Oshawott

Faculty here. Having had many undergraduate come through with great ideas, interests, and ambitions, the one thing that holds many back is motivation. I can't count on the number of times someone comes in, telling me all the research he/she wants to do, but when it comes times to do the work, nothing is done.
As a result, I have learned to be encouraging but also set my expectations low. I will not commit resources or energy unless they (undergrad) have proven him/herself to be reliable and accountable. 

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.

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.

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 would caution that if you have an interest in graduate study, you may have a very hard time getting into a good program if you go the online route for your BA. You will most likely not be able to develop close relationships with faculty who will then write your letters of recommendation, and you can't participate in a research lab, which is an important skill if you would like to get into a PhD or PsyD program. 

Recent UofT graduate here. I did my honours thesis through the Research Specialist program and got a publication out of it. To my knowledge, you would not be able to go back as a non-degree student and complete a thesis through the Psych department. The Thesis option is through the RS program, and it's quite competitive. I know that in my cohort and the year below mine, they only accepted 10 students each year. We had to apply after second year, then complete two years of specialized coursework and research. 
My advice to you is to look for paid research assistant jobs. I think your best bet would be the Rotman Research Institute (at Baycrest), NOT the downtown St. G campus. At UTSG, there's a ton of free undergrad labour available, so paid jobs are really hard to find. The only paying jobs you could likely get would be lab manager positions, and if your goal is to engage in some meaningful research and get a publication, that is not the way to go. You'll just end up swamped with admin duties, instead. However, I know that a number of labs at Rotman hire full-time paid research assistants, usually for one-two year contracts. These RAs are most commonly gaining more research experience before they apply to grad school. Bonus: Rotman is affiliated with UofT, so you may be able to get some connections already through the profs you know, and it's also more clinically-oriented research.
If you get a paid research position, I think you should prioritize getting a conference presentation first, as this is generally a lot faster/easier than getting a finalized publication out. You could hope to also have a paper under review or in press by the time you are interviewing for graduate programs, but it's probably more realistic to try to get a presentation on your CV in time for the initial application deadline.
 

@smals hey there - most of the masters programs in the city are pretty crappy to be honest. In the highest sense, they are more like your 3rd/4th year classes of higher psych courses in undergrad, just retaught to you. When going to this Masters program you shouldnt think "oh this is a great school" because its, well, a masters in general psych and they take anywhere from 100 - 150 students a cohort. You should think more, will I use NYC to my advantage. Thats what I did when I did a masters at St. John's. Granted St. Johns, in my opinion, is a much stronger masters program because you are only 1 of maybe 15 students vs TC and NYU when you are 1 of hundreds. But I used the city to my advantage. I beacame a graduate student RA in 2 major research labs in the city and was going to school full time. It opened a lot of doors for me post graduation in getting a FT job and then eventually using all that experience to apply to clinical psych programs. TBH you're not going to come out of NYU being a much better psych major - you definitely will have more familiarity of the concepts, and definitely much more knowledge around stats... but Masters programs are meant to help you get more experience if you work for it on your own. I think maybe some of the negative feedback you're getting is because people thought they were going into a masters program thinking that this was the for sure thing they needed to get into a doctoral program and they quickly realized its just relearning a lot of the same things they learned in undergrad.
Hope this helps - one thing for sure, is NYC has a lot of research available, and they all love free labor. So if you're willing to pay for the cost of their Masters program (which is extremely expensive) and also the cost of living in NYC (which is also extremely expensive) to possibly get some more research experience, do it (I did and it worked out for me). But dont come to NYU thinking that this program is a great program because its "NYU" because again, you're going to a 2 year terminal masters program - which funds their PhD programs.

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

I have taken up a lot of leadership positions in the past. I think I have a good file for Vanier. I'm gonna apply. I've got nothing to lose! 

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.

They did a panel at U of A and one of the previous winners said he had no publications and won (SSHRC)! So there's hope. Plus that's an average, AND that's only 30% of your score.

Reputation matters - of the advisor and program if you're interested in academia, of the institution if you're interested in industry. People here talk about "research fit" or "productivity" and "prestige" as if they're independent dimensions but they're often not. 
Interesting twitter thread relevant to this from about a month ago.
Some quotes: 
- "The fact is that an astonishingly small number of elite universities produce an overwhelming number of America’s professors. One study found: "just a quarter of all universities account for 71-86% of all tenure-track faculty in the U.S. and Canada"
- "The most ‘‘efficient’’ program in the US placed about 1 of 5 admitted students into PhD training positions (essentially research intensive faculty jobs)[though this data does not track positions obtained outside the USA]."
- "There is a lot of variance *between* schools...But no one talks about the variance *within* schools. My guess is that a small number of labs/mentors at the top programs place most of the students. At places I've been this is often obvious to faculty, but not to students. "

I don't know if there's a convention. Personally, I have one data blitz talk and do differentiate because the acceptance rate was very low for that session and I wanted to include it too.

For manuscript advancement, the only advancement that matters is in-revision to accepted. in-prep to submitted is nice, but it's no guarantee that it will become a paper. Accepted to published is usually just a formality. However, while I would certainly advise students to let the admissions committee know about this change if decisions have not yet been made, if you already received a decision (either a rejection or a waitlist) then I do not think this is not enough to make a difference.
The significance of an abstracted accepted for a presentation at a big conference depends on how conference abstracts are valued in your field. In my field, they don't have much value, so this is not worth notifying the admissions committee even prior to decisions. But I know that in some fields, conference presentations instead of publications are the valuable thing, so then the above advice applies.
Maybe. I have two thoughts about this. 1) It is not in the student's best interest to simply be a workhorse to boost the PI's reputation. Grad school is about training to become an independent scholar, not another "worker bee" in the PI's research hive. 2) I know many profs are reluctant to take on volunteers because of ethical reasons but also that many profs think of students as trainees that are a time demand rather than a time-saver due to the training and mentorship they would provide. Sometimes the limit is not that they don't have money to fund a student but they don't have time to mentor another student.
---
Ultimately, I think if you already received a negative decision from a particular school, the mature thing to do is to accept it and move on to another opportunity. Dealing with rejection sucks but it's a part of being in academia. It's especially sucky because most people only focus on their successes (see also: the "CV of failures"). But many very successful people now have dealt with rejection in the past (and probably even in the present). You may wish to apply to this school again in a future cycle (or for a future position) so demonstrating maturity and the ability to accept rejection is a good idea; trying to find a way to get in despite their decision will look desperate and reflect poorly on you.
Also, if a school does let someone have another shot because they pestered the profs enough, that wouldn't really be fair. As such, I doubt very many schools would be interested in reconsidering applications once they have made their decisions, barring extraordinary circumstances.

Just wanted to second this. Submitting papers is positive because it shows you're getting work done, but ultimately that's not evidence of ability. Only an accepted paper is an independent judgment of the work's merit. I wouldn't update about conferences at all; in psychology, unless things are very different in some subfields, conference presentations are not nearly as prestigious as papers.
 
Second this also, and as more general life advice. Talk to any hiring manager and you'll likely hear that calling to press the issue (or worse, argue!) after getting rejected for a job is a quick way to ensure you never get considered again. Grandpa's job search advice about marching into the manager's office and demanding a job (because it shows gumption!) are long over.

The other school was committed to first so its not a case of both schools sending invites at the same time and prioritizing a preferred school. Presumably the POI knows this so the question strikes as odd especially the comment "if you found that you liked the program after the visit, would it be your first choice?" You wouldn't really know the answer to that. At best, the only thing one could know is how much they like each program before they visit which is what I think the professor wants to ask, which I think is legitimate, but they didn't.
@schenar just be honest and say that the other program had extended you an interview last month so it is too late to reschedule that visit, and that rescheduling doesn't reflect any preferences on your part. Also state what you've said: it is too early for you to assert whether either program is a top choice, but add that you only applied to schools that you were enthusiastic about attending (unless you didn't and this school isn't that). I'd leave out the part where they weren't "the top choice" because many things can affect where you end up going despite your initial rankings, and you shouldn't be penalized for ranking your applications and then updating when relevant information arises.
I agree with @Developmental33 that what the professor asked was not...tactful (or even useful because you could just lie and say yes this is your top program) but you should not let this rile you up. Academia is a small place so you don't want to be leaving bad impressions, especially when the power dynamics are against you.

The other school was committed to first so its not a case of both schools sending invites at the same time and prioritizing a preferred school. Presumably the POI knows this so the question strikes as odd especially the comment "if you found that you liked the program after the visit, would it be your first choice?" You wouldn't really know the answer to that. At best, the only thing one could know is how much they like each program before they visit which is what I think the professor wants to ask, which I think is legitimate, but they didn't.
@schenar just be honest and say that the other program had extended you an interview last month so it is too late to reschedule that visit, and that rescheduling doesn't reflect any preferences on your part. Also state what you've said: it is too early for you to assert whether either program is a top choice, but add that you only applied to schools that you were enthusiastic about attending (unless you didn't and this school isn't that). I'd leave out the part where they weren't "the top choice" because many things can affect where you end up going despite your initial rankings, and you shouldn't be penalized for ranking your applications and then updating when relevant information arises.
I agree with @Developmental33 that what the professor asked was not...tactful (or even useful because you could just lie and say yes this is your top program) but you should not let this rile you up. Academia is a small place so you don't want to be leaving bad impressions, especially when the power dynamics are against you.

The other school was committed to first so its not a case of both schools sending invites at the same time and prioritizing a preferred school. Presumably the POI knows this so the question strikes as odd especially the comment "if you found that you liked the program after the visit, would it be your first choice?" You wouldn't really know the answer to that. At best, the only thing one could know is how much they like each program before they visit which is what I think the professor wants to ask, which I think is legitimate, but they didn't.
@schenar just be honest and say that the other program had extended you an interview last month so it is too late to reschedule that visit, and that rescheduling doesn't reflect any preferences on your part. Also state what you've said: it is too early for you to assert whether either program is a top choice, but add that you only applied to schools that you were enthusiastic about attending (unless you didn't and this school isn't that). I'd leave out the part where they weren't "the top choice" because many things can affect where you end up going despite your initial rankings, and you shouldn't be penalized for ranking your applications and then updating when relevant information arises.
I agree with @Developmental33 that what the professor asked was not...tactful (or even useful because you could just lie and say yes this is your top program) but you should not let this rile you up. Academia is a small place so you don't want to be leaving bad impressions, especially when the power dynamics are against you.

The other school was committed to first so its not a case of both schools sending invites at the same time and prioritizing a preferred school. Presumably the POI knows this so the question strikes as odd especially the comment "if you found that you liked the program after the visit, would it be your first choice?" You wouldn't really know the answer to that. At best, the only thing one could know is how much they like each program before they visit which is what I think the professor wants to ask, which I think is legitimate, but they didn't.
@schenar just be honest and say that the other program had extended you an interview last month so it is too late to reschedule that visit, and that rescheduling doesn't reflect any preferences on your part. Also state what you've said: it is too early for you to assert whether either program is a top choice, but add that you only applied to schools that you were enthusiastic about attending (unless you didn't and this school isn't that). I'd leave out the part where they weren't "the top choice" because many things can affect where you end up going despite your initial rankings, and you shouldn't be penalized for ranking your applications and then updating when relevant information arises.
I agree with @Developmental33 that what the professor asked was not...tactful (or even useful because you could just lie and say yes this is your top program) but you should not let this rile you up. Academia is a small place so you don't want to be leaving bad impressions, especially when the power dynamics are against you.

The other school was committed to first so its not a case of both schools sending invites at the same time and prioritizing a preferred school. Presumably the POI knows this so the question strikes as odd especially the comment "if you found that you liked the program after the visit, would it be your first choice?" You wouldn't really know the answer to that. At best, the only thing one could know is how much they like each program before they visit which is what I think the professor wants to ask, which I think is legitimate, but they didn't.
@schenar just be honest and say that the other program had extended you an interview last month so it is too late to reschedule that visit, and that rescheduling doesn't reflect any preferences on your part. Also state what you've said: it is too early for you to assert whether either program is a top choice, but add that you only applied to schools that you were enthusiastic about attending (unless you didn't and this school isn't that). I'd leave out the part where they weren't "the top choice" because many things can affect where you end up going despite your initial rankings, and you shouldn't be penalized for ranking your applications and then updating when relevant information arises.
I agree with @Developmental33 that what the professor asked was not...tactful (or even useful because you could just lie and say yes this is your top program) but you should not let this rile you up. Academia is a small place so you don't want to be leaving bad impressions, especially when the power dynamics are against you.

Serious point - This won't matter because (almost) nobody should see you using your phone. We had a potential grad student visiting who was playing with his phone while I was giving him the lab tour. Did not reflect well. Keep it in your pocket unless you're alone.

I don't see why you need to do either, especially right now.
There are organizations using a behavioral science (i.e., psychological) approach to policy interventions right now. Combined with the fact that an MPP is basically an MBA for the non-profit world, it is best combined with practical experience before the degree for maximum benefit.
I don't see why you can't work in a place that solves social problems and creates programs to do this, especially when those topics of interest are within your background already.
The combination of social work and psychology already addresses two of the major fields in policy/social issues.
 
Have you applied to positions? Have you even identified specific places you would work? Until you have tried that, how do you know what program you need, or whether now is the time to go into a program?
I can tell you that a PhD will not be focusing on policy-level change, especially in psychology. You won't get more in the details than by doing a PhD, which doesn't seem related to your goals at all. I'd highly recommend getting into the workforce and making an impact that way before looking at more school.

I've read this a few times and, like @eternallyephemeral, can't figure out why you'd want/need another master's or a PhD to do this. There are plenty of people who go into macro/advocacy work after doing a MSW so, why not be one of them? Were I in your shoes, I would seek those folks out and do some informational interviews with them to learn about their career path, see how they got where they are, and see what they think you should be doing to best prepare yourself. 
Also, you're not graduating until May, right? So why not start volunteering, doing an internship, or working part-time in these areas so you can get your foot in the door and prepare yourself for a job after graduation? Given your interests, you may also want to look into things like HealthCorps (is that still around?) or AmeriCorps as post-graduation opportunities to gain experience. Once you've got years of experience, you may then decide to do something like a MBA or Master's in Nonprofit Management if your ultimate goal is to start a nonprofit of your own.

They've received your application at the national level and are now reviewing it.

There's a difference between submitting research to a conference, getting accepted, and disseminating your research for free, and being asked to be a keynote speaker (or similar position) for an event, academic or otherwise. At the very least, if you are inviting someone to give a talk you should be reimbursing travel expenses, food, and accommodation if they have to stay overnight, which is what (as far as I can tell) all departments do when they invite speakers from outside their school to speak.
The "merit to inspire others" doesn't outweigh the financial burden of asking speakers to not only speak for free, but also not reimbursing any sort of accommodations which seems to be what's happening here. Academics are also paid to lecture by their university, and paid to do research. Creating a talk, the travel time, etc. all eat up time that you are actually paid for. There's also the fact that non-academics are also asked to give talks in industry "to inspire others" and I guarantee that most, if not all, industry speakers are charging fees.
Anyway here's an article on the CHE on deciding your speaker fee:
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/whats-your-speaking-fee/52531
Here's another article from ChronicleVitae on the different type of speaking gigs and what can be expected as speaker fees:
https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1678-speaking-as-an-academic