may help you gauge whether the PhD is the right path for you.