DesertLandscaper

To anyone concerned about this , know that insertPsychologist is entirely clueless on this matter. Departmental funding at these state schools does not track overall university funding at other departments. TAships are often "topped off" with departmental funding in order to meet some minimum guaranteed offer that is conveyed to you upon admission (yes, in a formal offer letter, not some unwritten agreement with a wink and a nod as insertPsychologist suggests). If they're a top department in an expensive city, even state schools will often offer quite high guaranteed minimums in order to be competitive (we're talking mid-20s to low-30s). A place like UT Austin will be able to offer a bit less than a place like UCLA, and similarly a place like UCLA will be able to offer a bit less than a place like Berkeley given cost of living in the Bay Area. I find it appalling that insertPsychologist feels the need to pontificate about funding at other departments in this way and thereby spread harmful misinformation. Anyone with an offer in hand already knows insertPsychologist is full of baloney, but it would be a shame if others didn't apply having been misled.

This is false. You can absolutely disagree with faculty in your area. The only thing that matters is that you do it well. Straw man them and you're in a bad place. But disagree politely, rigorously, and uniquely and you're arguably in a better position than any number of sycophants.

Only one person from my visit actually ended up in my cohort (and I'm not at a low-ranked program where a ton of people should be expected to decline), so I really wouldn't make a decision based on this. If anything it's the interactions you had with current students that you should base your decision on. Remember that programs are always in a state of flux from year to year. It's also worth noting that prospectives visits are awkward for everyone involved. People act differently outside of them, though usually not markedly different. I just wouldn't put much stock into this unless you got a really bad gut feeling from everyone (not just your fellow prospectives).

I would send only the first score of "167v (98%) / 161q (79%) / 4.5 (82%)" for the following reasons: 1. The difference between 98 and 99% in verbal is insignificant. 2. The difference between 63 and 79% in quant is significant. 3. Nobody cares about writing, and both of your scores are fine. Also some professors do privilege quant over verbal, thinking that math tells more about abstract reasoning. Either score would be more than sufficient for a getting into a top ten, but it's very clear to me that the first score is the only one that should be sent given the option to withhold.

Schools almost always hold onto the GRE scores for up to five years. You should call to confirm, but I would not waste your money by resending them.