PokePsych

I doubt if they'll dig that deep. They may check your twitter and what you posted, but I doubt if they're going to go on instagram looking for comments people make on other's posts (it's also not that easy to find on instagram anyway).

I know some places (especially grad students) do a search and will try to dig up things online. being outspoken can be a pro or con actually, depending on the department and individual professor.

And don't forget to also be 'nice' to yourself, give time off, etc. 
Happy to review materials for anyone

Columbia Psych (not sure about Teacher's College) will waive GRE.

And don't forget to also be 'nice' to yourself, give time off, etc. 
Happy to review materials for anyone

And don't forget to also be 'nice' to yourself, give time off, etc. 
Happy to review materials for anyone

This was a joint statement by International Office and the school's Provost. Allow me to apologise, but I don't see how your comment is helpful or you can be better acquainted with the matter than the people I've been speaking with.
Given the high level of anxiety admitted students are experiencing right now, I believe sticking to the facts and trying not to spread unsubstantiated rumours to be of the utmost importance. I think this is especially true if you're not in the same position as we are.
I will continue to post on this thread only as facts, i.e., communications from both my school and my local embassy, evolve.

If anyone has any questions or wants a SOP proofreader, feel free to reach out

Ok - well all I can say is that my grad school literally send out an email to not tell bullshit (not with those words) to international students after some faculty member apparently made a promise to an incoming international student about the current situation they can't (legally) live up to. This seemed to be the case because the student was part of a grant that didn't this. And can say I have been misinformed by my own International Office also more than ones (regarding work authorization on campus for J1s and it not being needed - my friend got in trouble over this), but that was in person (their website is correct). But then again, my advisor also told me last year there wasn't an issue if I would arrive about a month - month and a half late (so I could take more time of some other paperwork issues), even though that is not allowed. 
it will generally be correct indeed in official communication. I don't know what rumors I'm spreading other than to cross check any information you're given if it is not through 'official' channels (e.g., your advisor saying things with the best intentions; other grad students). All I'm spreading here is the offical information I got from MY international office - I guess you could also call them facts? Or because they're from a different school they're rumors?
I may not be in your situation but I am just as much an international student 
 
Just FYI: Policies vary a lot per school too (Duke for example has an excellent webpage; but see also how it differs from for example Cornell) 
 
 

Ok - well all I can say is that my grad school literally send out an email to not tell bullshit (not with those words) to international students after some faculty member apparently made a promise to an incoming international student about the current situation they can't (legally) live up to. This seemed to be the case because the student was part of a grant that didn't this. And can say I have been misinformed by my own International Office also more than ones (regarding work authorization on campus for J1s and it not being needed - my friend got in trouble over this), but that was in person (their website is correct). But then again, my advisor also told me last year there wasn't an issue if I would arrive about a month - month and a half late (so I could take more time of some other paperwork issues), even though that is not allowed. 
it will generally be correct indeed in official communication. I don't know what rumors I'm spreading other than to cross check any information you're given if it is not through 'official' channels (e.g., your advisor saying things with the best intentions; other grad students). All I'm spreading here is the offical information I got from MY international office - I guess you could also call them facts? Or because they're from a different school they're rumors?
I may not be in your situation but I am just as much an international student 
 
Just FYI: Policies vary a lot per school too (Duke for example has an excellent webpage; but see also how it differs from for example Cornell) 
 
 

Just FYI - immigration lawyers in the US are making a fuzz that potentially ALL non-immigrant visas will be canceled in the coming days/weeks (i.e., the sticker thing to enter) so everyone who is abroad (or traveling abroad) has to re-apply anyway. Received emails that ALL people who can return should do so ASAP, so at least they can stay/be here (you can legally stay as long as you have a valid I20/DS20--(whatever your year was))
So even if you manage to get a visa soon, it may be cancelled again :')

Someone complimented me on my jumpsuit today.

Okay let's try to be helpful instead of responding to other people, because a lot of your comments are just an attack to others and not helpful to OP. You obviously were triggered, but the way you go after people is not OK. 
 
OP seems to want to do a PhD and people have their own reasons for doing one. I agree with @Psyche007 (sorry @CeXra) that OP may give the impression that he/she did not want to go 'all in' to get the PhD. OP nuanced that in the second post though, and honestly feels what a lot of grad students may be feeling (and professors). The comment about what OP brings to the table was IMHO prematurely formed, but 'perceived motivation' may be one of the strongest assets a potential student brings. However the response was disproportionate (Plus you also call someone full of themselves, how are you not doing the same thing back?!). I think the response were helpful such that OP can maybe see how talking about a PhD in such terms can really rub people, particularly in academia the wrong way. Is that right? No. But so many things in academia are not right and problematic, but it's also a matter of choosing one's battles wisely and getting in is a whole different discussion. Yes, many people don't do a PhD out of a deep passion for the field, but very few would express that. That being said, I don't think its wrong to ask people whether they're really want to do a PhD. There are a lot of undergrads that I work with who want to do a PhD who would probably have better options around to suit their needs and goals, yet are just really suck into this grad school mindset. I don't think its wrong to raise that question.
Anyway, yeah I also got a nice sum of money backing me up, but still my department requires me to teach, do 'professional services' as they call it (100% mandatory, although not found in the grad handbook), expects me to come to colloquium and 'support' the academic community in other ways. This is 'despite' the money I have, such that my advisor has money 'to buy me out', but the department won't let him. Even if not official requirements on paper, I'm sure I'll get issues if I don't do these duties. And I'm at a top-tier too and transferred from another top-tier. And I HAVE seen students being booted out of the program for not being 'integrated in the department enough' and 'cutting corners' in such services, even if they HAD money. Some schools may let you get away with it, but it will still set bad blood with other advisors and/or students, who just may as much 'harm' or 'help' you. 
Do I like going to every colloquium? No. Am I expected to go and do faculty make issues if we dont? yes. It's really considered a form of respect or something. Are they program requirements, officially no. But the department still uses them as an evaluative standard.
OP may therefore really need to figure out what departments AND PIs do not have such expectations, and they'll probably be scarce. Such expectations may also be other things (e.g., who manages undergrad RAs? Who does certain paperwork), is there a lab manager who could take duties of?
Having money doesn't mean one is always able to use it too, some places have (unofficial) requirements that they may still enforce. However, I've seen it in the EU a lot more often since you often won't take many classes and have fewer duties and expectations. That said, a Master's degree is required for mainland Europe, which will generally include more hours on campus. If you an EU citizen I would definitely look into places there and just start applying to things that interest you or see if there is any prof you can help to get into the academic network (lot more important there). If you were to common to the US or potentially another non-EU place, you'd also run into potential visa issues for family if you'd like to bring them and their ability to get a workpermit. Furthermore, getting a student visa is often contingent on proof of funding. Similarly, work on campus (TA etc) is often the way you don't have to pay tuition.
I would be very mindful of how you frame things, and also whether you let your previous experiences influence what you expect graduate school to be. It is not normal, and shouldn't be normal to do certain 'chores' for your PI. That says more about the PI and is not something that I have seen happen a lot. If your friend can't do research because of that, he needs to discuss things with his PI. This is not common.
 
Nonetheless, other things that have been raised. Academia may look like a cult, but I've been warned so many times by faculty and my advisor that it is really a small community in which everybody knows everybody (particularly evolutionary psychology, with their (in)famous SPSP party and so on).  The fields you mention DO function like this. Furthermore, part of being part of the community is doing services (e.g., unpaid peer review, etc.; organize symposium for which you even have to pay to attend). Bottom line, who do you know, who do you work with, who likes you (and who doesn't) is a big part. 
Another thing to be mindful of is also how you frame your future goals. Particularly in psych (and those areas in psych), many advisors expect their students to be the 'next generation' of academics (although I know some exceptions in Social Psych). Some people in my program strategically frame it to their advisors as not being 100% sure about academia yet, while most grad students know they don't have that interest at all. Even if the advisor is OK, the admission committee may also make a fuzz/problem. 
That being said, there are also good things about being on campus a fair bit. Other grad students can be the best collaborators, there are many interesting people to be met. Even if you don't like the colloquium, you may still learn something (and usually good food afterwards). 

You are always so helpful ❤️

If anyone has any questions or wants a SOP proofreader, feel free to reach out

Be mindful of whether you really want to study clinical psych and what to be practitioner, or whether you want to do research on cultural differences in health/pain disparities - the latter is commonly found in social psych department (but wouldn't allow you to be a practtioner). 

Be mindful of whether you really want to study clinical psych and what to be practitioner, or whether you want to do research on cultural differences in health/pain disparities - the latter is commonly found in social psych department (but wouldn't allow you to be a practtioner). 

Your situation is very similar to mine. I'm also a writer of self-help, we're about the same age, and we followed a non-traditional path starting with a degree in business, so I would like to give you my perspective and tell you how I got to the conclusion that a PhD is not the way to go (for someone like us).
  I'm also a writer that talks about "issues" in psychology. I had success self-publishing on Amazon and that attracted the attention of a real publisher. People have challenged my "expertise" over the years. I've heard things like "do they teach self-esteem in business school?" and the classic "You're not a psychologist! Shut up!" and all kinds of variation of this criticism. And yes, people on social media can be very mean and many do question your authority on a subject, especially if they happen to disagree with you or you make a controversial claim (like many arguments in evolutionary psychology). Basically, if they don't agree with something you said, they will pick you apart and use whatever weakness they perceive in you to attack you. You can't really let this get to you.   My publisher also suggested that I should pursue an education in psychology if I wish to continue to explore this field in my writing, and hinted that a PhD "would be nice". But the reality is that this is mostly rubbish. You should keep in mind that publishers (or more specifically, the individuals that deal with us in a big publishing house) usually only have a college degree. Some have certificates and master's degrees, but not all. They don't have a good perspective on just how involved a doctorate program is. In their minds, you could just go and sit in a classroom for a few years and you come out on the other side with a PhD, which would enhance your status as a writer and theirs as a publisher. If you're such an intelligent person, capable of writing good books, then why not get the "ultimate expert" degree to boost your CV? They really have no clue...   My point is, ignore your publisher. He/she doesn't really know what he/she's talking about.    You can definitely write books like the ones you mentioned without a PhD with the knowledge and expertise that you have. Basically, the trend in psychology books is to pick a very narrow topic, a point of view, an argument and cite studies and stories to argue for it and illustrate it. I believe when your publisher mentioned Kahnemann and Gilbert, the suggestion was about the STYLE, not the best-seller status or anything comparable to the authors themselves. Even Daniel Goleman (what's up the name Daniel and academia?!), acclaimed for his Emotional Intelligence books, did not write about his own experiments in the field, he just followed the same formula and talked about other people's studies. He didn't even coin the term himself.    This is exactly what Malcom Gladwell has been doing for years with only a BA in history and a stint at The New Yorker. Has anyone questioned how could he possibly know what he's talking about if he doesn't have a PhD? I doubt it! Gladwell's books are more popular than Gilbert and Kahneman's by the way. Look, I'm not saying that you should strive to have Gladwell's success (or Gilbert's or Kahnemann's for that matter). As @PokePsych suggested, the chances that you'll ever become that well known or that your books/work will reach that level of visibility is tiny. My point is, even at the greatest level of visibility that an author can get, you have someone like Gladwell who gets by just fine with only a BA in an unrelated area. So, you definitely don't need a Phd if the problem is credibility or authority. Just make sure to consult primary literature to support your arguments to avoid the mistake that is so common in self-help that people will just say whatever they want even when there's no evidence to support their arguments (this is what makes the whole genre look so bad!).   I can quickly think of other best-selling authors who write about psychology/self-help or science who are just journalists or have college degrees in unrelated fields: Bill Bryson (I think he's a journalist), Tony Robbins (doesn't have any degree and probably has been the best selling author in self-help for the past 30 years), Stephen Covey (although he has an MBA from Harvard Business School and a zillion "honorary" PhDs), Aubrey de Grey, although he actually writes about science, this is a good example of a guy who proposed a new way to view the problem of ageing with only a college degree (then he received a "free" PhD from his alma mater).    But I think Malcom Gladwell is the best example here. He writes books in the same "style" as the ones you've mentioned and the studies he uses to support his arguments come mostly from the fields of psychology and neuroscience, and yet he has no PhD, not even a master's degree.   I think it's very easy to end up in a bubble when you are surrounded by people who have certain specific expectations about you and then you start thinking that there's something wrong with you and that you need to change to fulfill these expectations. The reality is that from the point of view of having a successful career as a writer and consultant (which I assume is consulting in these areas you mention you write about) all you need is good marketing and efficient delivery. If you market yourself successfully, you get new clients and sell more books. Efficient delivery of what you promise results in repeat business and good book reviews, which in turn generates more business. Most people really don't care if you have a PhD or not. I'm sure most of my readers don't even understand what a PhD entails, they don't care that I don't have one. Occasionally, I see the random troll accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about (I don't even think you would get this type of criticism because after all you do have degrees in psychology). I ignore these people. Naysayers are all over the place. On the other hand, one my best friends does have a PhD and is frequently accused (on social media) of being an "arrogant scholar" and similar things based on the fact that he does have the degree. It's like... you can't win for losing!    For me, I made the decision not to get a PhD because I don't have any desire to go into academia and I'm already successful as a writer.    Let's think about it: both of us already have the career that most people dream about: we can work at home, or wherever we want (certainly a big plus right now!), our source of income is not threatened by (possibly) anything at all (and if you have a large social media following I assume you have multiple streams of income, not just royalties). With a big following you have carte blanche to reinvent yourself and try a bunch of different things (write about different topics, put together video courses, life coaching, etc.) and your audience will likely consume it (if reception is negative, change is not costly).    At 40, why would you want to plunge into the rabbit hole of a PhD? Based on the few things you said here, it looks like you're not yet ready to apply, so let's say you take 1 or 2 years to build a good application. Then 4 to 6 years to go through the program. You're almost 50 at the end of this process. Then what? What for? I agree with @Clinapp2017, you need to ask what you''ll be getting for all the effort. Will that really add a significant bonus to your credibility, value of your contracts, etc.? Honestly, I don't think so.    In my case, I came to the conclusion that all the work and commitment of a PhD would drain me to the point that I would have less time to nurture my writing career and online presence. One of the problems we have today that writers didn't have back in the day is that we need to constantly engage with our audience online. Our publishers and the audience itself expects that. Now, this is very time consuming. Recording videos, podcasts, writing blogs posts, giving interviews, networking with influencers, participating in discussions and maintaining Twitter, Facebook, and other social media accounts, etc., can be a full time job. Of course, we don't have to do all that, but at least in my case, this engagement plays a big role in my success (and supports additional income sources, such as YouTube advertising). If I stop with all this marketing and engagement effort, all I would have is my publisher's marketing efforts. But since I'm not a "top" author, I doubt they would invest much (or anything) to market my books. My success comes from my own efforts, they just publish and distribute the books. I'm assuming you're on the same boat.    I'm not sure you thought about it... it doesn't feel like work when I do all the things I do to maintain my writing career alive, but it actually is, and it is very time consuming. And that is work just to maintain my book sales and other income sources, not time to write new books. Other people (family members, friends) think I do nothing all day. Working from home gives others (and sometimes ourselves) the idea that we don't really "work", that we have a lot more available time than we actually do. When I seriously thought about it and calculated how I was going to manage the course load and responsibilities of a PhD with my current day-to-day routine, I realized that it wasn't going to work. If I put my writing career on the shelf for 4 to 6 years to go pursue a PhD, when I come back, the loyal audience that I have today won't be there anymore. A PhD would be an option if there was a massive benefit to getting this degree or if I had academic ambitions or needed to get a very specific job or go into a career that requires it. It's not my case and I suspect it's not yours either.    That's my 2 cents. I hope my experience with this conundrum can help you make a decision.

Okay let's try to be helpful instead of responding to other people, because a lot of your comments are just an attack to others and not helpful to OP. You obviously were triggered, but the way you go after people is not OK. 
 
OP seems to want to do a PhD and people have their own reasons for doing one. I agree with @Psyche007 (sorry @CeXra) that OP may give the impression that he/she did not want to go 'all in' to get the PhD. OP nuanced that in the second post though, and honestly feels what a lot of grad students may be feeling (and professors). The comment about what OP brings to the table was IMHO prematurely formed, but 'perceived motivation' may be one of the strongest assets a potential student brings. However the response was disproportionate (Plus you also call someone full of themselves, how are you not doing the same thing back?!). I think the response were helpful such that OP can maybe see how talking about a PhD in such terms can really rub people, particularly in academia the wrong way. Is that right? No. But so many things in academia are not right and problematic, but it's also a matter of choosing one's battles wisely and getting in is a whole different discussion. Yes, many people don't do a PhD out of a deep passion for the field, but very few would express that. That being said, I don't think its wrong to ask people whether they're really want to do a PhD. There are a lot of undergrads that I work with who want to do a PhD who would probably have better options around to suit their needs and goals, yet are just really suck into this grad school mindset. I don't think its wrong to raise that question.
Anyway, yeah I also got a nice sum of money backing me up, but still my department requires me to teach, do 'professional services' as they call it (100% mandatory, although not found in the grad handbook), expects me to come to colloquium and 'support' the academic community in other ways. This is 'despite' the money I have, such that my advisor has money 'to buy me out', but the department won't let him. Even if not official requirements on paper, I'm sure I'll get issues if I don't do these duties. And I'm at a top-tier too and transferred from another top-tier. And I HAVE seen students being booted out of the program for not being 'integrated in the department enough' and 'cutting corners' in such services, even if they HAD money. Some schools may let you get away with it, but it will still set bad blood with other advisors and/or students, who just may as much 'harm' or 'help' you. 
Do I like going to every colloquium? No. Am I expected to go and do faculty make issues if we dont? yes. It's really considered a form of respect or something. Are they program requirements, officially no. But the department still uses them as an evaluative standard.
OP may therefore really need to figure out what departments AND PIs do not have such expectations, and they'll probably be scarce. Such expectations may also be other things (e.g., who manages undergrad RAs? Who does certain paperwork), is there a lab manager who could take duties of?
Having money doesn't mean one is always able to use it too, some places have (unofficial) requirements that they may still enforce. However, I've seen it in the EU a lot more often since you often won't take many classes and have fewer duties and expectations. That said, a Master's degree is required for mainland Europe, which will generally include more hours on campus. If you an EU citizen I would definitely look into places there and just start applying to things that interest you or see if there is any prof you can help to get into the academic network (lot more important there). If you were to common to the US or potentially another non-EU place, you'd also run into potential visa issues for family if you'd like to bring them and their ability to get a workpermit. Furthermore, getting a student visa is often contingent on proof of funding. Similarly, work on campus (TA etc) is often the way you don't have to pay tuition.
I would be very mindful of how you frame things, and also whether you let your previous experiences influence what you expect graduate school to be. It is not normal, and shouldn't be normal to do certain 'chores' for your PI. That says more about the PI and is not something that I have seen happen a lot. If your friend can't do research because of that, he needs to discuss things with his PI. This is not common.
 
Nonetheless, other things that have been raised. Academia may look like a cult, but I've been warned so many times by faculty and my advisor that it is really a small community in which everybody knows everybody (particularly evolutionary psychology, with their (in)famous SPSP party and so on).  The fields you mention DO function like this. Furthermore, part of being part of the community is doing services (e.g., unpaid peer review, etc.; organize symposium for which you even have to pay to attend). Bottom line, who do you know, who do you work with, who likes you (and who doesn't) is a big part. 
Another thing to be mindful of is also how you frame your future goals. Particularly in psych (and those areas in psych), many advisors expect their students to be the 'next generation' of academics (although I know some exceptions in Social Psych). Some people in my program strategically frame it to their advisors as not being 100% sure about academia yet, while most grad students know they don't have that interest at all. Even if the advisor is OK, the admission committee may also make a fuzz/problem. 
That being said, there are also good things about being on campus a fair bit. Other grad students can be the best collaborators, there are many interesting people to be met. Even if you don't like the colloquium, you may still learn something (and usually good food afterwards). 

YOu'll be a non-immigrant (like J1 visa), so you are a non-immigrant. Immigrant announcement will therefore no apply to you.

That'll be great! It kind of surprised me that everything is pretty much 500-1000 words, gotta condense my thoughts a bit 

To the author: I don't think what you wrote is bad and some people in this forum may just feel personally attacked.
To @Psyche007: Yes, I think you're reading too much into it. Like "what do you bring to the table..." Uhm... she or he or they actually brings a lot, and above the average undergrad coming in. This person brings years of experience and a different lifestyle that can add to the classroom/discussions. And they have published books which shows they can write well and is capable of publishing future work. In other words, I imagine they have a great CV (even if it may lack research). And from what is posted, I don't think what they wrote makes them appear above or entitled. I feel like you were just put off by what they wrote, which is just your opinion. But frankly, this person is stating the reality of what most PhD students have to do and they would like to not do part of that in order to manage the life they have built for themselves. So if they would like to disclose in the future that they do not want to do an RA-ship, but opt to do a TA-ship from time to time, why not? I have seen this done countless of times. I literally have a fellowship that pays me to stay at home and do my work (besides from going to class and staying on good academic standing; which is something that is unavoidable). And I am in a top-tier institution for my field. Personally, as long as a student goes to class, gets great grades and stay connected with their advisors, they are fine and motivated enough to get a PhD. And also to your point that they "want to distance themselves from the department, and not be a part of it..." Uhm... is academia a cult? To some, yes... to others, no. A lot of students do not like being required to participate in colloquiums because not all of them relate to their interests or even line up with their schedules. So this person bartering to not have to go to the ones that won't help them due to their work is something this person has every right to do (even if the department says no, at least they asked). And what is wrong with getting a PhD to elevate one's status? You made it seem like its wrong for them to want to do this. A lot of people who get PhDs especially in the sciences get their PhDs for better job prospects, not because they are passionate about learning or research. And to this part "From this information alone, you don't seem invested in the process enough to be worth accepting as a student. You're obviously more than capable of doing all the learning and work by yourself. The degree is just a way of elevating your status." You are really full of it. Who are you to decide whether or not someone is motivated or invested? Just because their motivations are different from yours, it does not give you the right to downplay their desire to obtain a PhD. The reason this person gave is GREAT and it makes sense. You know how many times I heard from students that the reason why they came to a PhD is program is because they didn't know what else to do or that they need this to get a job in their field (especially in the social sciences). And guess what, they still excel and do great. I understand that passion and love for research is what drives a lot of students to do well and get through hard days, but for some its how will this degree help them in the long run. And this person clearly wrote that. So I think, you need to check your bias and understand that there are different perspectives.  
Anyways, to the author of the post. Personally, I think you can say in your application that you have external funding that will cover the stipend/cost of living (once/if you get accepted you can elaborate). I say frame it like that so this way you can be offered a tuition waver. I also suggest framing it this way so that you don't let this matter take up the bulk of your statement since some departments may not care. So, in your statement, only three-four sentences is needed towards the bottom and you can explain the rest over the phone/in person/email if you are admitted.
Also, the biggest lesson here is that your post can be interpreted in different ways. How you framed it didn't bother me but it appeared to ruffle some feathers... So watch how you frame it in discussions and in emails. I don't think what you said is wrong and if you were a identifiable man it would be thought as "highlighting" your experiences (I am unaware of your gender but the fact remains). I have seen people highlight their wants using their accomplishments over and over as a means to barter, especially white cisgender men. So do not feel bad or discouraged! Apply to a wide range of schools (top tier and lower tier). Ph.D. programs are hard to get into normally and our new economic crisis may even make it harder for the years to come. Now in terms of program requirements, there may be things you will have to do because they are required, that is the reality of any position. But I can say for myself that I received an prestigious external fellowship and I can basically do my own research that is not tied to my department, so I have more autonomy than my peers. I can decide to not go to certain department events and will not be judged as harshly as my peers. My funding can't be taken away, so there are benefits to having your own funding. However, even though you can "distance yourself from the department" (in terms of not attending colloquiums, working groups, faculty talks), it may also have an impact on how well you do there and who will work with you. Everyone and every department is different. But a top tier school (like 1-10 or 11-20) may not care that you have funding unless its prestigious or what not (in your case it's not), so I don't think you have an advantage but its also not a disadvantage. Personally your experience as a writer and author is beneficial. Research is important, and it doesn't sound like to me that you have a problem with doing research. And in my experience, I have done projects I wanted to do but there was tweaking and changes here and there (prompted by my advisors) and that is apart of growing. So if you are willing to grow and change, you will be fine. If you are not willing to grow, you will face problems. In terms of not wanting to work in the lab or department, it depends on the discipline you are in. With psychology, you will be required to do lab work. But again, I have seen in cases that advisors work with their students to accommodate their preferences (like doing lab work from home or coming in once a week for lab seminar).
This is all said to say, once and if you are admitted, speak to them. If it doesn't work with you, don't accept. But in your application, don't get ahead of yourself. Just relay 3 to 4 sentences about external funding. Once and if you are admitted you can speak to them about your preferences. The department functions may be something you can haggle (e.g. going to the ones that fall on the days of when you're on campus for class already). For lab, see if advisors had have students who do work from home for the most part, or ask if lab is held once a week or so. Ultimately, they don't need to accommodate your preferences but you never know if its on the table if you don't ask. 
Good Luck!
I wish you the best. 

Okay let's try to be helpful instead of responding to other people, because a lot of your comments are just an attack to others and not helpful to OP. You obviously were triggered, but the way you go after people is not OK. 
 
OP seems to want to do a PhD and people have their own reasons for doing one. I agree with @Psyche007 (sorry @CeXra) that OP may give the impression that he/she did not want to go 'all in' to get the PhD. OP nuanced that in the second post though, and honestly feels what a lot of grad students may be feeling (and professors). The comment about what OP brings to the table was IMHO prematurely formed, but 'perceived motivation' may be one of the strongest assets a potential student brings. However the response was disproportionate (Plus you also call someone full of themselves, how are you not doing the same thing back?!). I think the response were helpful such that OP can maybe see how talking about a PhD in such terms can really rub people, particularly in academia the wrong way. Is that right? No. But so many things in academia are not right and problematic, but it's also a matter of choosing one's battles wisely and getting in is a whole different discussion. Yes, many people don't do a PhD out of a deep passion for the field, but very few would express that. That being said, I don't think its wrong to ask people whether they're really want to do a PhD. There are a lot of undergrads that I work with who want to do a PhD who would probably have better options around to suit their needs and goals, yet are just really suck into this grad school mindset. I don't think its wrong to raise that question.
Anyway, yeah I also got a nice sum of money backing me up, but still my department requires me to teach, do 'professional services' as they call it (100% mandatory, although not found in the grad handbook), expects me to come to colloquium and 'support' the academic community in other ways. This is 'despite' the money I have, such that my advisor has money 'to buy me out', but the department won't let him. Even if not official requirements on paper, I'm sure I'll get issues if I don't do these duties. And I'm at a top-tier too and transferred from another top-tier. And I HAVE seen students being booted out of the program for not being 'integrated in the department enough' and 'cutting corners' in such services, even if they HAD money. Some schools may let you get away with it, but it will still set bad blood with other advisors and/or students, who just may as much 'harm' or 'help' you. 
Do I like going to every colloquium? No. Am I expected to go and do faculty make issues if we dont? yes. It's really considered a form of respect or something. Are they program requirements, officially no. But the department still uses them as an evaluative standard.
OP may therefore really need to figure out what departments AND PIs do not have such expectations, and they'll probably be scarce. Such expectations may also be other things (e.g., who manages undergrad RAs? Who does certain paperwork), is there a lab manager who could take duties of?
Having money doesn't mean one is always able to use it too, some places have (unofficial) requirements that they may still enforce. However, I've seen it in the EU a lot more often since you often won't take many classes and have fewer duties and expectations. That said, a Master's degree is required for mainland Europe, which will generally include more hours on campus. If you an EU citizen I would definitely look into places there and just start applying to things that interest you or see if there is any prof you can help to get into the academic network (lot more important there). If you were to common to the US or potentially another non-EU place, you'd also run into potential visa issues for family if you'd like to bring them and their ability to get a workpermit. Furthermore, getting a student visa is often contingent on proof of funding. Similarly, work on campus (TA etc) is often the way you don't have to pay tuition.
I would be very mindful of how you frame things, and also whether you let your previous experiences influence what you expect graduate school to be. It is not normal, and shouldn't be normal to do certain 'chores' for your PI. That says more about the PI and is not something that I have seen happen a lot. If your friend can't do research because of that, he needs to discuss things with his PI. This is not common.
 
Nonetheless, other things that have been raised. Academia may look like a cult, but I've been warned so many times by faculty and my advisor that it is really a small community in which everybody knows everybody (particularly evolutionary psychology, with their (in)famous SPSP party and so on).  The fields you mention DO function like this. Furthermore, part of being part of the community is doing services (e.g., unpaid peer review, etc.; organize symposium for which you even have to pay to attend). Bottom line, who do you know, who do you work with, who likes you (and who doesn't) is a big part. 
Another thing to be mindful of is also how you frame your future goals. Particularly in psych (and those areas in psych), many advisors expect their students to be the 'next generation' of academics (although I know some exceptions in Social Psych). Some people in my program strategically frame it to their advisors as not being 100% sure about academia yet, while most grad students know they don't have that interest at all. Even if the advisor is OK, the admission committee may also make a fuzz/problem. 
That being said, there are also good things about being on campus a fair bit. Other grad students can be the best collaborators, there are many interesting people to be met. Even if you don't like the colloquium, you may still learn something (and usually good food afterwards). 

Okay let's try to be helpful instead of responding to other people, because a lot of your comments are just an attack to others and not helpful to OP. You obviously were triggered, but the way you go after people is not OK. 
 
OP seems to want to do a PhD and people have their own reasons for doing one. I agree with @Psyche007 (sorry @CeXra) that OP may give the impression that he/she did not want to go 'all in' to get the PhD. OP nuanced that in the second post though, and honestly feels what a lot of grad students may be feeling (and professors). The comment about what OP brings to the table was IMHO prematurely formed, but 'perceived motivation' may be one of the strongest assets a potential student brings. However the response was disproportionate (Plus you also call someone full of themselves, how are you not doing the same thing back?!). I think the response were helpful such that OP can maybe see how talking about a PhD in such terms can really rub people, particularly in academia the wrong way. Is that right? No. But so many things in academia are not right and problematic, but it's also a matter of choosing one's battles wisely and getting in is a whole different discussion. Yes, many people don't do a PhD out of a deep passion for the field, but very few would express that. That being said, I don't think its wrong to ask people whether they're really want to do a PhD. There are a lot of undergrads that I work with who want to do a PhD who would probably have better options around to suit their needs and goals, yet are just really suck into this grad school mindset. I don't think its wrong to raise that question.
Anyway, yeah I also got a nice sum of money backing me up, but still my department requires me to teach, do 'professional services' as they call it (100% mandatory, although not found in the grad handbook), expects me to come to colloquium and 'support' the academic community in other ways. This is 'despite' the money I have, such that my advisor has money 'to buy me out', but the department won't let him. Even if not official requirements on paper, I'm sure I'll get issues if I don't do these duties. And I'm at a top-tier too and transferred from another top-tier. And I HAVE seen students being booted out of the program for not being 'integrated in the department enough' and 'cutting corners' in such services, even if they HAD money. Some schools may let you get away with it, but it will still set bad blood with other advisors and/or students, who just may as much 'harm' or 'help' you. 
Do I like going to every colloquium? No. Am I expected to go and do faculty make issues if we dont? yes. It's really considered a form of respect or something. Are they program requirements, officially no. But the department still uses them as an evaluative standard.
OP may therefore really need to figure out what departments AND PIs do not have such expectations, and they'll probably be scarce. Such expectations may also be other things (e.g., who manages undergrad RAs? Who does certain paperwork), is there a lab manager who could take duties of?
Having money doesn't mean one is always able to use it too, some places have (unofficial) requirements that they may still enforce. However, I've seen it in the EU a lot more often since you often won't take many classes and have fewer duties and expectations. That said, a Master's degree is required for mainland Europe, which will generally include more hours on campus. If you an EU citizen I would definitely look into places there and just start applying to things that interest you or see if there is any prof you can help to get into the academic network (lot more important there). If you were to common to the US or potentially another non-EU place, you'd also run into potential visa issues for family if you'd like to bring them and their ability to get a workpermit. Furthermore, getting a student visa is often contingent on proof of funding. Similarly, work on campus (TA etc) is often the way you don't have to pay tuition.
I would be very mindful of how you frame things, and also whether you let your previous experiences influence what you expect graduate school to be. It is not normal, and shouldn't be normal to do certain 'chores' for your PI. That says more about the PI and is not something that I have seen happen a lot. If your friend can't do research because of that, he needs to discuss things with his PI. This is not common.
 
Nonetheless, other things that have been raised. Academia may look like a cult, but I've been warned so many times by faculty and my advisor that it is really a small community in which everybody knows everybody (particularly evolutionary psychology, with their (in)famous SPSP party and so on).  The fields you mention DO function like this. Furthermore, part of being part of the community is doing services (e.g., unpaid peer review, etc.; organize symposium for which you even have to pay to attend). Bottom line, who do you know, who do you work with, who likes you (and who doesn't) is a big part. 
Another thing to be mindful of is also how you frame your future goals. Particularly in psych (and those areas in psych), many advisors expect their students to be the 'next generation' of academics (although I know some exceptions in Social Psych). Some people in my program strategically frame it to their advisors as not being 100% sure about academia yet, while most grad students know they don't have that interest at all. Even if the advisor is OK, the admission committee may also make a fuzz/problem. 
That being said, there are also good things about being on campus a fair bit. Other grad students can be the best collaborators, there are many interesting people to be met. Even if you don't like the colloquium, you may still learn something (and usually good food afterwards). 

Okay let's try to be helpful instead of responding to other people, because a lot of your comments are just an attack to others and not helpful to OP. You obviously were triggered, but the way you go after people is not OK. 
 
OP seems to want to do a PhD and people have their own reasons for doing one. I agree with @Psyche007 (sorry @CeXra) that OP may give the impression that he/she did not want to go 'all in' to get the PhD. OP nuanced that in the second post though, and honestly feels what a lot of grad students may be feeling (and professors). The comment about what OP brings to the table was IMHO prematurely formed, but 'perceived motivation' may be one of the strongest assets a potential student brings. However the response was disproportionate (Plus you also call someone full of themselves, how are you not doing the same thing back?!). I think the response were helpful such that OP can maybe see how talking about a PhD in such terms can really rub people, particularly in academia the wrong way. Is that right? No. But so many things in academia are not right and problematic, but it's also a matter of choosing one's battles wisely and getting in is a whole different discussion. Yes, many people don't do a PhD out of a deep passion for the field, but very few would express that. That being said, I don't think its wrong to ask people whether they're really want to do a PhD. There are a lot of undergrads that I work with who want to do a PhD who would probably have better options around to suit their needs and goals, yet are just really suck into this grad school mindset. I don't think its wrong to raise that question.
Anyway, yeah I also got a nice sum of money backing me up, but still my department requires me to teach, do 'professional services' as they call it (100% mandatory, although not found in the grad handbook), expects me to come to colloquium and 'support' the academic community in other ways. This is 'despite' the money I have, such that my advisor has money 'to buy me out', but the department won't let him. Even if not official requirements on paper, I'm sure I'll get issues if I don't do these duties. And I'm at a top-tier too and transferred from another top-tier. And I HAVE seen students being booted out of the program for not being 'integrated in the department enough' and 'cutting corners' in such services, even if they HAD money. Some schools may let you get away with it, but it will still set bad blood with other advisors and/or students, who just may as much 'harm' or 'help' you. 
Do I like going to every colloquium? No. Am I expected to go and do faculty make issues if we dont? yes. It's really considered a form of respect or something. Are they program requirements, officially no. But the department still uses them as an evaluative standard.
OP may therefore really need to figure out what departments AND PIs do not have such expectations, and they'll probably be scarce. Such expectations may also be other things (e.g., who manages undergrad RAs? Who does certain paperwork), is there a lab manager who could take duties of?
Having money doesn't mean one is always able to use it too, some places have (unofficial) requirements that they may still enforce. However, I've seen it in the EU a lot more often since you often won't take many classes and have fewer duties and expectations. That said, a Master's degree is required for mainland Europe, which will generally include more hours on campus. If you an EU citizen I would definitely look into places there and just start applying to things that interest you or see if there is any prof you can help to get into the academic network (lot more important there). If you were to common to the US or potentially another non-EU place, you'd also run into potential visa issues for family if you'd like to bring them and their ability to get a workpermit. Furthermore, getting a student visa is often contingent on proof of funding. Similarly, work on campus (TA etc) is often the way you don't have to pay tuition.
I would be very mindful of how you frame things, and also whether you let your previous experiences influence what you expect graduate school to be. It is not normal, and shouldn't be normal to do certain 'chores' for your PI. That says more about the PI and is not something that I have seen happen a lot. If your friend can't do research because of that, he needs to discuss things with his PI. This is not common.
 
Nonetheless, other things that have been raised. Academia may look like a cult, but I've been warned so many times by faculty and my advisor that it is really a small community in which everybody knows everybody (particularly evolutionary psychology, with their (in)famous SPSP party and so on).  The fields you mention DO function like this. Furthermore, part of being part of the community is doing services (e.g., unpaid peer review, etc.; organize symposium for which you even have to pay to attend). Bottom line, who do you know, who do you work with, who likes you (and who doesn't) is a big part. 
Another thing to be mindful of is also how you frame your future goals. Particularly in psych (and those areas in psych), many advisors expect their students to be the 'next generation' of academics (although I know some exceptions in Social Psych). Some people in my program strategically frame it to their advisors as not being 100% sure about academia yet, while most grad students know they don't have that interest at all. Even if the advisor is OK, the admission committee may also make a fuzz/problem. 
That being said, there are also good things about being on campus a fair bit. Other grad students can be the best collaborators, there are many interesting people to be met. Even if you don't like the colloquium, you may still learn something (and usually good food afterwards).