eternallyephemeral

I don't want to say anything too specific since I am on the opposite coast, but I will say this. Pay attention to your surroundings. Know where the unsafe neighborhoods are. Regardless of where you are, don't get completely absorbed in your phone walking down the street or on public transit. For the most part, if you walk with purpose and leave people alone, they will also leave you alone. I have lived in cities all my life and have never had anything really bad happen to me, so don't worry about being unsafe, just don't make yourself a target. 
As for day to day living things, thats going to be specific to your area. Housing markets in cities tend to be more competitive. Whereas in a lot of towns you can sign a lease in march for august (especially college towns) in most cities you don't sign until a few weeks/days before you move in. Depending on how far you're moving from that can be stressful. Look into whether having a car is worth it where you will be living. If the parking situation is a mess and there is available public transit, don't bother with the car. It can be more of a pain in the ass to pay for/find parking than any benefit you may get from having it. Try to find a neighborhood where you can walk to get to restaurants/groceries/etc. It makes life so much easier. Also keep in mind the effect that traffic has on commute times when you're looking at locations. I don't know if any of this is specific to cities so sorry if its obvious. As far as the day to day things you mention in your post I don't think its super different. 

For me, I:

1. try to get in at least 10,000 steps a day (this sounds like a lot, but it amounts to around an hour of walking a day). This is just my personal goal, doing any additional walking on top of what you normally do is going to reap a benefit. If you usually only get 4000 steps a day, aiming for 6000 is fine!
2. use MyFitnessPal to track my food and drink intake to keep me accountable. I find that I think twice before eating something if I know I have to record it, so it prevents a lot of mindless eating.
3. plan and prep my meals ahead of time. This can take time and energy that you may not always have as a busy student, but it is definitely worth it. Lowers your chance of buying take out when you're too tired to cook, eliminates the temptation to buy unhealthy food when you don't know what to make, etc.
4. keep healthy snacks on hand for when cravings hit. Whole foods are best.
5. find healthier alternatives for comfort foods (for instance, mashed cauliflower tastes a lot like mashed potatoes but with a lot fewer carbs and calories. Not exactly the same, but close enough that I'm not tempted to stray very often)
6. buy cheat food items like chips or cookies in as small a size as possible so they can satiate a craving without the temptation to over indulge. If you buy a big bag of chips, it's easy to just eat them all in one sitting, but if you get the little snack pack sizes, you can enjoy something you want without the ability to eat more (so long as you don't just head for the next mini bag!)
7. drink lots and lots of water. It helps keep you hydrated and feeling full.

Obviously, willpower is the most important part and none of these things will work if you're not determined to make them work, but if you're willing to put in the effort, it doesn't have to be that hard to keep your weight under control.

1. I have a sweet tooth and binge on whatever is sweet in the house. So I've made a rule that I can have any treat I want, but I have to go to the store and get one single serving of it. One slice, one piece, one candy bar, one whatever. I can't bring any of it home again.
70% of the time I'm too lazy to go get anything, and when I do get a treat, I eat more slowly and savor it, and I can't binge. 
2. Gym membership. I set certain days and times I have to go. But I only have to go there. If, when I get there, I'm tired or don't feel like working out, I can turn around and go straight home. That caveat gets my butt there, but 95% of the time I figure "I might as well do the tread mill for 10 minutes," and an hour later I have done a full workout.

It seems to me that there are two topics being discussed here. The OP asked "do men resent successful women", but this thread has somehow turned into "is the OP doing the right things when dating/looking for a relationship". I can totally understand why someone isn't so excited about internet strangers analyzing their personality and offering advice based on a few posts and not much other information. OP, there might be some interesting thoughts here worth pondering, especially the ones that repeat, but I also think you need to take everything in the perspective of your broader life, which we don't know about here. Since this is an open forum and everyone is entitled to post their opinion, you can't direct the conversation, even if you started it. You can and should choose what advice you want to take. I do agree with the statement above that relationships aren't always easy for everyone and that just being around a lot of new people might not be enough for some people. I also think the advice to let friends and family know that you're looking is useful. They know you and might be able to help you find someone who is a better match than a random person you met on the job. (Assuming you trust these people's taste and opinion of you!)
As for the question you actually asked, I think I saw two kinds of answers, one along the lines of "it hasn't happened to me, but..." and one along the lines of "those people are d-bags anyway". So, yes, people like that aren't people you want to be in a relationship with, but it's not always that simple. Yes, it happens, there's research on that. Sometimes it's obvious, but sometimes it isn't. I think the bottom line is that it might make it more difficult for you to find a suitable partner who is supportive of you and your goals, that may be a valid difficulty. But it's not a reason to stop trying or assume the worst. Good guys are out there; you have to believe that. It does indeed take longer for some people than others to find a good partner, but that's not reason to give up. On the other hand, there is only so much that you can do to start a relationship. It's partly a matter of luck and circumstances. The best thing you can do for yourself is learn to be happy on your own, and stop worrying so much about what others say or what should happen at what time. You're much more likely to have a successful relationship if you're in a good place in life and happy as a person, and if you just let it happen instead of actively seeking it. 

I'm really sorry to hear that. The teenage years are formative and these kinds of ideas are difficult to discard. Whenever I have been single, which is a few times, I always knew when I was not ready to date based on the kinds of people I would attract. When I was not ready to settle down, I would attract flakey artist types who did not want a commitment. Not until I was ready for a committed relationship, and secure as a single person, did I attract the right kind of person for me at that time. However, lots of folks aren't as intuitive as you and end up in really unhappy relationships. You have good and healthy standards of not wanting to be with something who resents your success  This is a very mature and responsible point of view imho!

I think you've gotten a lot of great advice so far, but I'll throw in my two cents!
In my mind, there's nothing more important than fit when choosing a grad program. I applied this cycle straight out of undergrad and was really fortunate to receive offers from two really great clinical programs, and I felt a lot of pressure to accept one of them simply because it's what one is expected to do in that situation. I didn't feel that the fit was terrible with either of them, but it wasn't great either. I thought that the research fit with the PIs was only moderately good, and I didn't feel that I would get quite the high caliber neuropsych training that I was looking for. On the flip side, I had an offer for an RAship with a PI whose research interests are incredibly well-aligned with mine (the general "fit" was great too, in the overall sense of the word).
In the end, I decided to turn down my grad offers and pursue the RAship. I felt such a genuine excitement and eagerness about the RAship that just wasn't there when I thought about the grad programs, and I think it's really important to go where you'll be motivated to perform well. As difficult as it was to turn down the offers (and it really was an agonizing decision process), I just didn't feel comfortable accepting an offer solely because there were offers to accept. Five years is a long time, and those five years are a really formative time in our development as researchers/clinicians, so I want to try to position myself to have the best grad experience that I can. I know it's definitely a risk, and maybe it will or won't lead to an offer from a program with a better fit in the future, but either way, if I can have this great research experience in the interim, I think that alone makes the decision worth it.
With that said, I'm probably on the extreme end when it comes to the importance of fit (especially research fit). A lot of other people think that research fit isn't very important in grad school as long as the PI's work is broadly related to your interests, and that you shouldn't really be concerned with fit until you start looking for post-docs. I'm sure that there's some validity to that, so it's good to try to get as many different perspectives as possible (I probably sought advice from 30+ people before making my final decision). But in the end, despite what everyone else thinks, you just have to make this decision for you and try not to look back. Good luck!

Thanks for your well wishes! I think you know that guilt is not a good reason for making this serious decision, and like you said, if you would just move again soon, that' snot a good idea.
I think sometimes, it's good to be more selfish. We always think of that as a bad thing, but I know for myself (and some of the women in my family), they could use a bit less selflessness. Trust me, it's not good for your health, and its not good for your happiness either.
I really, really wouldn't worry about the justifying aspect. That is way less important than your own well-being. And it's okay if people don't understand, sometimes they don't understand that a place like Columbia isn't actually as a good as U of Akron for some programs (that's true for I/O!), because it sounds better.
And regarding the cog psych ideas, that's partly why we do this, right? Because the things we learn are relevant to everyday life!

I'm not in clinical, but I believe it is pretty important. And here's why I think so:
You can think of it as a luxury, but in reality, it's important whether or not you have lots of choices. As you mentioned, you always have the choice to apply again.
I used to feel the same way as you, I thought I would only apply once because it's a waste not to, and it would make no sense to work for a while or be an RA because that was just stalling and doing something irrelevant when I could be in a graduate program instead. However, I don't feel that way anymore (for a few reasons) and it has definitely changed my outlook. I'll explain more below.
Are you coming out of undergrad right now? Because what I and other people applying directly to PhD programs thought was that we were super ready and anyone else could see that. So we were ambitious and we applied to lots of super competitive schools - spoiler, we didn't get in. Now, that could be for multiple reasons, but one of them was definitely that these places don't often take people right from undergrad. This is especially true for my direct-entry PhD programs, which were in business. But even people in know in areas like vision science were much more competitive after having been an RA or a lab manager for a while. This is especially true for the US - here in Canada, most PhD programs have a funded masters attached, so it's a bit different. Once I realized this, it changed my thinking a bit.
Everything that I just said above is even more true for top programs. When I see the students' backgrounds in these top programs, yes, some of them come in right from undergrad. But others have counselling masters (if they're in clinical), RA positions, or maybe they've worked for a while. Who knows if they just decided to apply later, if they knew this strategy all along, or if they've applied multiple times? No matter which one of these it is, we can see that this waiting/RAing approach has worked very well for them. Of course, there are people it doesn't work well for either, but if you're considering a program right now that is not a good fit and maybe isn't the best place you feel you can get into, then it's a risk but it might make more sense to apply again after.
Here's some cognitive psych applied to this decision for you to consider: people are risk-averse. Like, super risk averse. One bird in the hand is worth two in the bush is a popular expression for a reason. But that doesn't mean it's always the best way for you to make decisions. It can be very suboptimal in certain cases. Is a poor-fitting school right now really better than a great fitting school later, or the option between multiple schools?
Another part of this risk aversion is being bad at forecasting: you might feel right now that you have a higher probability of not getting in anywhere in a second round of applications than you really do. If you got in once, it's really unlikely you will never get in anywhere again. You could very likely get into the same place, or places within that tier, and perhaps some better (objectively and/or better for you) a second time. So your probabilities could be way off. You also have no idea how close you were to being on the waitlist at the other places - you might think you are near the bottom, but you could have barely made the cut, and applying again could bump you over that cutoff.
Fit sometimes has to do with the quality of the school. We say it as if it's totally subjective, but its also a but objective as well. There was one school I interviewed at which had just an atrocious atmosphere and seemed problematic for so many reasons. The funding was crap, the students were unhappy (and they told us), the profs were demanding in ways that didn't make any sense, the program lacked structure, the communication of the program was misleading/incorrect, and there was no ability to even have a conversation with the people who I was supposed to be supervised by. I don't think anyone "fits" within a program like that. So why are we blaming the "fit" or the student for not "fitting", when it's objectively bad? This is broader than just your question, but if you're chalking something up to fit and it's really about your basic needs as a student, then you should keep that in mind. No one "fits" with a place with bad funding, they either make it work because they might have to, or they choose not to go.
A PhD is a super long time. I'm feeling this so much right now. And the thought of working in a place where such major things are a problem (not only your research topics but the structures to support you and how people who are currently there seem to be feeling) is a red flag, not just a bad fit issue. Even where I am, where the support is there, people seem less stressed, and there is (imo) the right balance between freedom and structure, the courses/research/general approach to the field is just not aligned for me. I would consider that more of a fit issue than what you're describing, which sounds more like a bad program issue. But either way, those two kinds of situations likely won't make you happy for 5-6 years.
Also one thing about waitlists: I was on one, and I think the waitlist time gives you a lot of insight into whether you want to go there. I was actually not looking forward to having to make the decision between the waitlist school and the school I eventually chose, and not for good reasons such as liking both of them. I liked one, and I felt like I "should" have chosen the waitlist school, had I gotten in. In a way, I was fortunate that I didn't, because I didn't want to be pulled towards that choice by location (even though its so much better), ranking (again, much better), or overall prestige/how other people would feel (obv related to ranking). Don't go somewhere because you "should", really, it's a bad idea. I know people who are leaving programs now because that's (partly) why they made their decision in the first place.
So this got super long, sorry! I think I really resonated with your question, as I'm dealing with similar things now (from a different stage, more masters to PhD) and there are a lot of commonalities.
Best of luck with your decision!

Have you experienced what you felt was "good fit" with a PI during an interview? I wasn't really sure what it meant until I had two interviews in a five day period. The first one left me on top of the world thrilled for days while the second one was really disappointing. Even though I was initially very excited about the second school, after the interview I just felt it wasn't right at all, and that was one conversation out of the thousands I'd have with that PI if I went there. With the PI I'll be working with it's hard to imagine I'll ever not want to talk with her. 
It's 40+ hours a week you'll have to work with these people that you may not get along with or not be interested in the work you're doing, for 5-7 years. Grad school really tests you. It's just easier to get through if you're in the right environment, which is why fit is so important. 
Not getting in is scary. I didn't get in my senior year and had to find a job, which I've now been at three years. I have so much more experience and I was a much more competitive applicant this past round. I don't know you but you've got kind of an maybe-scary (job) and a definitely-scary (bad fit school). I'd opt for the maybe-scary, personally. 

I'm not in clinical, but I believe it is pretty important. And here's why I think so:
You can think of it as a luxury, but in reality, it's important whether or not you have lots of choices. As you mentioned, you always have the choice to apply again.
I used to feel the same way as you, I thought I would only apply once because it's a waste not to, and it would make no sense to work for a while or be an RA because that was just stalling and doing something irrelevant when I could be in a graduate program instead. However, I don't feel that way anymore (for a few reasons) and it has definitely changed my outlook. I'll explain more below.
Are you coming out of undergrad right now? Because what I and other people applying directly to PhD programs thought was that we were super ready and anyone else could see that. So we were ambitious and we applied to lots of super competitive schools - spoiler, we didn't get in. Now, that could be for multiple reasons, but one of them was definitely that these places don't often take people right from undergrad. This is especially true for my direct-entry PhD programs, which were in business. But even people in know in areas like vision science were much more competitive after having been an RA or a lab manager for a while. This is especially true for the US - here in Canada, most PhD programs have a funded masters attached, so it's a bit different. Once I realized this, it changed my thinking a bit.
Everything that I just said above is even more true for top programs. When I see the students' backgrounds in these top programs, yes, some of them come in right from undergrad. But others have counselling masters (if they're in clinical), RA positions, or maybe they've worked for a while. Who knows if they just decided to apply later, if they knew this strategy all along, or if they've applied multiple times? No matter which one of these it is, we can see that this waiting/RAing approach has worked very well for them. Of course, there are people it doesn't work well for either, but if you're considering a program right now that is not a good fit and maybe isn't the best place you feel you can get into, then it's a risk but it might make more sense to apply again after.
Here's some cognitive psych applied to this decision for you to consider: people are risk-averse. Like, super risk averse. One bird in the hand is worth two in the bush is a popular expression for a reason. But that doesn't mean it's always the best way for you to make decisions. It can be very suboptimal in certain cases. Is a poor-fitting school right now really better than a great fitting school later, or the option between multiple schools?
Another part of this risk aversion is being bad at forecasting: you might feel right now that you have a higher probability of not getting in anywhere in a second round of applications than you really do. If you got in once, it's really unlikely you will never get in anywhere again. You could very likely get into the same place, or places within that tier, and perhaps some better (objectively and/or better for you) a second time. So your probabilities could be way off. You also have no idea how close you were to being on the waitlist at the other places - you might think you are near the bottom, but you could have barely made the cut, and applying again could bump you over that cutoff.
Fit sometimes has to do with the quality of the school. We say it as if it's totally subjective, but its also a but objective as well. There was one school I interviewed at which had just an atrocious atmosphere and seemed problematic for so many reasons. The funding was crap, the students were unhappy (and they told us), the profs were demanding in ways that didn't make any sense, the program lacked structure, the communication of the program was misleading/incorrect, and there was no ability to even have a conversation with the people who I was supposed to be supervised by. I don't think anyone "fits" within a program like that. So why are we blaming the "fit" or the student for not "fitting", when it's objectively bad? This is broader than just your question, but if you're chalking something up to fit and it's really about your basic needs as a student, then you should keep that in mind. No one "fits" with a place with bad funding, they either make it work because they might have to, or they choose not to go.
A PhD is a super long time. I'm feeling this so much right now. And the thought of working in a place where such major things are a problem (not only your research topics but the structures to support you and how people who are currently there seem to be feeling) is a red flag, not just a bad fit issue. Even where I am, where the support is there, people seem less stressed, and there is (imo) the right balance between freedom and structure, the courses/research/general approach to the field is just not aligned for me. I would consider that more of a fit issue than what you're describing, which sounds more like a bad program issue. But either way, those two kinds of situations likely won't make you happy for 5-6 years.
Also one thing about waitlists: I was on one, and I think the waitlist time gives you a lot of insight into whether you want to go there. I was actually not looking forward to having to make the decision between the waitlist school and the school I eventually chose, and not for good reasons such as liking both of them. I liked one, and I felt like I "should" have chosen the waitlist school, had I gotten in. In a way, I was fortunate that I didn't, because I didn't want to be pulled towards that choice by location (even though its so much better), ranking (again, much better), or overall prestige/how other people would feel (obv related to ranking). Don't go somewhere because you "should", really, it's a bad idea. I know people who are leaving programs now because that's (partly) why they made their decision in the first place.
So this got super long, sorry! I think I really resonated with your question, as I'm dealing with similar things now (from a different stage, more masters to PhD) and there are a lot of commonalities.
Best of luck with your decision!

False. A lot of people who posted (myself included) were NOT in "a relationship at 23." People have given you PLENTY of great advice on this thread (and the other one that you've been posting in), and you keep finding excuses to disregard it because bottom line is, PEOPLE ARE NOT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.
 
I'm just going to be blunt, because sugarcoating obviously isn't working. You're very, VERY naive. You're naive about grad school, about relationships, about friends, about marriage, about children, and about the job market. You're also incredibly judgmental of anyone who would not make the same decisions as you. The comments you wrote about your aunt, who seems to be living a great life on her own terms, are despicable. You have NO reason to feel sorry for her... she is a grown up who is living the life SHE wants to live. She is accomplished. You are not. She is happy. You are not. She has different priorities, as do many other people. That doesn't make her deserving of pity... in fact, she deserves your admiration and respect, neither of which she appears to have. What a shame.   Contrary to what you keep claiming, people CAN and DO find happiness after the age of 30. Also, marrying BEFORE 30 does not guarantee happiness. In fact, marriage doesn't guarantee happiness, period. I thought I married a good guy at 28. I was wrong. I had to get divorced at 33. No kids. By your standards, I should have just jumped off a bridge. Instead, I rebuilt my life. I met someone new, remarried, quit my job and started grad school. IN MY 30s. WITH GRAYING HAIR. I wasn't quite ready to go sit on the rocking hair to which your sexist and ageist standard would have confined me. My parents got divorced just a few years ago. You think my mom is sitting at home knitting baby socks? No. She is living her life, and is HAPPY.  
You want people on here to tell you that within the next year you will meet a great guy through people in finishing school grad school, you'll plan your wedding, and when you graduate you will settle down to play housewife for the next couple of decades with this great guy who will be paying all your bills, at which point you will be available to work as a way to ease your empty nest syndrome with skills and knowledge that you picked up a generation before. 
 
You've also said you expect that your friends/roommates/classmates will play the role of potential matchmakers and set you up with great guys who are marriage material. Do you even care about these people as anything other than tools to get what you REALLY want? You say you don't even like to talk to people who are married because "all they talk about is their relationships." You don't want advice from people who are married, or in relationships... even though we are the ones who have been successful in getting what you claim to want.   You keep talking about how great it's going to be to "be an adult" once you start grad school. Guess what? You have been an adult for almost 5 years, and yet you still think like a teenager. That's not going to change simply because you start a graduate program or move to a new town. Being an adult means, among other things, being responsible for crafting your own happiness, being independent and self-sufficient.  It means not relying on others to make you happy. It means learning to be comfortable with yourself.    I asked you a while back about your priorities and you said it was school. I still see no evidence of that. You want to get married, you want kids, and you want to be with a guy who is wealthy enough to be able to support you while you stay at home. You're not likely to find that in graduate school, I'm afraid. That's simply not what it's for. Guys who are in grad school at the same time as you are going to be starting their careers, and you are very likely to have to work for a while, at least. In fact, the "traditional" marriage you speak of has become very, vary rare... most couples simply cannot afford to have only one working parent.

I have found that if you go into something looking for a relationship, you'll have a harder time finding it than if you just lived your life and let it come to you.
I've dated academics and non-academics. I have gotten close to people in my cohort as well as people completely outside of my major. I'm poly so I have a partner who has never been to college before, partners who have graduated from college with a single degree, and one partner who was double majored. Here's what I can say from experience:
1. You learn a whole lot about the non-academic world and it even helps you with your research. I ask my friends all the time what they think about a certain topic because it gives me an idea what the general public who doesn't look into things as much as academics do thinks about stuff. Very surface level thinking but it helps in the long run.
2. That lack of deep thinking is nice sometimes. Sometimes it is nice to be able to shut off your brain for a bit and just exist, especially if you are balls deep in your work and school. Having someone who is a non-academic can remind you that there is a world out there to just exist in. Haha I actually dated a philosophy major for a while and man, talk about deep thinking.
3. Keep your options open. So someone is not an academic. Find someone who satisfies your other needs in life besides those things like hobbies or interests. Hopefully your life won't be all work and no play so try to look for a partner in that play area. Also reevaluate what you are looking for in a partner and see if you can cast a wider net. You'd be surprised the gems you find when you go a little outside of your usual.
Hope that helps! But yeah, I myself never had a problem dating non-academics, but I also met my longest partner in college and we've been together ever since ^^;

I'm not a woman, let alone a successful one, but men that are intimidated by successful women are probably not the best candidates to have a relationship with in the first place. Attraction is attraction, it shouldn't be qualified by the subjectivity of success.

I'm not in clinical, but I believe it is pretty important. And here's why I think so:
You can think of it as a luxury, but in reality, it's important whether or not you have lots of choices. As you mentioned, you always have the choice to apply again.
I used to feel the same way as you, I thought I would only apply once because it's a waste not to, and it would make no sense to work for a while or be an RA because that was just stalling and doing something irrelevant when I could be in a graduate program instead. However, I don't feel that way anymore (for a few reasons) and it has definitely changed my outlook. I'll explain more below.
Are you coming out of undergrad right now? Because what I and other people applying directly to PhD programs thought was that we were super ready and anyone else could see that. So we were ambitious and we applied to lots of super competitive schools - spoiler, we didn't get in. Now, that could be for multiple reasons, but one of them was definitely that these places don't often take people right from undergrad. This is especially true for my direct-entry PhD programs, which were in business. But even people in know in areas like vision science were much more competitive after having been an RA or a lab manager for a while. This is especially true for the US - here in Canada, most PhD programs have a funded masters attached, so it's a bit different. Once I realized this, it changed my thinking a bit.
Everything that I just said above is even more true for top programs. When I see the students' backgrounds in these top programs, yes, some of them come in right from undergrad. But others have counselling masters (if they're in clinical), RA positions, or maybe they've worked for a while. Who knows if they just decided to apply later, if they knew this strategy all along, or if they've applied multiple times? No matter which one of these it is, we can see that this waiting/RAing approach has worked very well for them. Of course, there are people it doesn't work well for either, but if you're considering a program right now that is not a good fit and maybe isn't the best place you feel you can get into, then it's a risk but it might make more sense to apply again after.
Here's some cognitive psych applied to this decision for you to consider: people are risk-averse. Like, super risk averse. One bird in the hand is worth two in the bush is a popular expression for a reason. But that doesn't mean it's always the best way for you to make decisions. It can be very suboptimal in certain cases. Is a poor-fitting school right now really better than a great fitting school later, or the option between multiple schools?
Another part of this risk aversion is being bad at forecasting: you might feel right now that you have a higher probability of not getting in anywhere in a second round of applications than you really do. If you got in once, it's really unlikely you will never get in anywhere again. You could very likely get into the same place, or places within that tier, and perhaps some better (objectively and/or better for you) a second time. So your probabilities could be way off. You also have no idea how close you were to being on the waitlist at the other places - you might think you are near the bottom, but you could have barely made the cut, and applying again could bump you over that cutoff.
Fit sometimes has to do with the quality of the school. We say it as if it's totally subjective, but its also a but objective as well. There was one school I interviewed at which had just an atrocious atmosphere and seemed problematic for so many reasons. The funding was crap, the students were unhappy (and they told us), the profs were demanding in ways that didn't make any sense, the program lacked structure, the communication of the program was misleading/incorrect, and there was no ability to even have a conversation with the people who I was supposed to be supervised by. I don't think anyone "fits" within a program like that. So why are we blaming the "fit" or the student for not "fitting", when it's objectively bad? This is broader than just your question, but if you're chalking something up to fit and it's really about your basic needs as a student, then you should keep that in mind. No one "fits" with a place with bad funding, they either make it work because they might have to, or they choose not to go.
A PhD is a super long time. I'm feeling this so much right now. And the thought of working in a place where such major things are a problem (not only your research topics but the structures to support you and how people who are currently there seem to be feeling) is a red flag, not just a bad fit issue. Even where I am, where the support is there, people seem less stressed, and there is (imo) the right balance between freedom and structure, the courses/research/general approach to the field is just not aligned for me. I would consider that more of a fit issue than what you're describing, which sounds more like a bad program issue. But either way, those two kinds of situations likely won't make you happy for 5-6 years.
Also one thing about waitlists: I was on one, and I think the waitlist time gives you a lot of insight into whether you want to go there. I was actually not looking forward to having to make the decision between the waitlist school and the school I eventually chose, and not for good reasons such as liking both of them. I liked one, and I felt like I "should" have chosen the waitlist school, had I gotten in. In a way, I was fortunate that I didn't, because I didn't want to be pulled towards that choice by location (even though its so much better), ranking (again, much better), or overall prestige/how other people would feel (obv related to ranking). Don't go somewhere because you "should", really, it's a bad idea. I know people who are leaving programs now because that's (partly) why they made their decision in the first place.
So this got super long, sorry! I think I really resonated with your question, as I'm dealing with similar things now (from a different stage, more masters to PhD) and there are a lot of commonalities.
Best of luck with your decision!

I think this is a bad question to ask. I can't think of a good reason for a candidate to ask this. It sounds like you are trying to ensure you are earning more than your peers or something, which is not the impression you want to make. It's okay to talk about money, but keep the topic focussed on you, not the other students.
Maybe you have better intentions though, and maybe you want to know if your stipend is enough to live on? If so, then I would recommend approaching this another way. Ask if you could talk to some students if you haven't already been in contact with them. Then ask if you could discuss cost of living with them. Whenever a prospective student does this with me, I ask if they want numbers and then I am always upfront with my stipend, how much I spend and where I spend it (since different people might have different needs). 

I was coming in to say this. People who say that they are routinely working 12-16 hour days are, almost universally, not actually working 12-16 hours. There's ample research showing this: people simply cannot work 80-hour weeks for months on end without breaking down physically and/or mentally. Generally, folks are doing 6-8 hours of productive work and there's a lot of stuff in between that: procrastination, travel time, eating, daydreaming, conversations with peers, meetings, drifting off, surfing the web, etc. You don't need to work 12-16 hour days to be TT at an R1, even at Harvard. (And I have some friends who have gotten TT jobs at some elite places. They worked a lot...but not 16-hour days, every day, for months.)
I did the very exercise that rising_star advocates and realized that not only was I certainly not working 10-12 hours a day as I thought...I was also not organizing my time in an efficient way. That gave me the appearance of working all the time but made me unhappy, because I didn't have focused time to spend on my hobbies. So instead, I scheduled blocks of time that totaled about 6-8 hours a day (10 if I really needed to get something done), and left myself some unstructured time to do hobbies. I was so much more productive when I did this, because I had some non-work time to look forward to and really got to recharge with my friends and personal hobbies - and I scheduled time for exercise, which was SO important. (Note, though, that I did this after I had finished coursework and most effectively during my ABD stage. You WILL feel like you are working all the time when you are still taking courses.)
I would say that my real work time during the PhD was about 40 to 60 hours a week. More in the beginning of the program, less towards the end. And I came out with four publications, an NSF, an award for my dissertation, and a postdoc at an R1 that led to many R1 TT positions, so I wasn't a slouch. (I then decided not to go into academia, but I have a very good non-academic research job at a well-known company.)
8-6 M-F plus about 6 hours or so on the weekends sounds completely doable for a PhD program in social psychology, even if your goal is TT at an R1, as long as that 8-6 time is actually being used for productive work rather than fooling around.

I guess this depends on how you define "top of your field". If your goal is to land a TT job at Harvard, then maybe. If your goal is to get a TT job at a R2/SLAC, you probably don't need to work 12-14 hour days in order to succeed. Also, this really does depend on how you're counting work time. I think everyone would benefit from logging their work time for a week or two to see how much time they spend actually working and how much work time they spend doing other things. Every time I do one, I'm kinda surprised by the difference between the number of hours I actually work and the number I think I work. I highly recommend everyone do it at least once a semester if possible.

I am not in Psychology so take this as you will, but I started out with schedules not unlike the ones people have described here (shifted by roughly 4-5 hours, since I am very much a night person, but otherwise the same). Over the years, starting roughly in my third year, I've been cutting back on my work hours. As long as you are taking a full course load and TAing or teaching alongside doing research, your days are often filled up with lots of non-research tasks that have to get done. Research can easily get pushed back or not be prioritized correctly. Once your coursework is complete, you are left with a lot of unstructured time that should mostly be dedicated to doing research and writing papers. The first few years of school should have by this point made you more experienced and hopefully better at time management. This all helps with having shorter and better planned days.
For me, this means that now I try to spend no more than 8 hours a day working (though, notice, not at work necessarily), and with the exception of impending deadlines (or doom), I take at least one full day off a week, plus another half day, sometimes two. I often work at home, which allows me to take unconventional breaks (I am on a writing break right now, writing this) and work at unconventional hours, but that's how I stay productive. I think it's extremely difficult to be productive for the entire 12-14 hours that people report working at the office. Time just disappears through going to meetings and prepping for teaching and getting lunch/coffee and hallway chats and responding to emails and talking to the secretary (you get my drift) when you are at the office. Actual productive time is much scarcer. When I was counting my time based on how much time I spent at work, I "worked" more. But I think I am actually working more now, though spending less time on it, and I'm enjoying it more. 

While the major publications may carry more weight, other publications still count and will be taken into consideration.
For instance, I have a third author publication in a major, high-impact journal and a first author publication in a reputable & competitive, undergraduate journal. I interviewed this cycle at a top 5 clinical program and was asked a bit about my publication experience. I downplayed my first author pub by saying, "oh, but it was only in an undergrad journal." The professor responded by saying how that was still a huge accomplishment and how it was still relevant because I learned about the peer-review process.
So I'd say they still count. And they still carry weight in your application. If you talk about them, make sure to explain the experience WITH CONFIDENCE (unlike me ). If they are not peer-reviewed & kind of a "scam" journal-- that's where things get a bit sketchy, in my opinion.

I think I saw that you posted, in another thread, that you have applied more than 3 or 4 cycles. My best advice to you is to reach out to the advisors you applied to work with and ask them directly about how you can improve your application. Last year I applied to six programs, got denied at five, and got one interview - however, ultimately, I didn't get accepted. Following the suggestion of my mentor, I reached out to all my denials and asked for very specific feedback in regards to why I was denied. The feedback varied; basically, though, the main reasons were: 1) one section of my GRE score was too low, 2) only one poster presentation, and 3) no publications. In the course of the next year, I did as many poster and paper presentations that I could manage and got second and third author on two publications. I took my GRE again and my less than average score improved slightly. When applying to schools again, I didn't apply to any of the same schools I applied to - with the exception of the one I interviewed at. Before applying, I also sent out emails to potential advisors with an introduction of myself - including my GPA, past clinical and research experience, and research interests, my CV, and the very specific questions: "Are you accepting a student? If so, do you feel that I would be a good fit in your lab?" These emails really were my foot in the door. Out of the 30, about 25 of them replied on whether they were accepting students and whether I should apply. The majority welcomed my application and some even shared their CVs or put me in contact with their current graduate students. Those that thought I was not a good fit, sent me information for others in their department that I could potentially contact. Some even told me flat out that I was not competitive enough for their program, but still welcomed me to apply. Obviously, I didn't and put that money toward other programs where I got more positive feedback. Moreover, three advisors offered me phone calls to learn more about their research, program, and institution - which, of course, I did not turn down. I truly believe building this relationship with potential advisors is the most advantageous way to get an interview. Out of the schools I applied to, I got invited to four interviews and received three offers; two as first choice and the last as first alternate. I hope this information helps! If you want to PM me, I don't mind sharing a more in-depth explanation or templates of my emails. Best of luck!

Thanks very much for your clarification! I did read your main goal that way (i.e., as relevant to academic and non-academic), but I wondered about the starting salaries bit and the balancing act of taking more time at a top-tier school (if I get in, that is) compared to taking less time at a lower-tier school. There are some added complications for my personal situation, but your advice (and salary info) is extremely relevant.
I appreciate your well wishes, I have a big choice to make so all of the extra information and personal experience helps!

Sorry, I am totally unqualified to answer this question  The OP wrote about STEM fields so that's why I steered my response in that direction. I think Canada actually has more public funding for the humanities than the US (for example, there is no equivalent to SSHRC in the United States). But other than that, no idea!
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but when I wrote that my main goal was to "achieve the best training possible for my career", I didn't mean academia only---I was including non-academic careers too (in my field, not too much industry but there are plenty of non-academic jobs for people with PhDs in my field). So, another reason I applied to top US schools was to have the fancy brand name on my degree. The school I'm at now is a very well known school by employers that might hire me. In fact, this was part of my decision making process---I chose my school (an internationally recognized school that is also a top 10 in my field) instead of another school that was a top 5 school in my field, but not very well known in general (a typical state school that just happens to be one of the very best in my field). 
So, the duplication of classes isn't helpful but the amount of wasted time is actually quite low. You can just make the minimum acceptable (not the minimum passing) grade in those classes. I think I spent about 270 hours total in duplicated classes, including homework, reading, attending lectures, studying etc. (3 courses x 9 hours per week x 10 weeks). A typical work year is about 2000 hours, so this is like 10% of one year. Or, if we say our time is wroth something like $20-$30 per hour, this is around $6000-$9000. 
The wasted time is a bigger one. It would probably take at least one extra year to go to a school in the US. For my field, if you go into non-academic route, starting salaries after a PhD can be in the $90,000 to $120,000 range. But, this is for US positions. Since I've been away for awhile, I'm not sure what the Canadian market for equivalent jobs would be like. So I guess this is more of a gamble because if you graduated one year earlier, you would have like $100,000 more (plus time towards promotion etc.) But with a top US PhD, you might make even more money and earn that back faster. Or, maybe you won't be able to get such a great job right away from a lower tier school. But at the same time, you are not guaranteed a job with a top tier PhD either. 
Personally, I felt the extra year was worth it because a top tier PhD opens up both academic and non-academic options for me. I also think the placement rates for my PhD school are much better than the Canadian school I would have chosen (Toronto). But yeah, this is a tough thing to evaluate and I don't know how to give you any better advice than to tell you about my process and hope that you find it helpful. Good luck on making the best choice for you

Hello!
I applied to US PhD programs with a Canadian Masters and I had many of the same questions as you. I am about to finish my US PhD program now! Here are the answers to your questions:
Time to degree:
It is pretty unlikely that you will be able to significantly reduce the time of your PhD in the United States. As you know, most US programs is a 5.5-6 year direct PhD program and having a Masters degree, from Canada or from anywhere else, will not change that. That said, there are students in the STEM fields in the US that finish faster than 5.5-6 years, however, it has nothing to do with a Masters degree---they would have finished quickly no matter what. In my department about half of us finish in 5 years and the other half finish in 6 years. I'm 2 months from graduation, and I started my PhD 5 years ago. There are a few students in my department that finish in 3.5 or even 4 years and they don't have Masters degrees---they either were just really productive and finished early or there was a postdoc lined up for them (for those who want to finish early, typically having a postdoc already lined up helps you convince your committee that you're ready to move on).
Course requirements:
This depends a lot on the school. At my current school, the course requirements are pretty low. The requirement is 11 quarter-length courses (3 quarters per year, this is equivalent to 6-7 semester-length courses in Canada). My school does not grant credit for any courses taken prior to the PhD program. However, if you did take an equivalent course then you can use it as a pre-requisite to take a more advanced version of the same course if you want. That is, you won't have to repeat any courses but you still need to take the same number of courses. There is one exception: my PhD field is multidisciplinary (people come in with a range of degrees, from Geology to Math to Physics to Chemistry) and there are 1 or 2 "fundamental" courses (e.g. Introduction to Geology). If you have the equivalent at the undergrad or graduate level, then you can skip that course (you won't get credit but that requirement will be removed for you).
At another school, there were 11 semester-length classes that takes 2 years to complete. They don't grant credit for Masters courses, however, after the first year, you can choose to challenge the qualifying exam if you want. So, if you happen to already know the material in the 2nd year courses, you can basically skip them if you can pass the exam. This doesn't sound like a very good way to go though. At yet another school, there were 16 (!!) semester length classes over 2 years. This school requires a PhD-major and a PhD-minor (4 classes). If you have a Masters degree, they will waive your minor requirement, so it's only 12 semester length classes. Finally, one last school I considered has no official class requirements. Instead, in the first month, you meet with a tracking committee and they put together a course list for you based on your past experience and your research goals.
In every case though, your Masters thesis will not count for anything. There is no "Masters thesis" requirement in US PhD programs so there's nothing it can count for.
Switching fields:
My BSc and MSc degrees were in Astronomy. For almost all of the example schools listed above, they were Astronomy PhD programs. However, for the school I actually chose, the program is in Planetary Science, which is in the Geology/Earth science side, so my field is actually different (since you asked). Because my previous Masters was in Astronomy, my US school granted me a Masters in Planetary Science after I met the Masters degree requirements. Many US schools do allow you to get a "Masters along the way" (but it depends on the school and the program, other fields, such as Chemistry, do not do this at my school). So I have 2 Masters degrees! But if I were enrolled in the Astronomy PhD program at my school, I would not have been able to get a Masters degree form my current school as they will not grant a degree that you already hold.
International student status:
There are two main reasons why international students have a harder time applying to US schools.
1) US profs don't recognize the prestige/name/quality of your undergrad program. This obviously isn't a problem if you are applying from the top schools in your country, such as UBC/Toronto/McGill in Canada, or say, Oxford, Cambridge, ETH Zurich, MPIA, etc. (whatever is well known internationally in your field). But if you are applying from a second-tier international school, profs might not recognize it as such compared to an American applying from a second-tier US school. Also, the difference in school systems internationally can be confusing. This is generally not an issue for Canadians.
2) International students cost way way more than American students at public universities. For example, at UC Berkeley, an international student tuition costs about $50,000 per year. An American costs under $20,000 per year. It will cost the department 2.5x times more money to pay for an international student than an American student. So, there are fewer spots for international students and thus it is more competitive. You see it reflected in the numbers: Only 10% of UC Berkeley grad students are international even though more than half of all applicants are international(!). These numbers are the same for big state schools across the US (some schools, like Wisconsin boasts "one of the highest international student population in the country" and they have just under 12%). However, at private US schools, all students cost a ton of money, no matter their status. I'm at a private school right now and tuition is about $43,000 per year for everyone, Americans and internationals. As such, everyone is treated the same. About 47% of our current graduate population are international students. 
The second point is a much bigger deal for Canadians than the first point. 
Summary thoughts:
When I was applying to US schools, I was also trying to finish as quickly as possible. I was really focused on finding programs that I could finish in 4 years. In hindsight, some of this focus on finishing early was a mistake. When I graduate this year, I will have spent 7 years in grad school in total (2 years MSc, 5 years PhD). The program I did choose did offer the possibility of 4 years (the minimum time is 3 years) and at first, I started with this goal in mind. But then, after a year in the program, I realised that there is no reason to rush to finish in 4 years. My school is one of the top programs in the world in my field and I benefited a lot from all the resources and facilities available to me. Even though I am a little older than all of my peers since I took 5 years to finish my undergrad since I did a co-op program (so I am 3 years older than every student that started with me), I don't feel that old. I will be receiving my PhD a month before I turn 30. But in the end, I only spent 1 year more in grad school than I would if I had stayed in Canada.
My opinion is that for some fields (such as mine), the US PhD programs are just so much better than what Canada could offer. When I look at profs in my field in Canada, they almost all have US PhDs (or significant time in the US as postdocs). The amount of resources and support I have at my disposal at my top school in the US was unimaginable when I was at Canadian schools. I will be returning to Canada this summer for a postdoc fellowship position and I am sure that the extra quality of my US program helped me win this position. So I think the extra year is well worth it. The slight change of subfield also helped justify (to me) the additional coursework.
Finally, some tips for someone like me searching for a US PhD program:
1. I only applied to US programs that were better than any program in Canada. The top programs in Canada were my backup plans and I applied mostly to US private schools or top public schools (e.g UC Berkeley in my field). I applied to top private schools because of the funding reason I wrote above. I ended up getting accepted to many top private programs but rejected from "less competitive" public programs!
2. I looked for school that had a strong focus on research rather than coursework. I really wanted to avoid a 6 year PhD program that typically gets you to do 2 years of coursework and 4 years of research. I wanted an experience more like Canada where you start research as soon as you begin. This was a big factor in choosing the program that I did. One sign of such a program is an earlier qualifying exam. The timing of the exam signals the end of the majority of coursework. Mine was at the end of the first year. Many other programs had them at the end of year 2. 
3. Keep an open mind about degree timing and instead search for the best experience you can get during the application stage. For something like the last paragraph, you'd decide this after you get offers and are choosing which school to go to. Again, I really think the very best US programs are an order of magnitude better than the top Canadian programs, and it's well worth the extra year or two.
Of course, this all depends on what your goals are. I'm assuming that your main goal is like mine: achieve the best training possible for my career but also considering the cost of time and personal comfort (moving countries etc.). This is why I only applied to the best US programs, I didn't feel like it was worth the extra time plus the stress of moving to the US if it was not for the best schools and access to training I can't get in Canada. 
It sounds like there are a lot of parallels between your situation and my experience, so I'd be happy to discuss this more if you have more questions too!

The process: 
1. You choose an appropriate publication venue, write up your paper, revise/polish, submit it. 
2. Your paper hits an editor's desk, who takes a look. They may choose to desk-reject the paper (common in some fields, not others), otherwise they will send the paper out to review (usually to 2-3 reviewers, but this depends on the field). How long it takes to find people who are willing to review the paper may vary (sometimes you can suggest reviewers, which can help the process along). How long it takes to get an editor to actually look at the paper also varies. 
3. You wait. Maybe you bug the editor once in a while. You wait some more. This step can take anything from weeks to months, with a lot of variation across fields.
4. You get your first round of reviews back, with a decision. If it's not a reject, it's likely a Revise and Resubmit. Now it's up to you to make the changes. This can take as long as you let it. 
5. Assuming it's an R&R, you resubmit and the paper along with a letter to the editor specifying the changes you've made. The paper  will likely go back to the same reviewers, if they're willing to look at the paper again.
6. See step 3. 
7. You get your decision back. Hopefully there has been improvement, so either it's an R&R with fewer issues that are easier to deal with, or it's an accept with minor revisions. It could be a rejection, or if there is a new reviewer, there might be new issues to deal with. A good editor should not allow new major issues at this point, but it can happen. Note that some journals only allow one round of R&R so you might at this point get a rejection just because you haven't successfully dealt with all the comments from the first round. This is another one of those things that varies by field and even journal. 
8. If it's good news, you revise accordingly, repeat steps 5-7. If it's a rejection, you regroup, see what you can take from the comments you got to improve the paper, and try again.
(9. Eventually, you deal with copy-editing of a final version, you wait for official publication. You post an unofficial copy on your website and your field's repository. You celebrate.) 
The overall timeframe:
Years. You write, you revise, you submit, you get comments and revise some more, you wait for reviews for weeks or months, once accepted you might even wait months or years for the paper to appear in print, if there is a backlog of papers. Some of my papers have taken up to 5 years from submission to appearing in print. The fastest ones probably took more like 1-2 years. Other fields will have a very different timeline, so YMMV. 

Hi! I think you should contact the school you will be holding the award at. One of the options is Jan, it's 01/01/2018, which I understand makes it more confusing.
If you can find someone relevant to contact at the tri-agency, then you could reach out to them as well. But the school will ultimately be in charge of awarding the money, so they are probably good to speak to asap about this.
Best of luck!