Stauce

Sometimes it's the things you mention. But it's possible that aspects of your underlying assumption (quoted) are wrong. The people who have applied 3+ times and are still unsuccessful might not have the aptitude for graduate studies--or are consistently aiming higher than their aptitude would allow. Sometimes there are factors that more RA experience just won't fix, like hitting a ceiling on GRE scores, having an undergraduate degree from a middling institution, or unknowingly resubmitting unremarkable reference letters (in content or source). Not everybody is cut out for graduate school (or medical school, or dating a supermodel, etc.).
ETA: I am curious why it's scary that not everybody can get what they want, career wise. I absolutely understand why it might be personally uncomfortable to think that one can't have one's dream, but why in the more general sense that "people" won't be able to do it?
 

Take what I say with a grain of salt as it is my first time through the process as well, but I think it looks likely you have been rejected, but not completely certain. You could be invited still if an applicant is accepted to a top choice and they decline one of their other invitations as a result, opening up a spot for you.

Honestly, when I am faced with awkward situations like in these interview, I tend to compulsively try jokes pretty non stop. I think sometimes they land and sometimes they don’t, but it’s nice to be the one trying to lighten up the situation a bit. It feels like some of the situations are so brutally stiff that you just need to take the tension out with some humor

I am almost entirely confident that all Ohio State social psychology invites/acceptances have been submitted. They have to finalize flights for reimbursement by 2/1, so I doubt they will send invites/acceptances now.

I would add an additional circumstance in which contacting the faculty member may be permissible. I have heard of some instances (and was just encouraged by a faculty who could not invite me due to lack of funds) of instances where a faculty is low on priority and/or the program or faculty member cannot invite many or any potential students. However, after an applicant receives a fellowship (NSF, Ford, etc), the faculty and program has accepted the student. So if you applied for fellowship and/or receive, I think it would be fine to reach out about this, personally.
Although I’d note that when I’ve heard of this sort of thing occurring, I believe the suggestion has been floated by the faculty member first. If a professor isn’t interested in you as a prospective student, that may not change regardless of whether you receive a fellowship or not— The situation would only change if the interest is there but the funds are not

Here is a link of an editable Excel document we can use
 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hJFI7od93wXNHfLiUl0pv4lPUsueRmVg_6N85xgFQd8/edit?usp=sharing

Hey, all! Just got accepted to UCLA’s social psych PhD today, so I’ve taken the offer and will be starting in the fall. Looks like my spot at CU-Boulder, Portland State, and Northwestern will be less competitive from here on out hopefully, so good luck everyone! I’m excited to see where everyone ends up ☺️

Here is a link of an editable Excel document we can use
 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hJFI7od93wXNHfLiUl0pv4lPUsueRmVg_6N85xgFQd8/edit?usp=sharing

Hello all,

I'm back again with some more data. For those of you that are unfamiliar with my original post, I create a procedure in R that scrapes the results survey and output some pretty-ish graphics from the data. 
After a bit of cleaning and consolidating, I looked into things like: common interview days, most popular schools, and most popular program types...
The data is based on self-report and isn't always the cleanest, so I have't taken the initiative to make more profound "predictions".

But here I am, one last time, to give some info on the qualitative metrics behind an application (i.e., GPA, GRE Verbal, GRE Quant, GRE AWA) to see if there is really a difference in those that get accepted and those that get rejected. 
I split the data further by program type; however, some of the programs (e.g., Developmental Psych, Quant Psych, Neuro) had such a small sample of candidate that reported their scores that I had to aggregate them-- these programs are in "psychology: other". Once again this data is not parametric because it lacks independence of scores and possibly normalcy. A candidate may be in the rejected or accepted sample multiple times given they reported their scores for multiple schools, so be cautious when coming to conclusions. Also we have no clue how accurate reported scores are; candidates may have forgotten their score or flipped their quant and verbal (these are things I cannot account for).

Conclusion: I had to actually go back and look at the raw data because the results weren't as I expected. There are many occasions where those rejected had a higher average than those accepted. I will work on further validating my numbers but I can say that the average score between those rejected and those accepted (based on the Grad Cafe sample) don't seem to consistently differ. This trend is not consistent across programs.
Social Psych applicants seem like the smarties among the top program-types.
Another conclusion is that it seems the grad cafe sample is higher on these metrics than an average applicant (I need to do more research) but given the average GRE scores are definitely above the 50th percentile, GPA is also high too.

The data is on the last few pages. Those of you that haven't seen the other graphics please feel free. You can see it HERE.
I'm also going to attach the file for those of you that don't trust clicking links (though I promise it's safe).
 
 
Grad Cafe Decisions.pdf

The other school was committed to first so its not a case of both schools sending invites at the same time and prioritizing a preferred school. Presumably the POI knows this so the question strikes as odd especially the comment "if you found that you liked the program after the visit, would it be your first choice?" You wouldn't really know the answer to that. At best, the only thing one could know is how much they like each program before they visit which is what I think the professor wants to ask, which I think is legitimate, but they didn't.
@schenar just be honest and say that the other program had extended you an interview last month so it is too late to reschedule that visit, and that rescheduling doesn't reflect any preferences on your part. Also state what you've said: it is too early for you to assert whether either program is a top choice, but add that you only applied to schools that you were enthusiastic about attending (unless you didn't and this school isn't that). I'd leave out the part where they weren't "the top choice" because many things can affect where you end up going despite your initial rankings, and you shouldn't be penalized for ranking your applications and then updating when relevant information arises.
I agree with @Developmental33 that what the professor asked was not...tactful (or even useful because you could just lie and say yes this is your top program) but you should not let this rile you up. Academia is a small place so you don't want to be leaving bad impressions, especially when the power dynamics are against you.

I agree with this as well. I think with my original comment I was not trying to suggest "safety" schools or getting a PhD just for the sake of it, as I think that would be silly/misguided. But I think it's easier to find the top researchers in a certain field who are often at prestigious schools. It's often more difficult to find less renowned faculty at smaller schools but still doing the same or similar topics, but I tend to believe they exist for most interests and that there is a range of competitiveness. I honestly don't believe in safety schools, just that you can sometimes search people you like and their collaborations, and find new or young faculty or something at less prestigious universities with similar/identical interests by, for example, seeing who they mentored/advised or something.

I am sorry if it seemed earlier like I was encouraging just applying to safety schools for the sake of acquiring a PhD. That was not my intent. I agree with everyone's comments/sentiments.

I agree with this as well. I think with my original comment I was not trying to suggest "safety" schools or getting a PhD just for the sake of it, as I think that would be silly/misguided. But I think it's easier to find the top researchers in a certain field who are often at prestigious schools. It's often more difficult to find less renowned faculty at smaller schools but still doing the same or similar topics, but I tend to believe they exist for most interests and that there is a range of competitiveness. I honestly don't believe in safety schools, just that you can sometimes search people you like and their collaborations, and find new or young faculty or something at less prestigious universities with similar/identical interests by, for example, seeing who they mentored/advised or something.

I am sorry if it seemed earlier like I was encouraging just applying to safety schools for the sake of acquiring a PhD. That was not my intent. I agree with everyone's comments/sentiments.

I just want to reiterate the point of applying to some schools that are less competitive. This is my second round of applications (the first resulted in me attending MAPSS at UChicago), and one of the biggest things that my MA program emphasized to us in regards to applying to PhD programs was having a good spread of schools. This consists of some very competitive schools, schools within reach, and some "safety" schools. They also encouraged applying to 10 schools total with a fairly even split among the 3 levels of schools (which seems like a lot to me). However, their point is that having a good spread might be viewed more favorably by admissions committees, because by selecting schools with varying levels of competitiveness, you show that you are seriously pursuing a PhD within you field, regardless of school ranking.
 
Just thought I'd share what I've been told.

Honestly, I personally think it would be fine to reach out to the POI since you had been in contact with him/her. Only a select amount of people are interviewed informally anyways, so I don't think it's out of the blue. If you were one applicant out of hundreds without any contact with POI, I think it would be different. I think you could also mention that you like the program a lot and are just looking for some clarity when booking weekends for particular schools.

Yeah, you’re overthinking it. Do what you want to do. If they evaluate you based on a crack iPhone, you probably don’t want to go there anyways.

This will make no difference at all. Replace your screen if you want to when you have the money or the inclination to do so (for such a small crack, I'd just deal with it until I replaced my phone). You're over thinking it for admissions.

I'd say if you explain that you are taking an antibiotic that interacts negatively with alcohol, you should be fine. If they judge you still and insist that you drink, it seems to me they've got some issues haha

In November, did the professor specifically say that he/she intends to invite you but is just waiting for department approval? (i.e., something like "If your application advances to the next round of recruitment, you will be invited to interview weekend; therefore, I am asking you to save the date.") It could be that at the committee level, they decided to not extend an invite to you.
You could perhaps follow up politely and say something like, "Hi, you mentioned in November that I should save the date for a formal interview, and I am writing to follow up and see if the department has finished extending interview invites. I'm very much interested in this program and had hoped to get an invitation based on our previous correspondence." I wouldn't try to say something that directly implies the professor went back on it--academia is too small, and what is said goes around. 

So agonizing waiting for decisions, especially for small programs that accept so few people, where it's entirely possible acceptances have already happened but none of them have been posted on gradcafe 

I didn't know about this site until last year, while I was attending the one and only interview I was offered. All of the other applicants were talking about their schedules for all of their interviews and I felt awful because I didn't get any others, and could only suspect I wasn't getting more since none of my schools wrote to decline my application and I didn't know about this forum. Basically, radio silence from 9 out of 10 schools from December 1 to mid March.
Obviously, I didn't end up getting an offer at that one school, so here I am, a year later, applying to an additional 10 schools. The difference is I've been through this before, I knew what changes I wanted to make, and I was able to add to my CV with an additional year of working. Like missfleur said, this forum is not as great as it might seem...you don't know all the details, people aren't necessarily forthcoming (nor do they have to be) about how they got to a point of having x many interview offers, and everyone's path is going to look different. I'm not sure of "most," but a lot of people have to apply during multiple cycles before they find their golden ticket.
I can't stress this enough: the application process for psychology PhD is idiosyncratic at best. Even tremendously qualified students will get rejected because there simply aren't enough spots to accept all of them. Your figure of 6 schools doesn't really matter so much as the quality of fit between you and that school and the professors you identified as potential mentors. Above all else, fit is the most important factor and personally I feel that is the difference between my first set of applications and my second. Furthermore, this is a really classist process and not everyone can afford to apply to 10-20 schools. Personally, I think this process needs an overhaul.
Now, it sounds like you still have a couple more schools left. Your luck may change! All you need is one interview. If, however, that doesn't happen, it's gonna suck, but just know that there's always next year! If this is what you want, you'll make it happen.

Congratulations to your dog on his PhD btw. Very impressive, considering the lack of opposable thumbs and all

I understand it’s stressful and I am concerned too but I wouldn’t be so fatalistic. Just look at LeftSkew’s data he posted— Tomorrow and next week are some of the biggest periods for invites. There’s still time.

I wouldn’t hold your breath on UNC. Almost always decisions for the cohort are made based off people invited to interview in th 1st round. This isn’t always the case (if applicants are bad or accept other offers), but this is super rare... anecdotally, I’ve only heard of this happening to one friend out of ~30 I know who have gone onto clinical programs like me. What this does almost certainly mean is that you aren’t going to interview in the 1st round (and likely won’t at all). 

I'd say if you explain that you are taking an antibiotic that interacts negatively with alcohol, you should be fine. If they judge you still and insist that you drink, it seems to me they've got some issues haha

I understand it’s stressful and I am concerned too but I wouldn’t be so fatalistic. Just look at LeftSkew’s data he posted— Tomorrow and next week are some of the biggest periods for invites. There’s still time.