TXInstrument11

as long as you end up with an awkward laugh at the end, everything will be fine. remember, the more awkward the better. natalie portman's a is a good one to start practicing:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlbsvC_1GsY

I think the human part is debatable.

How are the NRC rankings calculated?

Haha. This is the best explanation of "luck" in the application process I've seen. 

I have contacted most of the Professors I am interested in working with shortly after the applications' deadlines. I actually did so intentionally, as I thought it would be best to discuss things and offer to answer any questions while, or after, they were reading my materials and considering applicants. 
 
I do admit, being based internationally, I often do not fully understand the American codes of communication and, honestly, was completely unaware of what seems like a common convention on this board - that contact should be made prior to applying. I also was unaware of Grad Cafe at the time and, so, just went with what I thought appropriate.
 
That being said, I think it turned out very well. All Professors I reached out to were responsive and encouraging and I have had positive communication with many of them. Contact with a few people led to formal/ semi-formal interviews as well. While it's possible I was simply lucky or that my foreign identity bought me leniency about conduct, I do think that there is a tendency to over-analyze this issue.  I believe most people will respond to communication based on its content and relevance and I have no doubt that Professors are aware of the intense stress involved in this process.
 
Assuming your E-mails are stage-appropriate (obviously, don't ask about the program. What I did was say I have recently applied, describe my interest, explain why I think I will be a good match for this and that professor and offer to answer any questions about my application), you have little to lose in my opinion. The worst case scenario is that you will be told it is no longer relevant or that they simply fail to respond. I hardly think it will lower your chances.

Update for UIUC: The POI who emailed me confirmed that they would be my advisor - excellent for me, as they were my top choice. This may mean that other faculty are still sending their invites out, so good luck! 

actually, i added wrong lol... it's more like 80% (yes, that's EIGHTY percent) of applicants with a Psych major score just barely above the 50th percentile. the breakdown of the table (which is on page 30, not 29) to focus on is:
 
20%   - 140-144 (10th - 18th) 27.1% - 145-149 (21th - 37th) 24.8% - 150-154 (40th - 56th)   so 20% of psych majors score between the 10th - 18th percentile of the quant section (that's really, low), 27.1% score between the 21th and 37th percentile and 24.8% are in the 40th-56th percentile range.   if you add those three big groups to people who score below the 10th percentile (i.e. people for who numbers are really, really not their friends) then you get that around 80% of grad school applicants with a psych major score either at the 56th percentile or below on the quantitative portion of the GRE.   i think i'm starting to get now why my field of Quant Psych is so unpopular...LOL. 

This. That's a great and simple way to explain the importance of rank. Cynical as it may seem, following the money works, even in science.

In my experience, ranking and fit are not independent of each other. For example, the best research fit for me is access to telescope time. And whether we like it or not, money is what buys the telescope time and what allows me to do the science we want. And in order to attract big donors to get the big money, you need to be ranked highly. Also higher ranked schools are more attractive for interesting visiting scholars (whether they are here for just a seminar or staying a few weeks/months). Higher ranked schools may also have more resources to properly support you, both professionally (funding for experiments, travel, etc., strong alumni network, attract big companies for career fairs) and personally (childcare, health insurance, support for dependents, good policies for health and personal leave etc.). Also, at higher ranked schools, if you end up finding that you don't like your first advisor choice, there is usually plenty of other people you can work with!
 
Therefore, I don't think it's always "fit vs. ranking" but really, you want to maximize the fit+ranking! I would put them on equal footing, personally. I mean, these high ranked schools are actually high ranking for a reason (this reason might simply be money, but see above for how money is helpful), it's not like people just arbitrarily assign reputation to schools/programs! Of course, rankings are subjective (and some schools might have earned a high/low ranking in the past but perception have kept them at these rankings even though current conditions have changed. So, I would say that you should group school rankings in whatever ranges make sense for your field. For example, in mine, I would say that the top 5 schools are pretty much all the same goodness, and then there's the 5th-20th ranking etc. But in bigger fields, perhaps the top 20 schools are all ranked pretty much the same.
 
**Note: When I say ranking, I mean sub-field ranking (i.e. I would be considering "Physics and Astronomy" rankings, not the general US News rankings, but also not the super specific subfields, e.g. "Particle Astrophysics" would be too narrow in my opinion).

Ah yeah, that's rough. Isn't it interesting how we feel so pressured to make an instant decision (whether it's necessary or not) even though we had to wait months for schools to make theirs? Ha.

I would contend that fit is significantly more important than ranking. In addition, I would expand the definition of "fit" to not only include research interests, but also research productivity within the lab you are applying to. If you're working with a researcher who is doing work you are most interested in at a school ranked #20 and they can get you on 5+ publications per year, vs. a researcher at a school in the top 5 with similar research interests though not as strong as the former and they'll likely only get you on 2-3 publications per year, that's pretty significant.
 
That said, I am struggling with this as we speak. One school I am interviewing at is very easily top 5, the other is more like top 10, the latter has a closer research match while the former's researcher is maybe the most famous for his research area in the field today. Objectively I know where I should lean towards, but it's definitely hard to get the status side of things out of my head.

The personality of the adviser matters too, and I'm not just talking about their publishing reputation and relationships with other colleagues. What is their reputation for how they treat their students? Are their former students successful? How many drop out before graduating compared to other faculty you're considering?
 
Prestigious advisers who have little interest in their students beyond pack mules do exist in large enough numbers for this to be a concern. Some may be brilliant, but poor at communicating with and managing their students. Others still can be cruel, manipulative, and potentially career-ruining if you cross them. Most of these personality factors are not even going to be apparent via correspondence or interview. If you can, I think it's extremely wise to contact former students and dig a bit. This is especially true if they are your only good research fit at the university in question.
 
Overall, a productive program with multiple potential advisers > single perfect fit about which many variables are unknown when you accept an admissions offer. Also, I don't know if this is just an anecdote or based on serious empirical study - but I have heard multiple times from different admissions coaches that the single most important factor in the success of a PhD student is the relationship they have with their adviser. And observing some of the grad students at my own university, this does seem to ring very true.

Call or email admissions coordinators. I have called some offices multiple times over the past few months. It was really quite random whether they were annoyed or helpful. To me, the horror stories about annoying them and affecting your admission decision have been overhyped. If you keep it short, simple, and polite, there is very little chance it can go wrong.
 
Plus, I think the benefit of being prepared in advance is worth it and prefer bad news over uncertainty. Though I had already started developing a few backup plans in case I was rejected, I started pursuing them in earnest only after I was rejected from a few places. Especially if you have a degree (like psych) that has limited value at the bachelor's level, knowledge is power at this point, IMO.

"The dumb kid used Arial instead of Times New Roman. Obviously, this ain't gonna work. Reject!" 
 
No, but seriously - this is true. I've heard of some folks getting in everywhere they were rejected by in a previous year and others who were good enough for Harvard, but not Podunk U. 

No, seriously. It's ridiculous. Also, it's patently unfair and seems to be an ineffective way to weed out applicants.
 
They have app completion, LORS, and GPA/GRE cutoffs to do that with. Requiring upwards of $100 application fees only punishes people with less money. 

Oh God. Interpreting the tone of POIs is the worst. At the end of it, you either feel like that they LOVE you, HATE you with the passion of a thousand suns, or that you are suffering from chronic social incompetence and can't properly interpret basic social interactions or read simply emails. 
 
I've kept my emails to POIs very short and to-the-point because profs at my school overwhelmingly prefer those kinds of emails, and this has had some very mixed results.
 
One of my POIs responds likewise, but uses exclamation points, "thank you"s, and smileys, so I always feel encouraged when I receive communications from him.
 
The other one I've contacted, however, keeps her emails even more ridiculously terse with absolutely zero cues as to what she's thinking. She may simply be keeping with the unofficial email format I started and is probably efficient and/or lazy, but I can't help assuming she hates me or is an Ice Queen. Either way, it's truly doing a number on my nerves. If she calls and ends up being really sugary sweet, I'm either calling bullshit that I've been trolled, suspecting she's a manipulative psychopath, or passing out from the shock. 
 
This isn't overanalysis. This is WWII, I'm Alan Turing, and her emails are the German Enigma Code. 

Oh God. Interpreting the tone of POIs is the worst. At the end of it, you either feel like that they LOVE you, HATE you with the passion of a thousand suns, or that you are suffering from chronic social incompetence and can't properly interpret basic social interactions or read simply emails. 
 
I've kept my emails to POIs very short and to-the-point because profs at my school overwhelmingly prefer those kinds of emails, and this has had some very mixed results.
 
One of my POIs responds likewise, but uses exclamation points, "thank you"s, and smileys, so I always feel encouraged when I receive communications from him.
 
The other one I've contacted, however, keeps her emails even more ridiculously terse with absolutely zero cues as to what she's thinking. She may simply be keeping with the unofficial email format I started and is probably efficient and/or lazy, but I can't help assuming she hates me or is an Ice Queen. Either way, it's truly doing a number on my nerves. If she calls and ends up being really sugary sweet, I'm either calling bullshit that I've been trolled, suspecting she's a manipulative psychopath, or passing out from the shock. 
 
This isn't overanalysis. This is WWII, I'm Alan Turing, and her emails are the German Enigma Code. 

I also finally gave in and emailed a grad admissions coordinator (thinking, at least I won't alienate faculty and hopefully get some kind of information, any information) of the university that had sent out the most acceptance letters of the ones I applied to, and they gave me the standard website response of 'we will notify people in March.'
I wanted to send them this in response:
 

Unrelated to the OP except that I enjoy the overanalysis, but:
 
On my very long commute home from work, I often rehearse answers the hypothetical interview questions to ensure I am prepared for anything.  In truth, the only thing I think I'm preparing myself for is to give canned answers to cliche interview questions and how to look stupid and/or insane to passing motorists as I carry on a one-sided conversation with my mirror.  

Right? He was extremely nice but at the same time I just wanted a straight answer!
 
Feeling very
 

As someone currently near the completion of a social psychology program in Europe I feel like I might be able to provide insight on this subject. As stated by others, the GRE is largely a North American construct. Not only does it NOT factor into admissions at the (vast) majority of schools, most people have never even heard of it. In fact when I mentioned that I had to take a test for graduate admissions back in the US most of my professors thought I was joking. 
 
I think the issue here is that in your defensiveness about the quality of Canadian you made a blanket projection that the North American view of psychology (and academia) is universally applied everywhere. 

Totally, no one ever tries to get a visa to live and learn at "silly American schools"....
 
It is just so silly and not worth anyones time ever....
 
It has never happened, not even once.

Just thought I'd pop in and look at this thread, since my interest in political psychology is somewhat relevant....but, after reading the last couple pages of.."discussion", I'm going to head back over to the political science forum.

g-good luck everyone...don't let the "reverse discrimination" and "biases" bite...lol

:sigh:
I believe you already took the time.

Explaining myself- AGAIN- I'm sure the person I referenced meant it's something that is generally more relevant to US schools and moreover, much of the world (yes, other countries do, in fact, have respectable institutions) does not care about the GREs.

ANYWAY, here's Tom with the weather...

I am also a person who gets this inaccurate age-guessing. I'm usually 10-15 years older than people guess. And I do think it hurts my chances, because anyone who has researched genius knows the spark is most likely to die out before 35. I don't blame them for assuming the same of me from the age stated on my materials. This only reaffirms the necessity for some of us to network in person. And I do think there is some judgment done based on age. I can get people who already know me to throw jobs at me, but I can't convince on paper very well. Compound this with the fact that current graduate students here on this website have admitted to being the application filtering committees via "googling parties" before the professors get what remains (the dumbest way to gauge a person's worth, in my opinion, but whatever) - all of this suggests a very relevant difficulty for some of us. And before that cohort goes back into self-defense mode, filled with ego, stop pretending you aren't judging from a place of your own personal bias, we all do it. If your entire lab is fresh and young, you will pick people you are comfortable with and most likely think less of someone who is a little behind in their educational persuits. You can't help it. You are humans.
 
As far as the competitiveness discussion earlier about what is and is not a factor in your application; I'm surprised that race hasn't been brought into this. There is a former Harvard department chair here who tells stories about how the top tier schools fight over members of rare minority groups. It's quite revolting, but certainly brings in a factor that can't be ignored. A white male I was recently talking to expressed a lot of apathy about applying to graduate schools due to some of the stories that have been coming out about reverse discrimination. I feel for him and it bothers me a lot. Take it for what you will, but to ignore race (or gender, perhaps) as a factor in admissions is stupid.
 
I also leave room for a lot of fairly stupid factors being used to make judgments; for example, depending on your emphasis and POI there are going to be quirky little idiocies that are unpredictable and probably unfair. But because we don't want to scrutinize our own failings (or the stupidities of others) too much, we call it luck.