eternallyephemeral

1. This salary survey is a comprehensive look at IO salaries from SIOP members in industry and academia. To summarize, 110k in a city is definitely not the salary of someone with ten years experience. Starting salaries in consulting with a PhD range from 80ish thousand to 140k at the top consulting firms.
Link:
http://www.siop.org/tip/Jan17/Report.pdf
2. The person who you're describing in your second post may have the position of full professor at your school, but they do not have all the responsibilities that most professors have when we use the term professors - on this site (and in most places), professors conduct research, advise graduate students, complete service duties such as serving on committees for admission and hiring, and may be in administrative positions in the university. A lecturer would teach a few classes either in person or online, but to make things clear, we make the distinction between these roles although the name of the position might be the same.
You can definitely teach classes and consult, but it is less likely you will be a full-time research professor (i.e., you will do much more for the university than just teach) and have a substantial consulting component at the same time. That would be much less common, given how busy both of those positions are.
3. Your work-life balance can be as high or low as you want it to be - if you have high aspirations for your career, that will demand more of your time. It's possible to have a better balance, but if you want that through your life, the PhD won't help (as in during the degree and likely afterwards).
4. Regarding being both a consultant and an academic, you'll find there are many positions for IO psychologists in industry that use a lot of academic skills and may even have publishing opportunities. IO is rare in that you can do essentially everything that an academic does in industry, including being a PI, teaching people inside your organization or in schools in your area, learning new techniques, collecting data (sometimes more easily in industry than in academia), and supervising others.

Cool thanks! My department administrator said I would hear something this time if I made it through, whereas if I didn't hear anything last round (from the department to the university level), that meant I did make it through. That switch was very confusing!
I just checked the Grad External Scholarship link (thanks for that!) but I didn't see anything for the doctoral scholarship (only my masters applications from this past year and the year before). Is the doctoral SSHRC supposed to show up there?

When I had sent my mother the invitation to attend my graduation ceremony (undergrad), she responded with something along the line of, "What!?  I thought that you were only taking classes!"  Meaning, she thought that I was only taking courses for personal enrichment, or something. 
I was never expected to go to college in the first place.  I was expected to join the Army and then to live the rest of my life as a proud blue collar/working class adult, preferably in some crud-hole coal mining town with the rest of the Polacks. As a quick aside:  I am aware the term "Polack" is meant to be an ethnic slur yet I don't know of any Polish-American, like myself, who is offended by it.  
I feel as though the above quoted post could have been written about me.  In particular, the line that I had put into bold.  I believe, the idea of taking what may be a paid position and offering to do it free might be something that only those from a true working class upbringing would understand.  It stems from the working class belief that one's worth is tied directly to the work they do, not what they produce, and what better to prove your work ethic than a willingness to work for free?  Of course, the desire to prove oneself worthy of reward is also a large part of it, and entitlement does plague working class communities like the rest, however you will find fewer working class individuals who are willing to accept something "just because" without first putting in the work.  
My grandfather on my mother's side did not attend college until he was 40.  He earned his A.S. in accounting then eventually earned his B.S. in accounting.  Turned out, he loved college and from there he continued to take one course per semester at a local community college.  He was taking a course in Spanish when he passed.  He had insisted that my mother (not his biological daughter, by the way, yet every bit my own grandfather as far as I am concerned) enroll in "dental school", which she thought was ludicrous.  After much pushing she finally decided to earn an A.S. in Dental Tech, which she now certainly regrets.  She earned her A.S. in her late 20s.  My father did attend university to wind up dropping out during his senior year.  He was out of the Army, 30 or so, and had other plans for his life, I suppose.  I have an older cousin who is currently doing an online MS.  She did undergrad during her 30s.  I have a niece who is going to attend college start after high school, which as far as I know will be the first in my family to do so that/this early.  I have another cousin who entered undergrad at 23 or so and is now doing an MS.  For myself, I did not step foot onto a college campus for the first time until aged 23 and I certainly did not graduate within four years.  Before I had graduated from a university I had attended three separate community colleges in three separate States followed by two universities in two different States. Try to explain that in an SOP.  
Growing up, I had learned to not ask for help from anyone but my peers.  Well, guidance counselors were the only exception.  From professors?  Heck no!  By the time I had landed at my third community college I had already knew that I wanted graduate school.  But I knew my grades alone could not cut.  I mean, I spent high school preparing for the Military, not college.  So I thought to do the only thing I knew how to do:  prove my work ethic. This idea was reinforced by some friends of my then current girlfriend who told me that experience trumps grades. Go big or go home, right?   I did this by joining student government as a representative then onto being elected vice-president for the entire undergrad student body.  I sat on a student welfare and retention committee as a student liaison.  I wrote for student newspapers for four years, becoming Editor-in-Chief during my Senior year.  I sat on a committee that recognized outstanding student achievement.  I was also nominated for Student of the Year during my Junior year.  I had also founded a robotics club and took our team to an international competition;  the first year we placed 17th which came with the distinction of having beat out MITs team, but the second year we had placed last. As far as I know, not one person on the team new a thing about robotics prior to this.  As another aside, the guy on the team who did all of our programming ended up transferring to an Institute (of technology--not MIT) and now works in AI/robotics.  Another guy from the team now operates an ROV from an R/V off the coast of Antarctica and has the lucky distinction of being one of the few human beings to step foot onto Antarctica numerous times. 
Also as an undergrad I had worked with coastal drifters, mostly with building them for a NOAA employee stationed at Woods Hole and then for another East Coast university. These things are equipped with GPS and used to map currents/patterns.  I deployed a few myself and had used the data collected to create a poster, which I presented at a GIS conference as part of a student exposition type of thing.  I did not present at the actual conference, so there is no confusion, nor do I allude to having done so on my CV.  My poster did take 4th place, though.  I had also worked a year doing chemistry research as a biology student. I took pride in that, in having beat out the chemistry students for the position.  Then I had learned later that the reason for this was that the project was so new to the PI that I was essentially tasked with getting it up and running, trouble-shooting, and the like.  I did rewrite the protocol as what the PI had me doing was not working with the available equipment.  My new protocol was not entirely a novel idea, I got the idea from researching literature.  However, the PI presented "my idea" at a conference a few years later.  I was asked to continue with this project for another year, at which point a chemistry student would take over my position.  I declined to spend two years doing research in the Biology Department. 
I also have about five years worth of volunteer work relating to coastal ecology and processes.  And then of course, I had worked full time during all of this.
I had applied to Ph.D. programs three years in a row and it turns out that experience does not trump grades.  My total uGPA is 2.97.  I possibly could've scored a little higher had I not participated in so much EC and it does pain me to see some GradCafe users claim to have been accepted into Ph.D. programs with just-over 3.0 GPAs and not even half of my experience, research or otherwise.  Then again, I have read stories of undergrads who did more than me and still managed to graduate with high 3.X GPAs, so I dunno.  It's hard not feel that it is all a game.  Play by the rules, and you win.  Maybe. 
I got grades back from my first semester as an MS student:  two semester courses, and two As.  I had also taking two five week crash courses in computer programming, sort of computer programming for non-CS majors, earlier in the semester.  Both were Pass/Fail and I had passed both with scores of 99% and 93%.  I knew from those grad students mentioned above and from their friends as well as a few others that graduate school "worked" with my brain, with my way style of learning, and with way of showing how I had learned what was taught (through doing, projects, presentations, essays/papers) and not through rote memorization/multiple choice.  But how do you explain all this in an SOP?  I want to cry.  
I apologize if this is jumbled; I wrote this post throughout the course of the day. 
 

Hey all,
After a somewhat disastrous presentation I saw at my job the other day, I started reflecting on the importance of job skills that professors don't really teach you or even discuss when you're in doctoral program, particularly if you want to be a non-academic researcher and/or are interested in having one foot (or toe) outside of academia.
The one I was specifically thinking about in this case is ability to present and translate your findings for a non-scientific audience. I'm a non-academic researcher who spends the majority of my time working and talking with non-scientists - software developers, game designers, producers, program managers, marketers, artists, etc. When I do research, it's so important for me to be able to translate my research and explain research concepts in plain English. It's also important for me to be able to assess what my audience cares about and what they don't. Developers don't really care about the nitty-gritty details or the theoretical foundation for my work; what they care about are the results and how they fit into a framework that will affect their work. They especially want some recommendations for what they should do with my findings. I actually spend a significant amount of time teaching my co-workers about basic scientific principles, how to interpret findings, how to not contaminate research, etc - but all in language and concepts that's easy for them to understand without a PhD.
Ironically, that actually makes them trust me more, not less. In academic science it may be more important to speak the jargon, but in non-academic science it's important to be able to speak their language. It helps them understand I'm not doing any funny stuff just to make myself look better. I saw the flip of this in the presentation I mentioned above - the person in question is also a researcher, and was presenting some results, but this person did not adequately define how they were measuring an important construct, and they used a lot of jargon of their field (one that intersects with mine) when they were explaining the results. Even I had a hard time parsing what they did and I knew how to perform the analysis they did. The rest of the people in the room drilled down, and it was painful.
So how to develop these skills? I found that teaching was probably one of the best ways to do it. When you teach - especially when you teach introductory courses in your field - you have to get really good at boiling down concepts (sometimes sophisticated ones) to a group of bright but uneducated students. Teaching at different levels teaches you how to scale up or down based on your audience. So get some teaching experience if you can, because it can translate really well! Freelancing as a corporate trainer or consultant can also give you similar experience - I worked as a statistical consultant for four years in graduate school, and in that case I was more often working with other doctoral students and professors/researchers who I had to explain statistical concepts to. And practicing grant-writing can help, too...that's kind of an in-between area, because there is some academic language, but I've found that writing NIH grants especially is a lot more simple and jargon-free than most scientific papers.
***
What about you other graduates - folks who have finished your PhDs and are now postdocs or professionals? Any skills that you've found indispensable to your careers? And how do you suggest current PhD students develop those skills?
Or PhD students? Are there any skills that your professors are pushing you to learn but you don't know if they're actually that important? Or do you want suggestions on how to sharpen a skill?

Will do!

You would think that makes sense!
I'm trying not to fret about it for at least 1.5 months, because I was told we typically don't hear until the break.

I felt the same way that you do earlier in my life. I was also told by many people that men don't want to be with someone who is driven, accomplished, ambitious, etc.
It was so relieving to learn that isn't always the case. I have a wonderful partner that I've been with for almost 4 years, who supports my academic and career goals, genuinely isn't bothered if I make more money than him, doesn't find any of this threatening/emasculating/concerning, etc. Unsurprisingly, he is a thoughtful and considerate person, who supports social movements including feminism, and is open to changing his mind when presented with facts. I met my partner in my research lab, which might not be where you meet someone, but the university environment, especially at the graduate level, has fewer people who are threatened by achievement, who are bigoted and inappropriate, and other things you want to avoid (at least in my experience).
This article below is really relevant. Although the message can seem really depressing (stay single if you dont find someone that supports your career), I think you already have this part figured out:
https://hbr.org/2017/10/if-you-cant-find-a-spouse-who-supports-your-career-stay-single
 
As for layering on your minority membership on top of being a high-achieving woman, it is absolutely a challenge. Although I recognize that Canada is no better than the US in a lot of ways, it does not have the same issues of race relations that the US does. And if you're in specific cities in Canada, such as those with more than 50% foreign-born residents which places it at the top of list of diverse cities in the world *coughTorontocough*, you luck will be much better than the majority-white, racist college town I live in right now (for example).
So being part of a minority group can make all of these issues even harder, you can still make it easier by choosing specific places to live and people to surround yourself with.
I'm taking an online course and reading some books by Richard Florida, who studies cities and economic growth at U of Toronto. He finds that cities that prosper have all the tech and the people, blah blah blah, but they are also tolerant places. Tolerance for some people may be nice to have, but for other people it's the difference between having a relationship and not having one, or getting a job and not having one. So it's in your best interest to try to move towards those types of places, where you are more likely to be accepted for who you are than somewhere that is not tolerant (unfortunately).

A few things to read: 
https://nickhop.wordpress.com/2017/06/21/my-wall-of-rejection-and-why-it-matters/
http://www.chronicle.com/article/MeMy-Shadow-CV/233801
https://nickhop.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/my-shadow-cv/
https://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7322-467a
The short answer: it's hard. You say to yourself that it isn't personal. You put the criticism away (if it's something you can do anything with, like a paper review) and you come back to it later when you're less emotional. You remind yourself that it's extremely common, even if no one talks about it. You try to find people who do talk about it to support you. You learn to absolutely NOT compare yourself to others -- this one is a source of an incredible amount of potential pain, and is 100% unhelpful. The shadow CVs are one reason why: you never know what led to a success, and what else is going on in a person's life -- just the same as you know that someone's pretty pictures on Instragram or awesomely curated Facebook wall don't actually reflect the full reality of their lives. 
I also have a feel-good folder where I keep "happy" emails to come back to. That nice acceptance email, the thank you from a student at the end of the semester, etc. 

You aren't alone. The rate of anxiety and depression among grad students is astonishing. You need to prioritize your mental wellness and learn your own "self care" plan. This can be anything from making a point not to sacrifice sleep, exercising, eating healthier, counseling, to do lists, positive affirmations/grateful lists, journaling, seting aside "you time" for a favorite activity, talking to advisors about types of feedback you need, etc.
If you're at a loss how to even start, counseling is a great first step. Remember that anything you do or change isn't you being lazy, immature, or whatever other negative thoughts you may have about yourself. It is about making sure you are healthy so you can give more to you work.
Take care!

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.

Something you can do is to find people working in positions you think you might want to do / be qualified for and talk to them. They can help you get a good sense of whether you are qualified and if not, whether a few small things can change it or if it would mean a lot more work to get there. Asking for an "informational interview", like 15 minutes over Skype or coffee or something might be a good idea.
The hard part is finding people who can do this. Sometimes you can just ask---it doesn't really hurt! But if you know someone who knows someone at an organization you want to for at (or similar to one), then reach out and see if they can introduce you. That's what LinkedIn is partially for anyways!
Another thing to try is your career center again (if you can still access them as an alumni). Instead of just talking to a career advisor, perhaps ask them to connect you to alumni at organizations you are interested in. The names you get would presumably be all people interested in speaking with you since this would be a self-identified list of people!
These connections are the way the majority of people I know from grad school who either left the PhD program for a good job or went onto a good job directly after graduation.

1) I wouldn't put that much weight on what this one professor said.
2) As above, the experience admissions committees are looking for is not work experience, it's typically research or policy experience (where you can demonstrate a research component to the policy development, to make it most relevant). PhDs are not going to care about event coordinator experience.
3) Regardless of the political affiliation or controversy, I would leave irrelevant and nonacademic jobs (see #2 above) off your application. I did the same, because if it doesn't add anything, it's taking up space that could go to other, more relevant experiences.
4) Take a look at example CVs. If there is no section for what you are referring to on examples from your field, then you shouldn't include it. In some areas, there might not be a section for work experience at all, because you would only have sections for research experience and thesis projects.

1) I wouldn't put that much weight on what this one professor said.
2) As above, the experience admissions committees are looking for is not work experience, it's typically research or policy experience (where you can demonstrate a research component to the policy development, to make it most relevant). PhDs are not going to care about event coordinator experience.
3) Regardless of the political affiliation or controversy, I would leave irrelevant and nonacademic jobs (see #2 above) off your application. I did the same, because if it doesn't add anything, it's taking up space that could go to other, more relevant experiences.
4) Take a look at example CVs. If there is no section for what you are referring to on examples from your field, then you shouldn't include it. In some areas, there might not be a section for work experience at all, because you would only have sections for research experience and thesis projects.

Another INCREDIBLY important thing that (I think) no one has touched on yet is the role of your personal statement(s) and letters of recommendations.  As @Takeruk pointed out, admissions committees (ideally) evaluate an applicant's profile holistically.  Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that your personal statements are succinctly written and actually answer the questions in the prompt.  Also, we all have a tendency to self-aggrandize (especially when you're a faceless applicant in a sea of other faceless applicants), so, if you haven't already, seek opinions from several sources on your statements.  They'll aid you in crafting a statement that is palatable to the reader (i.e., doesn't include cringeworthy self-endorsements), yet still emphasizes what unique and positive qualities you have to possess.  Also, since you plan on going into academia, committees will pay attention to how well you write, given that you will writing research papers, applications for fellowships/scholarships, and grants.  Therefore, please do not neglect this portion of your applications!  
Obviously, you may have already done these things, but it seems that many of the threads on this site revolve around finding ways to compensate for an subpar GRE score and/or GPA.  And while your score in the 50th percentile on the quantitative portion will definitely hurt your chances, this can be improved upon.  Additionally, and I cannot reiterate this enough, your personal statement(s) are extremely important.  Basically, these statements are the admissions committee's first, and probably only, exposure to your writing abilities.  So, these statements should be written such that they immediately catch and hold the reader's attnetion.  Also, especially in cog neuro, I think it's important to describe what kind of research you're interested in conducting while trying to be as detailed as possible (i.e., you don't have to write a proposal).
Finally, I wonder how strong your letters of recommendation are.  I'm assuming that most programs require three ref letters, so if only one is strong and the rest are blasé (because they aren't very familiar with you or your work), that will certainly factor in.  I apologize if some of these questions/comments have already been answered, but I'm extremely tired and was only able to skim over the thread.  
Best of luck.

Here's a perspective from outside the field regarding grad admissions in general, since there are many things in common between fields! Hope you will find this useful.
I would say that the majority of grad schools are not looking for graduate students to solely be an amazing researcher. If they wanted someone that had a strong research track record plus the skills to boot, then they would be hiring a full time research associate or research tech position. Grad schools select candidates that they believe will become great academics with training in their program.
This is why grad admissions are often considered holistically. And usually this means that exceptionalism in one area isn't as important. For example, applicants with a 3.95 GPA and a 3.90 GPA are likely to be lumped together---it may be a lot more difficult to earn a 3.95, but it isn't always valued as much. Similarly, scoring 90th percentile vs. 85th percentile isn't going to give you that much of a boost. And in your case, I think your high achievement in your research experience will certainly make you unique and memorable/distinct in the committee's evaluation, but it's not going to mean a lot more than other applicants with publications and decent research experience. That is, I would say that one cannot count on exceptional excellence in one area to make up for what may be missing in other areas. 
Also, I think it's worth remembering a key difference between applying for graduate programs and applying for a job. For most jobs, the employer is hiring a candidate who already has the qualifications to do what they are looking for. The employer has a need they want fulfilled and they search for the applicant that best fits this need. For most graduate schools though, while the above is still true, grad schools also select candidates based on potential. Incoming students are selected not just because of what they have already accomplished, but what the school thinks they have yet to accomplish under more training and education. So, the potential for great achievement is also valued (in addition to demonstrated ability). I offer this to help put into perspective your disbelief that people with less experience than yours can get into grad school. For academia, I think demonstrated ability is valued but it's not the only thing that matters.
Note: Priorities do vary from program to program. Ultimately, the program wants to pick candidate they think will mature into independent and accomplished academics under their education and some places pick candidates that have such strength in one area that they think their program can make up the other areas. For example, my friend had zero research experience but high achievement in every other area of the application got into a highly ranked, research intensive PhD program. The program provided my friend with excellent research training and now they are an award winning researcher at another top university. So the balance does vary from place to place. But I'd say very few places would pick graduate students solely on one single strength.
So, my advice for better results in the future would be to seek ways to improve your application profile other than your research ability and experience. I'd say you've likely maxed that out in terms of "diminishing returns". I am not sure from your posts if you have kept any contact with academia in the last 3 years? If not, I think rebuilding these networks would be important. Here's where you can use your excellent research background though. Perhaps your credentials can get you started with a position in a lab at a university (i.e. in academia). Volunteer position is OK but paid position would be better! This time, use the opportunity to do more than just research work. Some schools allow staff scientists to sit in on classes or even take one or two classes per semester. Do that. Make sure your boss knows that you're interested in a PhD program . Consider redoing the tests. Take actions that show an admissions committee (and your letter writers) that you are serious and highly motivated to become a scholar in your field. 

You haven't come across this way, not at all. I have noticed, in other contexts, derision or disbelief that schools could choose younger people, with the underlying assumption that they must not have done anything useful in undergrad and therefore have no added value for the program. That can be the case, of course, but it isn't as common as these people were making it out to be.
I absolutely agree that professional degrees often look for older applicants with practical experience. This is one of the main reasons I did not get into a lot of schools I applied to - I did not understand there was a difference in norms and expectations going from psychology to business, for example (both PhD programs). So even within research, those that are more "professionally focused", are looking for a different type of applicant. And that's great!
I absolutely agree that no one should try to be something they're not, and that they should play to their strengths. I also agree that one is not inherently better or worse than another (as in, being younger is not always good), and I recognize that ageism is a barrier, especially in the minds of older people that may feel insecure about going back to school. I believe both types of applicants are important and bring different things to the table. However, for a research-based program (which is the limit of this conversation and of OP's focus), there may not be as many differences between younger applicants and older ones with the same research accomplishments. Yes, not many undergraduates have won a best article award, but they haven't all been doing undergrad-level research experience, aka data entry, as was implied. In competitive fields like psychology, if you only do data entry as your "research" experience, you're not going to get in on that criteria.

Out of curiosity, have you ever considered the possibility that the people you applied to weren't a good match for you on the basis of personality? You can be the best student matched with the best mentor, but at the end of the day one thing I think lots of people on the forums fail to realize is that mentors are picking trainees/collaborators for life that can and will also probably turn into a professional type of friendship. From my experience on the interview trail, there were some people I really could tell I would personally not work well with, and then there's my current mentor who has an awesome personality and work ethic that compliments mine (not to mention they are prolific in the field so I am thrilled to be with them). 
 
This may seem incredibly arbitrary if you think you are super qualified, but it's a fact about life that I think plays a HUGE role in the biases about hiring in any profession. 
 
*note: I am not saying you have a bad personality. I'm saying you may not match well with the people you applied to. Consider aspects of your applications that may portray negative qualities (eg self aggrandizement) that will almost certainly get your app thrown out immediately. Also, coming from someone who also self aggrandizes too often, I also recommend self reflection about the development of humility. To this day I'm grateful to my mentor for taking me on, as they had no reason to really do that because even the most experienced person is still an academic "peon" per se.
 
I hope this was a pragmatic note that might actually be helpful versus stating the obvious or encouraging for the sake of encouraging. 

Calgary is a strong program. Their business school also has several I/Os, and they work closely with psych folks. 

Other people have provided some helpful links here, but the number one thing you should look into is industrial/organizational psychology - all of the concepts above (teamwork, retention, predictive models for selection, performance appraisal, etc) are taught in IO psychology. We also do a lot of work for the military/DRDC during our graduate programs.
There are five major IO grad programs in Canada: Western University, Guelph, Waterloo, Calgary, and St. Mary's. Most students apply to all/the majority of them, and you can find their alumni placements on the website. For some of these schools, people have gone to work for the military after graduating, and others have completed the program in the middle of their military work; they had two years off to finish it, and they were funded (I don't know how it split up between department and the military, but they received money to live on).
Feel free to PM if you have more questions about IO - there might be military psychology-specific programs out there, but they will be very rare in Canada and I have not heard of them at top Canadian universities.

I know I/O psychologists that work in TONS of places. Schools, corporate, testing services- a lot of places hire them to work in HR. I have seen cities with an I/O psychologist as the HR director for a city, HR director for a hospital, etc. There are tons of options. 

I don't know of any and I don't think they would help very much. Just do a ton of practice problems, the concepts will come with practice. A lot of books combine questions into concepts (triangles, circles, surface area and volume, etc) so you can target the concepts you want to review. But seriously, with the math sections there's no better studying that copious amounts of practice problems.

It is a true IO program as well, yes. A lot of the profs there did their PhDs at Western's program (e.g., Kibeom Lee, Tom O'Neill, etc), and it's a very great place if you're interested in the kind of research happening there. They have been very productive and are really ramping things up in recent years. I'd highly recommend it!

Absolutely, some findings are highly replicable and based on research and theory from decades of rigorous work. However, it is often the most incredulous findings, from the most implicit or briefly presented stimuli, that initially show the largest affects and then later don't replicate. A lot of this is due to small sample sizes, of course.
I agree, a lot of business areas do think they are immune to this, and that is a problem. I also know a lot of people in neuroscience/animal behaviour that don't believe they need to worry about things like power and p-hacking, but it's just as prevalent there and they also have an issue with sample sizes.
Definitely! I think it's great when people are rising to the occasion and giving everyone else a good example to follow. Not that it's only on the shoulders of people in social psych, but they can champion these issues and go above and beyond in responding to it.
Haha I also don't like theory papers, I came from cognitive psych where the intros to vision/attention papers were 1-2 paragraphs long. Now I read 40+ page papers, mostly intro-heavy, and I don't enjoy it at all. I'm focusing on measurement issues and construct validity right now, and I have a very strong interest in philosophy of science from my undergrad days.
Nice chatting with you, I'm glad to hear your perspective from the inside!

Often, you can tell the difference between social-organizational (not true IO and much less likely to get you the kind of good starting-off jobs in IO that people are looking for) from true IO by how much of the I-side they have.
If they are lacking in advanced stats, measure development, applied personality research, performance assessment, and courses/research areas like that, you're not looking at a true IO program.
A social-organizational program is less likely, if it lacks those topics above, to teach you the hard skills that set IO apart from other fields in psych, and that are in job postings for this growing field. Having a strong psychometric background, coupled with as much programming and data analysis as you can learn, is key to a lot of beginner IO jobs, as a lot of the more organizational side jobs come from things like coaching and consulting, and are more fuzzy, which means the people who take up those spots and succeed in them are older and have usually spent more time in the workforce.
True IO programs: U Conneticut, Florida International University, Akron, Minnesota, Guelph/Waterloo/Western (these three are in Canada)
Social-Org, non-true-IO programs: Columbia, Adler, the New School, Windsor (Canada)

Thank you so much @eternallyephemeral for your thoughtful and informative reply! You gave me the insight and perspective I was scouring the internet trying to find.