Washoe

Oh, you'd be surprised, fuzzylogician. As someone said, it is region specific, really. In my part of Europe, we are rarely on the first name basis, and titles and authority are kind of important. During grad and MA in linguistics I never called my supervisor by her first name, even though we are on pretty good terms, collaborated together and were also in the habbit of going for a cup of coffee and chit chat. When we e-mail, we usually address our profs with "Respected prof/dr So-and-so", and if you are close to them and know them a bit you can use "Dear prof. Last Name". My profs also called me (i'm doing some literal translating now) "colleague Last Name". When we went a bit international, having profs from States and some other parts of Europe over, first name basis approach was adopted, but in everyday ommunication we used a title, usually just prof. and a last name. Although some old school types really liked all their titles recited. My anthro supervisor studied in the states so he was cool with the being on a first names basis, but I still find this lack of formality weird when I contact american POIs, like I am being disrespectful or overly casual. It is a cultural (but also a linguistic ) thing.

I do have some, but not tons of research experience, so I am afraid I am a bit behind of my potential competition. Should I: a) address this shortly, in one sentence, and try to turn it in my favor? Something on the lines of- My country/university didn't offer much research opportunities or funding, but i seized every opportunity available and volunteered whenever I could, making the best out of it and learning a lot b ) avoid this issue entirely so I don't sound apologetic, and try to highlight the research I did do

I am no expert, but I do have some input. 1) S**t happens. So does scooping, and there is really little you can do about it. If you are close to finishing your paper, don't procrastinate, go and get it published, but also don't rush things and jeopardize the quality of your paper. There is alwas a possibility that someone got the same idea you did, and it sucks when they publish it before you, but you will most certainly have some different points or information and it is better to be a bit late than to publish a peper which is not the best quality. I defended my masters thesis last December, it was submitted for publication shortly after, but will be published only in a month or so. A few months ago, a team from Max Planck Institute published a paper whit the very same topic and a very similar approach. My feelings at that time were very much on the are-you-f-kidding-me side of the emotion meter, but my paper did cover some points theirs didn't so it is not that bad. (I was also a bit proud of my selfbecause the whole team of senior scientists basically did the same thing I did, but that is just the kid in me screaming "See, I can do science!". The scientist in me was disappointed ) 2) No one likes to hear critique or criticism, but try to take it as a good thing- that is how science evolves and how you and your work get better. If you have the opportunity, address those critiques. From what I understand, you are using a new approach and testing it on old data which is fine, and should not raise much criticism but if someone does call you out, you can always explain briefly why you used the old data set and that you plan on will applying the methodology to new data in the future. Explain further if you were too brief, defend if something is misunderstood. If a critic does have a valid point, well good, That is how you notice gaps and make it better next time. Most of the time, criticism in science is a good thing, even if it hurts our egos. You can never cover all the points and all the angles, especially if there is some interdisciplinarity involved, which is often the case in anthro. Looking at papers from the same authors chronologically, you can really see how they change and adjust their methodology, views and claims...and I am talking about well established renowned anthropologists who have been in this game for decades. As for theory wars, don't lose much sleep on them. As for finding holes, well you can go through your arguments and sort of challenge yourself, imagine all the other possibilities, possible criticism and then try to incorporate your answers in your papers. My thesis was heavily interdisciplinary so I shared it with some of my close colleagues who were farmiliar with the subject to examine it, and give their contra-arguments, as well as some friends from related disciplines. I am not, however, comfortable suggesting this because I do not know your colleagues and cohort. it did help me a lot, but we were all focusing on different things in my masters cohort, there was little competition between us and we were and still are very close friends personally, so there was no fear of someone copying my work or something like that. Goog luck with your paper!

Thanks, fuzzy logician, will definitely go with your advice. When you put it like that, it does seem that my lab supervisor might be a better option- the more estalished professor did sit on my thesis committee and we did interact a lot, but when it comes to what he really knows about me, I guess he could only really talk about some general traits of me as an MA student. As for the papers, they are two separate ones, with very different topics and methodologies so I guess including my other supervisor would not be a bad idea. Thanks, again

I am applying to anthro grad programs, so my first LOR writer will be my MA supervisor in anthro, I took a lot of classes with him, both in undergrad and as a master student, did an excavation with him, we published a paper together, he supervised my education. it is an obvious choice because he can atest to my abilities on several levels. Now, I have three more people who could give me really good references: 1) My other MA supervisor (I was a double major): It is pretty much the same as my other supervisor, did my thesis under her, took several classes, published a paper together, so, basically, she knows me well and would write a good letter, However she is not directly related to bio anthropology, but is a linguist. I can connect the work I did with her with some programs I am applying too but for some of them it will be irrelevant. On one hand, I am not sure if her letter will be that important for some of the programs because she is not in that field of study- on the other hand, leaving out a second supervisor might seem a bit fishy? 2) My lab supervisor: she is a Phd, i volunteered in her forensic anthro lab, she was a wonderful tutor, taught me everything I know about that, can say a lot about the work I did there, but she is younger and not that well known. 3) An older professor, more established in the field, but does not know me that well: I took a few classes with him (not the mega-classes, more small classes up to 10 people and seminar where there was only 4 students- so I am definitely not just a face in the crowd. I also did a (really) small independent research project for his seminars, which isn't published. He is also willing to give me a good reference. So, my question is, which 2 to choose: other supervisor (not in anthro), lab supervisor (knows me better) or prof (has better rep)?

I'll definitely mention it then. Thanks for the input! I just had this image of my self singing "Rub-a-dub-dub" about animals in a tub and it just didn't scream "academia" to me, but I guess it is a teaching experience nevertheless.

Welcome circus! I can really relate to ver broad interests. My main interest is very disciplinary and although it is a really specific area, it is basically a cross between physical anthropology, cognitive sciences, archaeology and evolutionary biology. Finding the right fit is difficult, and I imagine writing my SOP will be doubly so I'm really glad I found grad cafe, though, it definitely helps, seeing that others are fretting over the applications as much as I am and hearing from grads who have been through the whole process (and lived to tell the tale)

I am applying to physical anthropology program, so I assume my experience as a journalist and editor is irrelevant. However, since I do not actually have any teaching experience (it is very uncommon for master students to TA), I thought it might not hurt to mention that i was a foreign language instructor, meaning that I have *some* classroom experience. Then again, I mostly taught children and teens, so I'm not sure about that either.

Well, the title is pretty self explanatory. Did you put any of your previous work experience that wasn't research and TA-ing in your CV? I'm not sure if mentioning it would help my case, or just look silly and unneccessary, since it is not directly connected to what I want to study. Also,passive knowledge of Latin, as in, I can read a text in Latin and understand it quite well. Should I mention that under languages or is that pretty much expected and, again, unneccessary?

What I meant was that I will be applying to several Phd programs and at least one (well, probably just one) MA as backup,I have no idea why I worded that the way I did. Boy, I hope I express my self better in my SOP

Thanks Usmivka and Julliet Mercredi! I think I will take your advice and apply to at least one MA and I will try to squeeze in at least a student conference presentation. As for this, I am the first author on the theses as such, but they have been (slightly) restructured and then published. Publishing with your students is mandatory here for professors on tenure track. This practice was meant to encourage professors to do more research projects (which are pretty rare) with theiir students, but in practice, it just means that someone stamps their name on your work for supervising it, which is ok unless you end up a second author due to "seniority". That kind of sucks if you are applying to another scientific system, which doesn't do things quite the same way. I'm a bit worried that being a second author on the work based on my own theses will look strange on my CV

So, I had it all worked out, which schools I am applying to, who is going to write my LORs...and now, lookig at all these people applying i feel really bad about my chances. I have a good GPA (around 3.8/4 overall, 3.9/4 anthro) but my research experience is lacking. This is what I've got: 1) I volunteered in a bioarch lab for two years when I did my MA, but it was only every other day, so that amounts to maybe a year, and i don't have any papers or conferences out of it, but would get a good LOR from the person who runs the lab. 2) I participated in one field school (excavation), which should count for something for part of the programs I am applying to, but I'm not sure if it holds any significance for programs which focus on primate research in the wild (except that it shows I don't mind spending my days covered in grime in a muddy forest, heh) 3) Research I did for my theses, maybe? One is original research, but its in (psycho)linguistics, not anthro (I am a double major). I developed my own methodology and tests, studied something no one else has, but it is a really small scale research. The other thesis was an interdisciolinary approach to a problem I would like to study in the future and I think it is a good one, but it is theoretical, so not really sure if that will help. Both theses have later been published, albeit with me as a second author (my supervisors are stated 1st authors). And thats about everything that I have published. So the question is: Should I try for another MA or MSc, and get more research experience, maybe even some teaching experience before I apply for a Phd? I really do not feel like I lack knowledge and/or skills, I think I used the (scarce) possibilities at my uni the best I could and gained a lot from it, but when put on paper, it just doesn't seem very impressive. Also, I have been absent for academia for half a year now, keeping in touch with my potential LOR writers, but working in a completely unrelated (non-scientific) field.

That's great to hear! I'm starting sending e-mails next week, so we'll see what the POIs say, I just didn't want to bother them if if switching fields was completely out of the question. Thank you for your reply!

Hello everyone, I am also preparing myself for this application season. I did my undergrad and masters in anthropology. My research interests are primate evolution and primate cognition and communication. For now, I think I will be applying to University of Toronto, USC, North Illinois University, Max Planck School of Human Evolution and I am also thinking about applying to two psychology programs which do primate research. NYU program seems really great, but I think that might be a bit out of my reach. If you have any suggestions for schools, would appreciate them! Nice to meet you all and good luck with your applications

To make a long story short short, I did my undergrad and masters in anthropology, but there two Psychology programs and POIs I that really fit my reasearch interest, even though I always regarded it an anthropologic one. I know that this is a bit of a stretch, but the programs are not clinical ones, but more on the lines of brain-behaviur-cognitive studies. Both POIs do primate research and focus on communication, so the way I see it, I am not a total misfit. Am I completely in the wrong or is it possible for me to stress the positive aspects of my majors for this kind of research?ž Also, not many people in their departments work on projects like that, so is it unadvisable to apply to a department where you have only one POI? I apologize if my question is a bit daft, it's a cultural thing, I assume, because in my present higher education system, psychology departments are very strict and only psychology undergrads may apply, and the whole process of application is very different.