Oshawott

I got my results and went from being ranked around the middle last year to fairly close to the end. I didn't change much, and I thought I'd have a better shot this year since they asked us to talk about the importance of three of our publications and I had more research experience outside the university, but otherwise my profile was identical. I guess it just goes to show how random everything here is, or maybe there was a red flag in my application lol

A lot of profs either don't have time to respond or don't want to bias their impressions of applicants due to familiarity so they have canned responses (likely Prof #2) so I wouldn't look into it.

It's up to you if you want to quit because you aren't interested in the task, but if you've only recently volunteered, that's probably the reason they're not putting you on anything bigger versus other students who have been there longer.

I know people who went through a clinical program because their research interests involved clinical populations. Unless you're in the same boat, I don't see a reason why you need to be in a clinical program given your preferred focus.

It's field specific but as far as I can tell conference proceedings don't seem to get any weight in psych. If there's a doi that can link people to your abstract online, I'd just add it at the end of your presentation citation (I've seen people linking presentations/posters to online repositories like OSF).

I'd choose #3 if your advisor can't take you to the new institution (or alternatively see if you can apply to the new institution and get accepted as well)

Insights because I graduated from UofT. Their thesis program (at the time I was there) only took 15 students. I hear its up to 20 now. At the time, you couldn't take the 4th year honours thesis without being in the program, and the program takes up 1.5 years with an independent project course in Winter (usually third year) prior to the start of your actual thesis year. Perhaps its changed, but considering things are getting more competitive, I doubt it. If you want to go back, you can take PSY405/406 courses, which are independent study credits. I know people who had taken them after graduation, and depending on your supervisor you'd end up doing just as much work as an actual thesis (some people put you into existing projects, other people have you develop your own). In terms of jobs, you can look up research positions at CAMH, though these are also fairly competitive and everyone I knew got them through an existing network.

I know people who went to grad school for similar programs (counseling/social work/clinical) past their mid-to-late 30's. Since your husband has a good job that allows you to focus on school and volunteering, I don't see why you shouldn't just wait it out another year (or two) while becoming more competitive by volunteering in labs for SFU/UBC. I know of some people who 'settled' for a program they didn't want to be in and they didn't thrive.

Sounds surprisingly similar to this topic so you could probably gain some insight here:

If you don't see yourself doing clinical practice at all, then there's no point in doing clinical unless your research interests need a clinical population. I've seen other PhDs get non-academic positions if you're worried about job prospects. Your program just isn't going to be tailored to getting those positions and you'll have to put in the extra work. People underestimate the importance of supervisor relationship, and given that your ultimate goal is research, a good supervisor and better training is crucial.

As an aside, Vanier prioritizes leadership skills as well, and a lot of academics fall short on that end. I know (second hand) of a person in the Humanities who received a Vanier because of her public outreach despite not being competitive for regular SSHRC CGS because of a lack of research output. Every school has different allocations as well. Clearly Waterloo's applicant pool were strong on the research end, but you have to look at your own institution's applicants as well.

This topic comes up a lot but the last point @lewin quoted is probably the most important by far. Programs get their reputations because of their faculty. Sometimes excellent faculty mentors just happen to be at smaller schools because of their own choosing. Above all else, look at where your POI is placing people, because they could be amazing researchers at amazing schools but are just not great mentors and have students falling through the cracks.

Data blitz (or at least the name) seems to be a new(ish) thing for social-personality so I haven't seen it much in CVs. Should I be differentiating it on a CV from a regular talk?

While I cautioned being wary, if your supervisor is actually obstructing your ability to complete your dissertation, then there's not much to lose by leaving because you aren't gaining much by staying.

I know people who only joined the program I'm in because it was the only one they got into. The program itself isn't bad, but they weren't flourishing because they literally didn't want to be there. If you are able and don't mind starting over then why not? But I would worry how this could come off on your current supervisor especially since they didn't seem particularly happy with you finding external research opportunities. I'd also be worried how these other programs would perceive your application so unless these other professors are the ones taking you in, it might be a big risk. What's stopping you from just staying where you are and continuing to work and publish with your external collaborators?