jellyfish1

I know this is kind of an old thread, but I wanted to add some info in case anyone finds this and is in a similar spot. A professor of mine said that this sort of this is usually just about the number of applications, not the quality. Schools sometimes require getting a certain number of applicantions in order to allow a search to proceed. Sometimes searches can be called off because the pool is too small, suggesting the job ad was too narrow or unclear. The unfortunate thing is that usually when they extend a deadline right after the previous one, they likely haven't even looked over the applications yet. They might only have a count. So for anyone else in this situation, it probably isn't about your specific application, nor does it mean anything about your chances.

Daykid- I saw that on the results board and hoped it was you!! Congratulations!! A tough decision is a good place to be in!!

Congrats NOWAY!!! That's awesome! I hope you get in, but even if not, what a great boost of confidence that you made it onto their short-short list! :-)

I still have not heard from even half of my schools! Gah! I'm pretty sure I'm just waiting on rejection letters, but until I have them in hand....

Also, I just looked through their graduate student bios and almost half of their current students got in with only a bachelors. Many of the others had non-anthropology masters. It's so odd that your poi would have told you not to apply for that reason. Maybe that particular professor prefers to take students who have a master's in hand?

I know someone doing their phd at stanford who got in with just a bachelors. Archaeology subfield.

BU did rejections a week or more before acceptances too. I guess some schools just do that?

I know this is totally illogical, but sometimes I feel like I'll never hear. I know that actually I will eventually hear and this endless "waiting for godot" stage will end, but I keep forgetting that. I've still only heard from 1/5!!! And people keep saying they called and all acceptances have been sent out, so I'm pretty much preparing for across the board rejections, but my policy is that I'm not counting my rejections until I actually get the letters. So can they send them now?! Ok, rant over.

GREs are usually the least important part of the application. If you had a low GPA, GRE scores can help compensate, but you are a stellar candidate and your GRE scores are fine. I wouldn't worry about it. The most important criteria is fit, so as DigDeep said, try to show a clear connection between your chosen topic and the professors at the school, particularly the one you want to work with. Best of luck!

@digdeep- looks like your partner owes you something since you guessed you'd hear first thing today. What were the terms of the bet? haha

Anthroflea- I very much agree with what you are saying; you make some very good points. My apologies- I got the start of this thread a bit confused with the thread about choosing to go to a "lower tier" anthro program, and so my comments about "the start of this thread" were actually referring to those posts. My bad! In that thread (which is a little buried now), the question was posed that if you got rejected everywhere this year, did it make sense to apply to schools that would kind of take anyone. In my opinion, as those in this thread seem to have agreed, there really isn't a school that will actually take just anyone and that all programs have at least some competition- usually for admittance, always for funding. I may not get accepted anywhere this year (although I have only heard from 1/5 schools so far), and if I do, my plan is to try to work to improve my resume and application, rather than lowing my goals, although I realize everyone has different types of priorities. I absolutely agree with your analysis of the determination of a "good school." Ultimately, schools hiring for TT positions will be interested in your research and research interests and working with a respected scholar in that subfield is important. Ah, "fit," you ambiguous devil, you appear again! Top scholars are often considered that because they usually have innovative research, ideas, and approaches. You really can find them at nearly any school, and I think it's important (to me at least) to work with someone whose work resonates with my interests and who will push me to expand my thought horizons in innovative and marketable ways. Again, sorry for my mistake in discussing the wrong OP! Thank you for starting this conversation!

So according to the results board, we should hear soon! Yikes.

Sorry to hear that. Sending you good vibes for the final one!

Don't do it Daykid!!! Stay strong! Risking sounding annoying and getting pushed over the fine line between accept and reject is FAR too great of a chance to take! I'm still waiting on 4/5 and it's so hard. BUT they have to tell us EVENTUALLY, right!?! and e-mailing may not get them to tell us any faster. Solidarity!!

Congratulations all!!! Goodness, I hope this means this week will be positive!!

For the most part, I very much agree with DigDeep's assesment. I would add to this discussion, however, (as a point of clarification, not dissent), that the reputation of an institution in general or the undergraduate program does not necessarily correlate with the excellence of the anthropology department. Some "higher ranked" schools have mediocre anthro departments and some "lesser ranked" schools have more highly regarded programs. If you select where to apply based solely on presetige as a whole, in particular the Ivy League schools, you may be overlooking more highly regarded scholars in your field. For example, University of Arizona has an extremeley well regarded archaeology program and is considered by some to be one of the top departments in the county for particular types of research, even though it is not necessarily a top undergraduate school. However, as a historical archaeologist, I didn't even consider Harvard or Yale because they're not very strong in my area or in regards to the type of theory I choose to use. I agree with DigDeep that reputation is a HUGE factor in acquiring tenure track positions, but I think some on this forum have confused institutional or US News prestige wtih the prestige of the department. Top scholars in a field are well-connected and having them supporting you can be a huge advantage. A "big name" should refer to an individual or program, not a school in general, in my opinion. The other logical fallacy present in this chain (discussed early on), is the use of the term "safety school." These days, it is rare or non-existant to find a program that is an automatic acceptance, and if you have a poor or mediocre academic record, you will have a difficult time of getting in anywhere at all. The statistic of an 88% accept rate was mentioned somewhere in this thread, and that is clearly related to undergrads only. I don't know of any PhD programs that accept even 25% of applicants. At any given school there are very few spots and there is always competition. The fact of the matter is that not everyone who wants to get a PhD in anthropology will be able to get in, and especially not with funding. Also, many schools' websites list the successes of recent graduates and those that have entered tenure track jobs. Out of Chicago, Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia, Boston U, and Harvard, ZERO of them are able to send all their PhDs into tenure track jobs, so I find it impossible to believe that some other school has a monumentally better track record. Until definitively proven otherwise, I remain quite dubious.

Happy Monday!! This has GOT to be a big week. I've still heard nothing from 4/5 of my schools!!!

Archaeologyfieldwork.com is also a good resource

Sometimes academic/professional societies will have lists on their websites. As a historical archaeologist, I used the list on the Society of Historical Archaeology's website has in depth descriptions of grad schools that specialize in different types of historical archaeology (http://www.sha.org/students_teachers/higher_education.cfm), and I'd imagine other sites might have similar things. These can also be good places to look for fellowships/scholarships.

Congratulations, Coba!! So exciting! I hope this week brings loads of great news!

If a school is off do you think that means no news? Or does it mean profs will have extra time to send out emails/meet since there are no classes?

First HUGS! On to your question. While it is possible that a master's at Cornell could improve your chances in the PhD game, it is so competitive and there are no guarantees. Most PhDs do not get tenure track jobs either, so a PhD in general is a risky proposition. Consider this: You spend everything to do the Cornell master's and go deep into debt as well. Then you graduate and don't get into any PhD programs once again. Will it have been worth it? Are you willing to take that risk? If you are, then you should go for it. If it is worth it to you to spend all that money, knowing it will most likely get you nowhere, for the sake of learning and giving it your all, then go for it. But that's a decision you have to make for yourself. I wish there were a more positive outlook, but the funding situation is most likely only going to get worse in the future. PhD programs will continue to be an unbelievably competitive crapshoot, and applicants will, in the meantime, be more and more qualified, accruing more honors and publications. I second the other advice you've received about asking for stats. Have you considered waiting and applying to more master's programs next year? I've been looking at UChicago's MAPSS program, which is one year, boasts 90% of supported students getting into funded PhD programs (including some of the schools you've applied to this year), and often gives tuition scholarships of 1/3 to full scholarships. I'm still in the early stages of researching, and certainly they don't explain how many of their graduates they "support" for PhD programs, but it generally seems like a program geared toward grooming people for acceptance into PhD programs. They tell you exactly how to write your SOP and provide you with a recommendation letter that is supposedly very persuasive. I have not thoroughly looked into master's programs, but I'm sure there are others as well. If you are considering going for a master's to improve your chances, I would encourage you to look into all the master's options available and not just accept cornell's because it is the only offer you have right now. I hope this helps! And remember, you still have some schools to hear from! Don't lose all hope yet!

Forsaken-don't lose hope! Last year stanford admitted people on feb 7 AND feb 22! My page hasn't updated either. I noted that two more interviews were posted this week, one including 15 candidates? It certainly sounds like they're just in the middle of shortening their list and sorting things out. Hopefully we'll hear this week.

Thanks so much, daykid! I'll pass those on to her. :-)

You all are doing really interesting work! Sarab (and/or other linguistics people)- my girlfriend studied languages in college and is fluent in Russian, German, French, English, and Mandarin. She's looking for work right now, but eventually wants to go to grad school for something, but she's not sure what. I suggested linguistic anthropology because it seems to fit her interests. Do you have any articles/books you recommend for an intro to the subject or something? You can pm me if that's easier. Also, to add to the conversation, I'm a historical archaeologist working in the mid-Atlantic region. I want to study the trash deposits of civil war era brothels and look at the material culture of 19th century prostitution. I also use mapping and GIS to study historic neighborhoods etc. I'm particularly interested in gender theory/queer theory in archaeology.