doyouevenchop

I'm a current first-year in chemical biology at Scripps. Can't speak for the other schools, but Scripps definitely takes international students. I believe exam scores are looked at more rigorously, but it seems like you have decent scores.

I've also had my share of age-shaming. It's not really all that prevalent, but it happens. Sometimes older students like to remind you of the fact that you're younger than them, and I mostly see this as being driven by a sense of insecurity. Despite your difference in age, you're colleagues and the professors will treat you as such. For someone who was previously working in the private sector for a while that would be a strange transition, suddenly they're competing with people much younger than they are. It's true that older students come in with experience that you don't have, but don't let that intimidate you because that experience doesn't necessarily translate into being a better scholar.
 
There will be some older students who treat grad school like a job: show up, do your work, go home to the family. And that's fine. But recognize that younger students are important because they bring life and energy into a department. They interact more with the undergrads and can relate to them better. Furthermore, a lot of ideas come from talking about your work over drinks outside the seminar room, or other social events that usually just attract the younger crowd. An older student once told me that he wished he had gone my route and started grad school straight out of undergrad because he feels he lacks the energy we have to work so much. Time is certainly in your favor, so don't sweat it. First, when you finish your PhD you'll probably still be younger or at least the same age as your older colleagues were when they started. This means you have the upper hand later in the game, and will likely have a more productive academic career. Second, you have more time to dedicate to your work while you're in the program because you're (most likely) not married, don't have kids or a house, etc.
 
Do the work and be yourself (but don't be so immature that you get drunk and make out with someone at the department's holiday party), and don't let yourself be age-shamed or intimidated by older students.

There's been a few younger grad students and I relate to them better than to the 29-30 year olds that already got married with kids and talk about back pain, mortgages and insurance.

Age doesn't really matter but immaturity can shine in an awful light and it's more prevalent among younger graduate students.  First years regardless of age come in fairly naive about a lot of things and that's perfectly acceptable.  However, to horse around, be loud or recounting awful Tinder dates (when you say in the same line that you're looking for a relationship) in the TA room are some examples that can annoy others who are treating their PhD as a job and/or meeting with students (who themselves see their TAs as "adults" and not undergrads like them).
 
Within the classroom, no advice as the professor facilitates the discussion and is age-blind (usually....).

I believe these rankings are based on surveys from people in the field, so you should take them with a grain of salt for that reason alone.
 
But ultimately, what most matters is the professor you work for. Think about it; there are outstanding profs at universities that are ranked lower who may be just as impactful or more as profs at top 5 universities despite being at a smaller or lower impact school. But your PI is the one funding your research, publishing your papers, and writing your recommendation for a post-doc.
 
You should find out the funding and publication records of particular professors you are interested in. That information is far more important than school ranking.

That is a really tough call. I'm not on an admissions committee, so take this with a grain of salt.

Your research experience, awards, and publications are obviously phenomenal. However, I know many schools have minimum GRE scores. If you contacted POIs or the admissions committee and explained your scores in light of your out of class experiences I think you would have a strong case at all of your listed schools.

I worked as a recruiter at a "top" tech start-up in silicon valley for a while after graduating while I was doing research at Stanford. 
 
Let me tell you: NO ONE CARES IF YOU HAVE AN IVY NAME ON YOUR RESUME. Unless you were coming straight out of undergrad, I would never even look at the school. I have met a ton of very "dumb" ivy people, and some brilliant "nowhere-state" folks. 
 
From a recruiting perspective, it is actually a hesitation for me because many of those type (not all of course) come with arrogant baggage and are miserable to talk to. Also, if you are talking to someone in the US who has never heard of UCLA, then walk out. The same goes for anyone international who has never heard of ETH. You don't want to work for them. 

It could be worse...its not like your doing 25 to life at Angola. 

So, I'm a masters student in Neuroscience at the ETH Zurich currently. Recently I've been asking myself whether or not I've made a mistake by accepting this program. I had the choice to attend Ivy League schools (UPenn, Columbia), and I think if my resume said COLUMBIA instead of ETH, I'd have more success applying for jobs. I had similar thoughts when I accepted UCLA's offer over Berkeley's, and haven't been sure whether or not I've made the right decision. Read these two statements to feel how these two profiles sound different.
 
Graduated from Berkeley undergrad, completed a Masters at Columbia.
 
Graduated from UCLA undergrad, completed a Masters at ETH Zurich.
 
They feel completely different!

I think I also made a huge mistake. I went to one of the best schools in the world for undergrad and went to one of the best schools in the world for graduate school and it isn't my mentality or personality holding me back, it has to be the weak name brand of me going to top 20 schools overall in the world. 

Agreed, wishing I would've applied to Harvard now

Option 1
 
Feb 27: Seattle, Austin, Cal Tech*
Mar 6: UIUC (already committed to this one)
Mar 13: UNC, Seattle
Mar 20: Cal Tech*
Mar 27: MIT*, or Austin, 
 
Option 2
 
Feb 27: Seattle, Austin, Cal Tech*
Mar 6: UIUC (already committed to this one)
Mar 13: UNC, Seattle
Mar 20: Cal Tech*
Mar 27: MIT*, OR UNC
 
Unless I'm missing something, it seems the question is if you'd rather miss out on UNC or Austin. If you get in both MIT and Cal, you'll have to skip one of the two