FacelessMage

The person is not invalidating anyone's experiences by asking more questions, but by not listening to the answers.
I'm glad I stayed out of the debate since it went precisely as I had predicted. But a short version of my reply to some of the more outrageous posts above would be as follows: I don't have a penis, and don't expect to grow one any time soon (nor would I want to). Any system that inherently advantages men simply by virtue of them being men is one that I would fight against, because it inhibits my own growth and development, as well as that of my students and friends. The idea that I should "adjust" to a system that disfavors me by its very nature could only be uttered by someone blinded by their own privilege. The (wrongheaded!) belief that e.g. women aren't good decision makers or whatever other bullshit was written above is a symptom of this ailing system. Recasting the debate in terms of "evidence" (male) vs "emotion" (female) is likewise misguided. But in my experience having this kind of discussion is simply useless: it's too abstract. Young men, find a young female scholar (poc scholar, disabled scholar, etc) near you -- a fellow student, a postdoc in your lab, an assistant professor, etc -- buy her a coffee and *ask her* about her experiences. *Listen* to the experiences of women in your field. Do some reading. Develop an awareness. It's totally fine to be skeptical and ask questions, but you have to be willing to listen to the answers. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. 

Fear us. 

There's no such thing as "male" and "female" professions. Women are pushed to professions such as nursing and teaching because as infants we are conditioned to be "motherly and caring", while men are conditioned to be aggressive and build stuff. Men are not gifted with special math brains, they just grow up being more exposed to logic-based games and such. Also, competition over cooperation in science (and in most places) is bad for everyone.
Work environments are dynamic, but they change according to the views of whomever is in charge. The system has evolved organically to favor men because men have always been in charge of these fields.
Regarding your comment about men not being regarded with more respect, it is not true. Various studies have shown (some were posted here if I'm not mistaken) that men get more credibility than equally qualified women. You may not notice because you are a man and are blind to the microaggressions women in academia suffer in their everyday lives, but please stop denying our experiences, you're part of the problem.

I've literally been told all of this BS to my face from people in academia, so even if this guy is a troll, there are a lot of people who legitimately believe this. 
(And yeah, it really hurts to be on the other end of this when you've worked so hard. It can feel degrading. I have an honors ivy quant degree, a perfect GRE, a first-author paper submitted to Science, olympiad background, years of research and industry experience... but apparently that's not enough and all the smart men don't get into programs because of the dumb women like me taking their place.)

It's the end of April. When I won in 2016, the letter was dated April 25. Depending on your university, you may find out earlier in April from the powers that be at your school (they usually get some sort of list before award letters go out to applicants from SSHRC). 

Seconded. The new system shifts the power from the applicant to the institutions. Instead of a feather in the applicant's cap, it's now just one more recruiting tool that universities can use to convince some candidate to come there instead of elsewhere. Frankly, I think it diminishes the prestige of the award. If university A gives you one of their allocated awards, why should that matter to university B? It's a positive signal, of course, but I don't know what criteria they used to judge, and I don't know who the other candidates are. Under the previous system it was prestigious because you knew that a recipient stacked up well in national competition against many other highly qualified applicants. 

I'd focus on getting some publications. I was told that it doesn't reflect well on people with Master's degrees if they're not applying with at least one publication. If you did a thesis, that would be a good thing to try to get published. 

It's the end of April. When I won in 2016, the letter was dated April 25. Depending on your university, you may find out earlier in April from the powers that be at your school (they usually get some sort of list before award letters go out to applicants from SSHRC). 

I definitely agree with the fact that a good amount of application success being due to luck (after you consider all the other important factors that have already been mentioned in this thread). You could look really good one year because the rest of your application cohort isn't as shining, but in a different year be utterly unremarkable the next year. A lot of success also depends on department politics in a given year. Some POIs will be prioritized in being able to accept students in different years (especially in clinical). If you're in a fairly niche area of research (like forensics, eating disorders, or sex research), you're going to have a much harder time since there's less spots for the amount of applicants than say someone doing general anxiety or depression research. 

Clinical is definitely the hardest of the specialities to get into (in my opinion, it's harder to get into a clinical program than med or law school). Social psych and I/O are also hard specialities to get into, but most experimental programs are easier to be accepted into (at least from my Canadian perspective). 
It took me 4 application cycles to be accepted into a clinical PhD program (niche research field). I just kept working on my application every year, making sure I was seeking out extra opportunities to improve my application, and it paid off! 

I definitely agree with the fact that a good amount of application success being due to luck (after you consider all the other important factors that have already been mentioned in this thread). You could look really good one year because the rest of your application cohort isn't as shining, but in a different year be utterly unremarkable the next year. A lot of success also depends on department politics in a given year. Some POIs will be prioritized in being able to accept students in different years (especially in clinical). If you're in a fairly niche area of research (like forensics, eating disorders, or sex research), you're going to have a much harder time since there's less spots for the amount of applicants than say someone doing general anxiety or depression research. 

Clinical is definitely the hardest of the specialities to get into (in my opinion, it's harder to get into a clinical program than med or law school). Social psych and I/O are also hard specialities to get into, but most experimental programs are easier to be accepted into (at least from my Canadian perspective). 
It took me 4 application cycles to be accepted into a clinical PhD program (niche research field). I just kept working on my application every year, making sure I was seeking out extra opportunities to improve my application, and it paid off! 

I definitely agree with the fact that a good amount of application success being due to luck (after you consider all the other important factors that have already been mentioned in this thread). You could look really good one year because the rest of your application cohort isn't as shining, but in a different year be utterly unremarkable the next year. A lot of success also depends on department politics in a given year. Some POIs will be prioritized in being able to accept students in different years (especially in clinical). If you're in a fairly niche area of research (like forensics, eating disorders, or sex research), you're going to have a much harder time since there's less spots for the amount of applicants than say someone doing general anxiety or depression research. 

Clinical is definitely the hardest of the specialities to get into (in my opinion, it's harder to get into a clinical program than med or law school). Social psych and I/O are also hard specialities to get into, but most experimental programs are easier to be accepted into (at least from my Canadian perspective). 
It took me 4 application cycles to be accepted into a clinical PhD program (niche research field). I just kept working on my application every year, making sure I was seeking out extra opportunities to improve my application, and it paid off! 

There are many ways to improve your "chances" of getting in. However, and I think this is where clinical psych is quite different from most other PhD programs, you can be an amazing applicant and still not get in. It's a bit of a crapshoot sometimes and luck is definitely a factor. Someone can apply with the same credentials to the same program 1 year, not get in, apply the next year and get in. There are issues related to funding, whether the PI is taking students, whether the PI is colleagues with a certain applicant's LOR writers etc. 
Anecdotally, I think on average people get in within 2 application attempts. Now I have seen people who look like amazing applicants on paper who've applied upwards of 2 times and not gotten in. I can't make a judgment there because I don't know where they applied or how they applied (e.g. personal statement/LORs quality, good fit with program). 
I do get a little skeptical when I hear of people applying more than 3 times and not getting in. At that point, I'd really wonder if there are certain aspects of the application that have some kind of weakness not being addressed. 
I completely feel the same way as you do. We've been taught our entire lives that if you work hard enough, you can succeed eventually. I think that is certainly still true for clinical psych, but it is so competitive due to the sheer # of applicants (I believe psych is one of the most popular majors in the country if not the most popular) and limited number of funded spots. There are many programs that are not fully-funded that are still great programs, but I imagine that's not a realistic option for a lot of people. It is all a bit cynical. All I can say is try not to think about that. Focus entirely on how to maximize your application. Have a specific contingency plan if you don't get in. Always have a back-up plan. I've known so many people who did not get in the first time, shored up their application, and got accepted the 2nd time. If you are absolutely sure this is your career goal/dream, then don't give up. 

SFU always takes a while to get back to students after interviews. After looking back on my past emails, it's likely you'll hear back this week. 

SFU always takes a while to get back to students after interviews. After looking back on my past emails, it's likely you'll hear back this week. 

In previous years, it's usually the 2nd or 3rd week of April, but I think the schools may hear back before. The year I won, I applied as a direct applicant and didn't hear anything until I got my letter (around April 25; letter was dated April 20th). 

Just received email from POI that I’ve been recommended for admission and I’ll be receiving an official offer in the mail shortly
this group seriously kept me sane through my insane anxiety. Thank you all ? 

UNB will admit you into the PhD program (it's a combined program anyways so it doesn't make that much difference), but will require you to retake the core skills classes (psychopathology, assessment, therapy) if you came from a program that wasn't accredited. There's a few programs that will accept you directly into the PhD with the provision that you'l take any relevant classes from their Master's program that you may have missed (I know SFU does this). 

It's worth a shot, but if I'm being honest, the whole application process is very random. Departmental politics do play a sizeable role as to who is accepted and who isn't. You could be the most qualified candidate in your application pool, but in some departments, if the powers to be determine that your POI isn't a priority to take students that year, you're not getting in. It's sucky. I have a friend who's POI at one school wanted to accept her to the clinical program, but the POI wasn't a priority to take clinical students that year, and the department wouldn't accept her to the clinical program (she ended up in the experimental program). 
If you want to improve your applications, it's worth a lot re-examining your statements of purpose, making sure they're clear and are an accurate representation of your experience, how that plays into the research you want to do in grad school, and how that all ties into the POI. Get someone to look over it for clarity and readability. Research experience also helps; try to get as much as possible. 

It's worth a shot, but if I'm being honest, the whole application process is very random. Departmental politics do play a sizeable role as to who is accepted and who isn't. You could be the most qualified candidate in your application pool, but in some departments, if the powers to be determine that your POI isn't a priority to take students that year, you're not getting in. It's sucky. I have a friend who's POI at one school wanted to accept her to the clinical program, but the POI wasn't a priority to take clinical students that year, and the department wouldn't accept her to the clinical program (she ended up in the experimental program). 
If you want to improve your applications, it's worth a lot re-examining your statements of purpose, making sure they're clear and are an accurate representation of your experience, how that plays into the research you want to do in grad school, and how that all ties into the POI. Get someone to look over it for clarity and readability. Research experience also helps; try to get as much as possible. 

I published a few papers (first and second author) and worked in a research/stats heavy job for a while that exposed me to some clinical work. I also did some networking, although ymmv depending on research speciality. 

I got accepted to my current program after 2 previous application attempts (one with an interview, one without). 
To be honest, grades and GRE scores will only get you so far. Assume everyone applying has a great GPA/GRE profile. You need to make sure you're excelling in your CV and SOP as well because that's where applicants will usually stand out. 

For manuscript advancement, the only advancement that matters is in-revision to accepted. in-prep to submitted is nice, but it's no guarantee that it will become a paper. Accepted to published is usually just a formality. However, while I would certainly advise students to let the admissions committee know about this change if decisions have not yet been made, if you already received a decision (either a rejection or a waitlist) then I do not think this is not enough to make a difference.
The significance of an abstracted accepted for a presentation at a big conference depends on how conference abstracts are valued in your field. In my field, they don't have much value, so this is not worth notifying the admissions committee even prior to decisions. But I know that in some fields, conference presentations instead of publications are the valuable thing, so then the above advice applies.
Maybe. I have two thoughts about this. 1) It is not in the student's best interest to simply be a workhorse to boost the PI's reputation. Grad school is about training to become an independent scholar, not another "worker bee" in the PI's research hive. 2) I know many profs are reluctant to take on volunteers because of ethical reasons but also that many profs think of students as trainees that are a time demand rather than a time-saver due to the training and mentorship they would provide. Sometimes the limit is not that they don't have money to fund a student but they don't have time to mentor another student.
---
Ultimately, I think if you already received a negative decision from a particular school, the mature thing to do is to accept it and move on to another opportunity. Dealing with rejection sucks but it's a part of being in academia. It's especially sucky because most people only focus on their successes (see also: the "CV of failures"). But many very successful people now have dealt with rejection in the past (and probably even in the present). You may wish to apply to this school again in a future cycle (or for a future position) so demonstrating maturity and the ability to accept rejection is a good idea; trying to find a way to get in despite their decision will look desperate and reflect poorly on you.
Also, if a school does let someone have another shot because they pestered the profs enough, that wouldn't really be fair. As such, I doubt very many schools would be interested in reconsidering applications once they have made their decisions, barring extraordinary circumstances.

I went through 4 application cycles before being accepted. I took the GRE and psych GRE twice (my scores expired right before my last application cycle since I wrote the exam really early in undergrad and then didn't apply until after I graduated due to health reasons). 

And so begins the too-long wait until April...

Also not my field, but I'm got some experience with very selective admission committees and wanted to add an important point to all the great ones mentioned above:
Don't take it personally
Seriously. You would not believe how, at a certain point, this process is largely arbitrary. Because, really, it's not like the departments are looking carefully at each application and saying "this person meets our standards, this person doesn't" and all the former get in. No. They do that, then look at the still large pile of people who meet their standards and they'd like to accept, and then somehow figure a way to whittle it down to the number of slots they actually have available.
It bothers me when I see people on results page say "oh, I knew my GPA [or GRE] wasn't good enough" or "I bet it was because I didn't have any publications." If your GRE/GPA is way below the average for your program, that might be the case. But for people at or above the average, it is literally impossible to guess why you weren't accepted and someone else was. (It's not impossible to know, you could ask them and they might tell you. But it's impossible to guess.) Once you meet a certain standard on the basics and you're on the shortlist, you can bet that what gets you accepted or rejected after that point is entirely out of your control. Departmental politics, a particular faculty member's ability to take on another student, the profiles of the students accepted last year, the profiles of the other students who will probably be accepted this year, unconscious biases (or affinities), funding issues ... Or a billion other things that could affect the decision — all of which are out of your hands, and none of which are even really about you.
So if you get rejected, even if you get rejected by all of them, don't take it personally. Take a good look and if you have obvious deficiencies make a plan to correct them, but if you don't, don't drive yourself crazy trying to find what small flaw caused them to reject you. Because, a lot of times, it's not you; it's them.