Camilla00

Hmm, i think this can be useful for you 
 

Well, I am trying to keep a balance between the scheduling time and willingness to write :/ I think it depends on what I have to write and what results I expect! Sometimes when I have to write and there is no other choice, then I am trying to create an atmosphere that inspires me cleaning my desk, making tea, listening to particular music. But what personally works for me are tools like Coffitivity or Evernote, where you can collect notes, order thoughts, etc. Coffitivity plays background noises like sounds in the campus cafe and so on. I get inspired by seeing my thoughts ordered and hearing some noises which keep my working mood I think some of these tools might help you, as they apply to any writer trying to get motivated

I agree with fuzzylogician, there's no one right answer and your best bet is to examine the ones from people in your field. But as fuzzylogician also points out, there is usually differences for a beginning grad student, a finishing grad student and a postdoc/assistant professor. As you go up in seniority, the amount of details usually shrinks! 
In my field, there is no CV template needed since the majority of the "basic" CV has very little formatting. It's something like what is described here: http://theprofessorisin.com/2016/08/19/dr-karens-rules-of-the-academic-cv/. You just choose a font that is very standard, set it to 12-points, and then just type in each entry. This is just one example advice piece out there on CV writing---I don't agree with all of it and I don't agree with everything "The Prof Is In" writes, but this particular entry might be useful for you.
Personally, I do more formatting than what is described in the "The Prof Is In" blog post, because I want to and because there are other advice pieces that present different viewpoints that I agree with more. Here are some other places with good advice (in my opinion). Note that many of these pages disagree with each other (there's no one right answer!)
http://www.grad.illinois.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/cvsamples.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/nov/01/academic-cv-job-10-mistakes
http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2011/09/27/38-tips-on-writing-an-academic-cv/
https://ocs.fas.harvard.edu/files/ocs/files/gsas-cvs-and-cover-letters.pdf (I really like this resource, it's from a career center at Harvard, containing real examples of successful applications in many fields, with some very concrete advice).

Agree with MHarry! First, it should be clear what do you plan to do. Second, think about the countries and research. In some countries, you may need PhD more in some less. Look at the salaries there, competition within the market and also think about the network. Maybe there is someone who can suggest better how it goes in the particular industry and country. Sometimes, the network plays an important role. The last, you have to clarify in which direction you should go. Base your decision not only on your dreams. Try to be realistic. Think about the working place where you can show your skills on 100%. 

All depends on your end goal....a PhD in no way guarantees you a better job...or even a job at all! But, it does open more doors for you and it will provide you with a more advanced skill set. For me, I didn't think twice about doing a PhD after my MSc (with a significant student debt), since I wanted to pursue a teaching/research career. Additionally, through winning several unexpected scholarships and grants I have been able to pay off my entire student debt (2 years into my PhD), so yes, the PhD salary is low, but you can't forget about the pots of small scholarship $$ that you will be able to hit. View the PhD as an OK paying job...while you are getting an education....how many people have opportunities to get an advanced degree WHILE getting paid to do it!? 
But again, it all depends on what your end goal is. 

I had a similar experience. Only one school out of eight interviewed me. I'm sure interviewing gave them some information about me. But like with everything in life, the question isn't always "do interviews tell programs useful information?" but it is really, "do programs feel that the work required to conduct interviews is worth it?"
So I am guessing that these programs have decided that they didn't need the additional information that they would get from interviews given how much it will cost them (in terms of time, effort, etc.). From experience on the "other side", interviewing is a ton of work. There was one position where we had interviewed 8 candidates. There were 4-5 people on each panel interview and they were one hour long. So that's about 40 hours of work just to conduct the interviews. Plus a few more hours to have the meeting to decide which candidates to invite to the next stage. This was for a dean position instead of a grad student, so the work was well worth it to find the right fit but I never realised how much work it is to be the interviewer until I was on a committee!
Another reason could be that interviews are only used as a "check". They basically already decided to admit or not admit you. They just do interviews with all planned-admits to ensure they are still going to be a good fit for the program. This sounds like one of the schools you described in your list. I said that only one of my schools interviews but it turns out starting the year after me, one of the other schools that accepted me also started doing interviews, but they are these kind of "vetting" interview, rather than a selection interview.
Or, as I think I wrote in another thread, maybe these schools only interview certain candidates that require more information to make a selection. For some candidates, it's clear that they will make the cut even without an interview so there's no point doing that. And others, there's no interview that can change their decision from a "no" to a "yes", so there's no point interviewing those either. So, just because you didn't get an interview doesn't mean that the school chose not to interview.
Finally, perhaps schools might have noticed that interviewing didn't help them select the right candidate. If you don't know how to conduct interviews, you can just make some people way more nervous/stressed than they need to be and then you don't see their best side. Unless putting people under pressure and stress is actually a trait you are selecting for (usually not), then having a stressful interview isn't helpful. Similarly, some people are just more outgoing and confident and just perform better in-person. If this is not something you are selecting for (usually not for grad school) then interviewing can hurt the school because they might be more drawn to the outgoing types instead.