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.

Them: "So which one is your safety school?"
Me: "None of them are safety schools. They are all top programs and anyway, there's no such thing as a "safety" when you're applying to PhD programs in this field."

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! :-)

Thanks I've got an interview next week sometime to discuss logistics of an internship in my industry overseas. If that works out (and even if it doesn't), I may get a full-time position with them next year. So I'm really not bummed if this season doesn't work out for me. I'm actually kind of more excited about living the expat life again and getting more on-the-ground experience. And I've always wanted to live in the country to which I may be moving

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

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.

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.

Got accepted into BU Archaeology (PHD) this morning :D
 
Woo hooooo!

I find it highly ironic that you call me "stuck up" after reading this comment. Rather than debase my character and follow your self-absorbed, condescending, and generally myopic mentality, I will simply say this: you're entitled to your own opinion. In this particular subject, I am in fact an autodidact, and I'm willing to admit that, but I find your elitist generalizations quite ignorant. I'm assuming English is your second language, but given your self-proclaimed achievements, i'm still appalled by your lack of rhetoric.
 
http://www.yale.edu/anthro/anthropology/All_faculty.html
 
After clicking a few faces, note a general trend here, pal?
 
http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/people/faculty/
 
Oh, that trend is still apparent.....
 
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/anthropology/people/faculty
 
Not failing......
 
Prestige includes  as you stated so prosaically, "non elitest schools". Being that you are such the highly successful and erudite individual, you should pay more attention to details. I use the term prestige to refer to schools that are considered prestigious, including but not limited to the obvious: Chicago, Berkeley, Yale, Harvard, Boston University, Michigan, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, etc. (the list goes on). I never said that Ivy league schools are the only way to get a damn job. I said that, unfortunately, pedigree and prestige matter and that will never change. Therefore, the name of your institution does matter. Additionally, I even noted that your comments about publishing, work-ethic, research, are ALSO important, but only one side of the coin, but the more important side. If you peeked out from behind that self-ascribed ego for more than a second you might notice that. Frankly, I don't really care about your opinion. I would, however, suggest you refrain from being such a condescending and hypocritical elitist while simultaneously hiding behind a veil of anonymity, Mr. E-Tough Genius Guy.  

I knew all about the family tree since it is extremely important in the field and my advisor believes we should know where we come from.

Dig deep- what are your qualifications for making such claims? Your just a 2014 phd app cycle candidate right? At least thats what yor profile says. I was that four years ago. I have since gotten fellowships, grants, taught countless classes, not ta but create my own classes, countless times. I have presented and been publish numerous times. Made countless connections and i have my very own resarch site and my own collection. nothing like doing my own research, getting my own money for it, getting a country permission plus all the pemissions needed. Just curious so I googled Harvard just know and only one person out of the ten I looked at went to Ivy League. I did a random sampling. Many didn't even go to an US school. And one went to UCLA great school but not an ivy so I guess that doesn't happen right? And then there was UC santa barbara totally not equal to an ivy league. My god people on here can be so stuck up. The NAME of your university means nothing. What you did and who you know are the most important thing. Most of the bes advisers are at non elitest schools. Mind you I. Physical and if you google the top physical profs they are at non-elitest schools according to this website. But guess what, they are the best to mode you into a physical anthropologist.

Sorry, you're just wrong. Although your experience may have been different, it in no way represents a the norm. It's always a determining factor. For example, most ivy league schools and private schools that hold prestige do have what's called a "Peer Plus Policy". It's usually enforced by the president of the university and it basically states that no faculty will be hired unless their school's name is equal to or better than theirs. There are exceptions to the rule, of course - and more than likely you could have been one. You can say it's a "myth" if you want, but as others have said - a quick glance at ivy league faculty, and where their faculty got their PhD reveals the evidence for this policy. I know it exists - I've talked to profs about it, but it's out of their hands. 
 
Definitions: 
Pedigree - Refers to whom you got your PhD under and the lineage therein. 
Prestige - Refers to schools reputation. 
 
 
What people are saying, but not quite realizing it is this: There are two hands in the hiring process - Administration and Academic. The administration side of the picture cares about where you got your PhD (i.e., prestige) - whether you like it or not. They LOVE to put that they hire some new post-doc from Brown on their front page. They have NO clue about the research the candidate has done or anything like that - nor do they really care. They care about money and looks. Faculty are more concerned with pedigree and anthropologygeeks comments - which are important and necessary for any job, regardless of where you come from. My point is that prestige always helps, but it's only one side of the coin. 
 
Where you go matters and how well you do matters. That's why it's competitive. It's not just about one or the other. It's true that if you do not go to a so called "top-tier" school you will have a harder time getting job at some schools. Prestige determines the size of your net when casting for jobs. If you went to Harvard, guess what? You have a huge net. But, that doesn't mean you WILL get the job at an equal school, but it does mean you can always move down. That's kind of what Forsaken is talking about, although it's tough to move up after PhD, it's always easy to move down - which is why prestigious school give you more access to jobs (i.e., a larger net). Additionally, pedigree and prestige play a huge role in acquiring Post-Docs; this is usually tied to networking and the whole "back-door" process that goes on. However, this only opens the door - as with getting jobs and post-doc positions, if you can't show up with a stellar CV you just won't compete (for prestigious positions). 
 
So, should you go into debt just to go to a prestigious institution?
 
What it comes down to is your personal goals: Do you want to be a so-called "last-name"? A big-wig in your field? Would you be happy with a PhD and a simple teaching job at a no name state school (I mean like Western [state] University or something..very no name)? The former question demands excellence in all regards; the latter not so much. If you're willing to take a job anywhere because you have a family and that's more important than the publish or perish grind, then you will be fine.  
 
 
TL;DR:  Prestige and Pedigree matter. Especially if your personal goals are to push the frontiers of academia.
 
 
Also, an interesting blog post on the topic - the comments are pretty insightful, and include comments from individual who have served on hiring committees:
http://academic-jungle.blogspot.com/2013/01/pedigree-matters.html 

Got my first acceptance today!
UMass Amherst, my POI confirmed the acceptance this morning and said I should be getting formal offer/funding info soon.

Well, that's nice, but this is the Anthropology section. Grats, though! [insert random engineering meme]

Why are we getting so paranoid (myself included) about adcoms/faculty looking at grad cafe? Oh, right, because this entire process has pushed us to the brink of insanity. I actually caught myself wondering if some of the people PMing me were faculty asking me how I felt about their program. It's getting out of hand. We're going to turn on each other soon!

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!

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.

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.

A quiet day of waiting, so far. The results survey is so quiet today!!

I'm just going to try to assume I won't hear from my other 4 schools until March. Then if I do, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Yay! Congratulations Khannnnn and Forsaken! Getting some love from graduate schools on Valentine's day, woot!

I got accepted to University of Washington's MA for comparative religions.  First acceptance of the season.  I know it's not anthro, but I figured I'd post anyways.  Waiting on funding information, they had a few TA positions available. 

I GOT INTO CORNELL (funded!)!

Sarab, I have to say you are the most thoughtful of posters... Some fellow applicants and I have been rooting for you for months! Congratulations! You deserve so much happiness in grad school~!

Hopefully by march I'll have heard SOMETHING!! Just one acceptance and I'll stop obsessing... Probably.