eternallyephemeral

Hi! I don't know too much about applying internationally (although I did apply to a lot of top US schools from Canada), but from what I've seen/heard/experienced, it's extremely difficult to get into top schools in the US as an international student, unless you are at the very, very top of your class and unless you stand out enormously.
You've done a lot of great research, which is excellent, but your GPA and your GRE scores (esp. writing, and maybe math) are on the low side. I would definitely practice your argument writing, get some books or read some examples of essays online, and practice a bunch.
However, that doesn't mean you should give up! The top 20 schools are great, but there are many other schools where you could do good work. I would look into all schools that do the kind of research you're interested in across the US, with a specific emphasis on private, not public schools. This is because of the funding situation. Students from the US are much cheaper to support for public schools, but there is no distinction like this for private schools. If I could go back and change one thing about my application process, I would not have applied to public schools in the US as an international applicant. Many, many people advised me against it afterwards, but I didn't realize just how low my chances were at the time. So I advise you not to waste your money on those. However, there are lots and lots of private schools.
I'm sure your TOEFL score is fine, but I would do what you can to work on your vocabulary and sentence structure to really do well in the GRE. You can PM me and I can tell you more about GRE studying and what I recommend.
Good luck!

Hey Adelaide9216,
I think booking a flight about 60-90 days in advance of the anticipated travel date would give you a good deal. You can compare flight rates for different airlines and for different dates through Google Flights and also set up alerts for any price fluctuations. Also, if you looking to fly to Toronto, you may want to see if there are flights that land in other airports other than Pearson, like the Billy Bishop Airport or the Hamilton Airport; they tend to be relatively cheaper. Albeit, you would need to also make accommodations to reach your final destination accordingly. I hope this information helps.
Regards,
Romeo

Hey SSHRCers,
I just wanted to send a note to say if you have been awarded the fellowship, congratulations!
If you were not successful this time around, try again. There is a huge amount of many unknown variables, and as sucky as it sounds, there is a huge amount of luck involved. Don't take it personally if you were rejected (been there).
You (We) are better and more valuable than the score on your (our) application. We are all out there doing work we believe in, putting our blood, sweat, and tears into our fields, and we go back over and over no matter how many times we fail because we believe we have something to contribute to society. That's something to be proud of.
I am so proud of all of you!

I wouldn't stare myself down on rankings - especially when things are interdisciplinairy. What you may want to do is email profs about your interests and ask them if they are a) gonna take students, and b) whether they know other people who work in this area. In this way, you're usually able to create a list of people who are respected in the area and to whom others are paying attention - all good supervisors. Most people will keep repeating the same names I think

You are a gem ! I feel the same way. We are all in this together !

I just want to send out some good vibes to everyone participating in this forum. I found this thread extremely supportive in such an emotionally charged time. So thank you to all of you!
To those of you who won, a heartfelt congratulations! To those of you still soldiering on, I am right there with you! 

Just declined an OGS at Western, hopefully it goes to someone on the waitlist there!

Just declined an OGS at Western, hopefully it goes to someone on the waitlist there!

Oh my god I just got the three-year, 35k SSHRC! I didn't expect to make it anywhere this time (first try), so I'm super honoured and lucky.
Anyone else at Western can try to check their student account (click external scholarships) - I haven't checked the mail but it's unlikely to have shown up that fast. The option to accept or decline is already there on the site.

Oh my god I just got the three-year, 35k SSHRC! I didn't expect to make it anywhere this time (first try), so I'm super honoured and lucky.
Anyone else at Western can try to check their student account (click external scholarships) - I haven't checked the mail but it's unlikely to have shown up that fast. The option to accept or decline is already there on the site.

Oh my god I just got the three-year, 35k SSHRC! I didn't expect to make it anywhere this time (first try), so I'm super honoured and lucky.
Anyone else at Western can try to check their student account (click external scholarships) - I haven't checked the mail but it's unlikely to have shown up that fast. The option to accept or decline is already there on the site.

They have changed the award model since you left, as the awards are only handled within the school now. The government gives out the number of awards to each school in advance, and there is no forwarding process outside of the school now. However, at each school it may differ in terms of how many steps you go through within the school - I think in my program there are two steps, department and then faculty.
As with most (all) awards, those who have already won continue to win. However, don't get discouraged OP, as once you start the program that will help with your competitiveness. There are many things you can do to improve your chances, so make sure you get started on those once you begin the program!

I just got moved up the waitlist at Guelph to be offered (and accepted) CGS-M! Soooo excited! 

The CGS is more prestigious and more money, so because you have to choose one, you should choose that one. I will be doing the same thing if I get OGS.
Congrats!

I received OGS but am expecting to decline it for another award. I did that last year, so someone got that award from the waitlist!

First of all, this whole dating undergrads goal you have is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm not saying you are going to intentionally try to have some sort of skewed power dynamic, but that's what you're describing. You have to be very careful about this (and I would say don't do it at all), because you are older, you are in a position of authority over undergraduates, and it's possible that your goals in this relationship would be very damaging to the trust and open communication you should have in a relationship.
 
As well, your assumption that someone who isn't familiar with the "male body" and has some kind of "otherworldly fascination" with all things new and sexual is wrong as well. Many guys I've spoken to have some form of insecurity or jealousy when it comes to sex. Some even go so far as to not date women that have had sex with other people, even after they themselves are not virgins (I guess this is what you're saying?). Now this is completely hypocritical, I hope you realize.
 
It's also not necessary that someone have no experience for them to be attracted to you, to have some kind of childlike wonder (a really creepy term to use in this discussion), or to feel some exciting crush with butterflies in your stomach and all that. I feel that about my boyfriend of 2.5 years, and it's nowhere near the first relationship I've had.
 
"Interestingly, quite a few girls that have been interested in me have been like 180 degrees from that, like having almost exaggeratedly grown-up-womanish features. Grad school for some weird and inexplicable reason seems to attract these sorts of women too--except for the Asians. I know this is extreme stereotyping but it's something I notice, especially when I compare them to the undergrads at the same university.
I also fear that the type I mentioned in the beginning--the ones who find the idea of having a boyfriend almost "mythical", are likely to be hideous and/or have really ugly personalities. In one way it kind of makes sense--why would I be the first guy to like a girl--though on the other hand my lack of dating has had to do with introversion and illness--two things that have nothing to do with my attractiveness per se. A female counterpart of me might have just been late to "get the memo" that people around her had started dating."
1. I can't believe people in grad school (who are generally older) look older than people in undergrad (who are generally younger). It's not extreme stereotyping (except the Asian part), it's just how aging changes your face.
2. This theory you have about finding relationships "mythical" and being "hideous and/or really ugly in their personality" is absolutely wrong. There are many people who are very attractive (in looks and personality, if this is the only requirement) who have not had relationships before. You don't know what experiences they have had, and again you're falling prey to this fallacy that you're so special and no one else has experienced this before. You touch on this point, but you don't seem to recognize that it's completely wrong. As well, people can be unattractive to YOU, while being attractive to others. You can also have a relationship, even if you are unattractive. Your constant talk about women's looks, their inexperience, and how special you want to be to them just reeks of unstable and insecure masculinity.
 
 
"I think I kind of had four things that I listed as important in a partner:
1) Someone who is new to relationships, like myself, and wants a more childlike and playful relationship
2) Someone who is introverted and intellectual, but not a rival/in the same field
3) Someone I find physically and emotionally (in terms of "raw" mannerisms and the like) attractive to me
4) Someone who fits, logistically and practically speaking, into my life."
1. For you two to be compatible, you need not have the same level of experience. If it's a good relationship, it's childlike and playful (if that's what the two people want). You mentioned not wanting to be so professional and serious in your relationship. Well I'm here to tell you that it's possible - relationships are not like going to an academic talk. They're fun, you can laugh and play and run around and go on the swings and act like kids and no one should judge you. Even if you're in a relationship with someone who has been in a relationship before. My most childlike and playful relationship is my current one, technically eight years after my first (middle-school type) relationship and four years after my more serious first relationship.
2. Your concern about the person being a rival shows me that you are still a bit confused about how relationships work. Or you're very insecure about competing with people. Either way, this needs to be dealt with before you get into any kind of relationship. If not, this will all be raising some serious red flags for the people you're dating. If it doesn't raise serious red flags for them, I would be surprised.
3. This is very important. However, you can not limit yourself, and don't think your level of attraction to the person when you first meet will be related to how attracted you are to them later on. Things really change as a relationship develops, and for me the best relationships where my attraction got stronger were never the ones in which I was most attracted to the person at the beginning. Because then you can only go down from there!
4. I agree with this. This is absolutely important as well. I strongly believe that most undergraduates would not meet this.
 
So generally, please, please don't start dating until you've dealt with these personal issues and these dangerous misconceptions about women, relationships, and compatibility. All I see coming out of this if you start dating without facing and eliminating these issues is a dangerously power imbalanced relationship where you unknowingly end up taking advantage of the other person, all the while trying to stay special/important to them. And that will not be good.

First of all, this whole dating undergrads goal you have is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm not saying you are going to intentionally try to have some sort of skewed power dynamic, but that's what you're describing. You have to be very careful about this (and I would say don't do it at all), because you are older, you are in a position of authority over undergraduates, and it's possible that your goals in this relationship would be very damaging to the trust and open communication you should have in a relationship.
 
As well, your assumption that someone who isn't familiar with the "male body" and has some kind of "otherworldly fascination" with all things new and sexual is wrong as well. Many guys I've spoken to have some form of insecurity or jealousy when it comes to sex. Some even go so far as to not date women that have had sex with other people, even after they themselves are not virgins (I guess this is what you're saying?). Now this is completely hypocritical, I hope you realize.
 
It's also not necessary that someone have no experience for them to be attracted to you, to have some kind of childlike wonder (a really creepy term to use in this discussion), or to feel some exciting crush with butterflies in your stomach and all that. I feel that about my boyfriend of 2.5 years, and it's nowhere near the first relationship I've had.
 
"Interestingly, quite a few girls that have been interested in me have been like 180 degrees from that, like having almost exaggeratedly grown-up-womanish features. Grad school for some weird and inexplicable reason seems to attract these sorts of women too--except for the Asians. I know this is extreme stereotyping but it's something I notice, especially when I compare them to the undergrads at the same university.
I also fear that the type I mentioned in the beginning--the ones who find the idea of having a boyfriend almost "mythical", are likely to be hideous and/or have really ugly personalities. In one way it kind of makes sense--why would I be the first guy to like a girl--though on the other hand my lack of dating has had to do with introversion and illness--two things that have nothing to do with my attractiveness per se. A female counterpart of me might have just been late to "get the memo" that people around her had started dating."
1. I can't believe people in grad school (who are generally older) look older than people in undergrad (who are generally younger). It's not extreme stereotyping (except the Asian part), it's just how aging changes your face.
2. This theory you have about finding relationships "mythical" and being "hideous and/or really ugly in their personality" is absolutely wrong. There are many people who are very attractive (in looks and personality, if this is the only requirement) who have not had relationships before. You don't know what experiences they have had, and again you're falling prey to this fallacy that you're so special and no one else has experienced this before. You touch on this point, but you don't seem to recognize that it's completely wrong. As well, people can be unattractive to YOU, while being attractive to others. You can also have a relationship, even if you are unattractive. Your constant talk about women's looks, their inexperience, and how special you want to be to them just reeks of unstable and insecure masculinity.
 
 
"I think I kind of had four things that I listed as important in a partner:
1) Someone who is new to relationships, like myself, and wants a more childlike and playful relationship
2) Someone who is introverted and intellectual, but not a rival/in the same field
3) Someone I find physically and emotionally (in terms of "raw" mannerisms and the like) attractive to me
4) Someone who fits, logistically and practically speaking, into my life."
1. For you two to be compatible, you need not have the same level of experience. If it's a good relationship, it's childlike and playful (if that's what the two people want). You mentioned not wanting to be so professional and serious in your relationship. Well I'm here to tell you that it's possible - relationships are not like going to an academic talk. They're fun, you can laugh and play and run around and go on the swings and act like kids and no one should judge you. Even if you're in a relationship with someone who has been in a relationship before. My most childlike and playful relationship is my current one, technically eight years after my first (middle-school type) relationship and four years after my more serious first relationship.
2. Your concern about the person being a rival shows me that you are still a bit confused about how relationships work. Or you're very insecure about competing with people. Either way, this needs to be dealt with before you get into any kind of relationship. If not, this will all be raising some serious red flags for the people you're dating. If it doesn't raise serious red flags for them, I would be surprised.
3. This is very important. However, you can not limit yourself, and don't think your level of attraction to the person when you first meet will be related to how attracted you are to them later on. Things really change as a relationship develops, and for me the best relationships where my attraction got stronger were never the ones in which I was most attracted to the person at the beginning. Because then you can only go down from there!
4. I agree with this. This is absolutely important as well. I strongly believe that most undergraduates would not meet this.
 
So generally, please, please don't start dating until you've dealt with these personal issues and these dangerous misconceptions about women, relationships, and compatibility. All I see coming out of this if you start dating without facing and eliminating these issues is a dangerously power imbalanced relationship where you unknowingly end up taking advantage of the other person, all the while trying to stay special/important to them. And that will not be good.

First of all, this whole dating undergrads goal you have is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm not saying you are going to intentionally try to have some sort of skewed power dynamic, but that's what you're describing. You have to be very careful about this (and I would say don't do it at all), because you are older, you are in a position of authority over undergraduates, and it's possible that your goals in this relationship would be very damaging to the trust and open communication you should have in a relationship.
 
As well, your assumption that someone who isn't familiar with the "male body" and has some kind of "otherworldly fascination" with all things new and sexual is wrong as well. Many guys I've spoken to have some form of insecurity or jealousy when it comes to sex. Some even go so far as to not date women that have had sex with other people, even after they themselves are not virgins (I guess this is what you're saying?). Now this is completely hypocritical, I hope you realize.
 
It's also not necessary that someone have no experience for them to be attracted to you, to have some kind of childlike wonder (a really creepy term to use in this discussion), or to feel some exciting crush with butterflies in your stomach and all that. I feel that about my boyfriend of 2.5 years, and it's nowhere near the first relationship I've had.
 
"Interestingly, quite a few girls that have been interested in me have been like 180 degrees from that, like having almost exaggeratedly grown-up-womanish features. Grad school for some weird and inexplicable reason seems to attract these sorts of women too--except for the Asians. I know this is extreme stereotyping but it's something I notice, especially when I compare them to the undergrads at the same university.
I also fear that the type I mentioned in the beginning--the ones who find the idea of having a boyfriend almost "mythical", are likely to be hideous and/or have really ugly personalities. In one way it kind of makes sense--why would I be the first guy to like a girl--though on the other hand my lack of dating has had to do with introversion and illness--two things that have nothing to do with my attractiveness per se. A female counterpart of me might have just been late to "get the memo" that people around her had started dating."
1. I can't believe people in grad school (who are generally older) look older than people in undergrad (who are generally younger). It's not extreme stereotyping (except the Asian part), it's just how aging changes your face.
2. This theory you have about finding relationships "mythical" and being "hideous and/or really ugly in their personality" is absolutely wrong. There are many people who are very attractive (in looks and personality, if this is the only requirement) who have not had relationships before. You don't know what experiences they have had, and again you're falling prey to this fallacy that you're so special and no one else has experienced this before. You touch on this point, but you don't seem to recognize that it's completely wrong. As well, people can be unattractive to YOU, while being attractive to others. You can also have a relationship, even if you are unattractive. Your constant talk about women's looks, their inexperience, and how special you want to be to them just reeks of unstable and insecure masculinity.
 
 
"I think I kind of had four things that I listed as important in a partner:
1) Someone who is new to relationships, like myself, and wants a more childlike and playful relationship
2) Someone who is introverted and intellectual, but not a rival/in the same field
3) Someone I find physically and emotionally (in terms of "raw" mannerisms and the like) attractive to me
4) Someone who fits, logistically and practically speaking, into my life."
1. For you two to be compatible, you need not have the same level of experience. If it's a good relationship, it's childlike and playful (if that's what the two people want). You mentioned not wanting to be so professional and serious in your relationship. Well I'm here to tell you that it's possible - relationships are not like going to an academic talk. They're fun, you can laugh and play and run around and go on the swings and act like kids and no one should judge you. Even if you're in a relationship with someone who has been in a relationship before. My most childlike and playful relationship is my current one, technically eight years after my first (middle-school type) relationship and four years after my more serious first relationship.
2. Your concern about the person being a rival shows me that you are still a bit confused about how relationships work. Or you're very insecure about competing with people. Either way, this needs to be dealt with before you get into any kind of relationship. If not, this will all be raising some serious red flags for the people you're dating. If it doesn't raise serious red flags for them, I would be surprised.
3. This is very important. However, you can not limit yourself, and don't think your level of attraction to the person when you first meet will be related to how attracted you are to them later on. Things really change as a relationship develops, and for me the best relationships where my attraction got stronger were never the ones in which I was most attracted to the person at the beginning. Because then you can only go down from there!
4. I agree with this. This is absolutely important as well. I strongly believe that most undergraduates would not meet this.
 
So generally, please, please don't start dating until you've dealt with these personal issues and these dangerous misconceptions about women, relationships, and compatibility. All I see coming out of this if you start dating without facing and eliminating these issues is a dangerously power imbalanced relationship where you unknowingly end up taking advantage of the other person, all the while trying to stay special/important to them. And that will not be good.

Hi! When I applied, I heard back from Waterloo around Feb 5-9th, and one person I know who applied to St Mary's took quite a while to hear back, I think it was March/April, after she received another offer and accepted that one. I don't know if that is common, but the visit day for Waterloo was late February, so you have to hear back before that (and they typically give you a few weeks to get travel plans in order).

Finally heard back from SSHRC directly, at Western U.

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.

Haven't received that email yet either..

Heard back from Western that I'm advancing. Guess they just missed the end-of-term deadline, but they sent it on one of the first days back.

Thanks, good luck to everyone waiting!

Hello everyone,
I've seen quite a bit of chatter around the timing of results, and the answers are obscure. I wanted to provide my services, and give you all some extra data. The beauty of grad cafe is that it is one of the most (if not the most) centralized data source for graduate students. Some data examples: What schools are most popular, what degrees, applicant metrics, dates of results, etc. Yet, I've yet to find someone that uses this information to help those applying.
 
Until now...
 
I used R (for those unfamiliar) to scrape the grad cafe results data related to psychology. I returned about 35000 records. There were a lot of un-tidy text strings (e.g., PhD and Ph.D.), especially in relation to program-title and institution; however, that is a project for another day. Data regarding dates and decisions did seem clean enough for me to analyze it and turn it into something nice for you all.
 
So what is it....?
Here is a PDF based on the results of all Psychology students (over 35000) since the origin of grad cafe. The first 3 tables show the 10 most common dates (by count) for getting an interview, getting accepted, and getting rejected ? .  I would do relative frequency and should've...maybe tomorrow.
Then a longitudinal line graph (which shows these decisions throughout the year)
Finally, one that focuses more on the "critical-period" when most decisions are made.
 
Conclusion
This was a piecemeal job that I should be done in R Markdown. I'll link my code at the end. Similar methods could be used to look at the "most popular" programs, probability of acceptance by degree type or program type, average GRE score for accepted candidates, and the list goes on. If anyone wants a csv of the dataset I used, please feel free to message me. I also welcome critiques and suggestions.  I wish you all the best.
 
R code here