anthroflea

I'd like to add a few words about "fit" because I think different people use it to describe different things. Based on my acceptances and rejections, I finally have a relatively good grasp on what it means to be a "good fit" for a department. Firstly, the obvious: You should be interested in the same type of research in which your POI is interested. If your POI does zooaechaeology in China and you are interested in a specific Chinese fossil animal from the same time frame your POI studies, it would be a great fit. (You don't always manage to align that neatly with a POI, of course. I just wanted to give a good example ) I think there might be ways to improve your fit by saying "I studies these older fossils in Japan and would like to use that knowledge to compare them to the ones recently discovered in China". However, "I do zooarchaeology and you do zooarchaeology" might not be enough depending on the size of the applicant pool. And then there is the problem of past experiences, which I think is the part that is more often overlooked. Some places I applied to were attractive to me because I have always wanted to do the type of research that is done there. I even had a few term papers to back up my interest and was able to stretch some of my past experiences to "fit" the type of research I was applying to do. I also applied to places where I would continue researching along the lines of my MA research and where I have things such as conference presentations and field experiences to back up my interest. Not surprisingly, I had much greater success at the latter type of school. In fact, a POI once told me that my SOP is not worth much if I cannot back-up my research interestes with real-life experience. So, I think there are two sides to fit. The one side is what you have done and the other is what you want to do. Ideally both of those things should align with your POIs interests. So, for everybody who has to put in a second or third round of applications, field schools and conference presentations in the area of your dream POI's research focus might be the way to get in next time. Fit is, of course, only one of many factors, as everybody above mentioned.

Yes, DigDeep, unfortunately there is much truth in what you are saying. Brings me back to the nights of reading Bourdieu in my social anthro classes:)

No reason to apologize for writing things which are true;)

All I was trying to say in my very first post is that people are wondering whether there are some schools which are easier to get into than others. I personally completely agree with you, archaeostudent, in that there really is no such thing as a "safety school". I have come across some schools which take as much as 25% of applicants, but the majority of accepances are acceptances without funding. (Which is the same thing as a rejection for most people.) I think, however, that maybe we could redefine the term. I would think a "safety school" (not a guaranteed acceptance, just a better chance) would be a school that is a perfect fit and has a comparably high acceptance rate. So it is the opposite of a school one merely applies to because of their name and which is not a perfect fit. I am not trying to advocate going to a less selective program. I just started this thread because there are sooooo many people who come on this forum asking the exact same questions year after year. So I am really glad we got a good discussion going:) After talking to many people and watching a hiring process at my former department, I very much believe that there are different ways to make your Cv shine. Obviously, having a degree from a highly selective school will definitely help. Firstly, it is clear that you were a strong competitor at the time of your grad school application already. Then, as many others have said, networking is an important factor as well. Also, there is and always will be this subconscious connection of ivy/top-tier gratuate = smart. However, it is also very important to find your research niche and to attend the right program for your. If your focus is zooarchaeology in a specific region of the world and there is a lesser known school with a perfect lab just for that, this might be the better school. I can already hear the objections, but the reason I am saying this is because publications and grant money play a huge role in the departmental hiring process. Your odds of having all that, in turn, increases if you are in a good environment to work on those things. In fact, in the hiring process which I was able to witness, past grants of the applicant played a huge role. Sadly, it seemed to overshadow a lot of other factors. Obviously, the combinatino of a degree from a top-tier school which was a great research fit, lots of grants and publications is ideal on this lousy job market. And when there is a ton of competition over just one faculty position, having the "ideal" CV will really increase your odds. However, there is more than obe way to build that ideal CV, especially if you are a good networker. To add some diplomatic words, "big names" is a very relative term in anthropology. Once you find your own research niche, you will learn about and idolize very different people from your heroes in undergrad. There certainly are people who have done some ground-breaking research who did not come from some of the absolute top schools. Similarly, you could study under a very big name at a state school. For instance, Dr. Erik Trinkaus has taught at the University of New Mexico for a long time and some of his students went on to do amazing research and work for amazing schools. To give another example, people who are big into dental microwear and want to make it in that field, tend to apply at the University of Arkansas. I also think that the reason why people from more prestigious schools often have better chances is not only the name of their school. I think much of it is also the institution's ability to attract awesome researchers with an extensive network of other researcher friends. If you look through the CVs of some older, well-known anthropologists, you will notice that many of them started out at non-ivy/non-top-tier schools. If you do some additional research you will notice that some of their advisees who studied under them at their old universities, have also made it big in the field. So I do think that while big name people with big grants and extensive networks tend to "gather" at the most prestigious universities, these are not the only places you will find them. However, there are big name people with well-known labs who teach at non-top-tier schools. Often, it is just as hard to get into those programs to study with that specific professor as it is to get into a "big name school". What I am trying to say is that all this is VERY relative and very much depends on your research focus. DigDeep has some very good points but I am just trying to say that things aren't as black and white. We also need to remember that it is actually not that easy to set up a PhD program. I am not sure whether the requirements are the same at each university, but I know that usually there has to be at least one full professor at the department, for example. So when we talk about the PhD, we are talking about rankings and prestige differences of departments which are all good schools to begin with. I think this is why there are so many disagreements over whether a specific university is a good school or not. Also, this is why there are no true "safety schools".

Don't quote me on any of this, just trying to piece together the different things I heard;)

I wouldn't worry about it yet. I don't think all decisions have been made yet. Instead, I think what happened is that the department decided on which subfield would get how many funded students. In some subfields it might have been immediatly clear which professors are getting students and which ones are not and there might be informal admissions decisions based on that. So the official decisions making process might be far from over. Also, and I am purely deducing it from different things I heard, I think there are more spots in archaeology then the other subfields. So please don't drive yourselfs crazy;) I won't lie, I am devastated about the rejection, but I am pulling for the rest of you;)

I have emailed them. Also a rejection:(

Speaking of academic pedigrees, networking and advisor family trees, most people in physical anthropology will know this, but this is a fun "academic family tree" to play with: http://www.physanthphylogeny.org/tree/

Has anybody heard from U of Oregon yet?

Yes. International students don't qualify for it or any kind of U.S. loans, usually. The problem which most international students face is that they cannot get a student loan from their country to study abroad, but also don't qualify for any kind of student loans and/or aid in the United States. So they completely depend on university funding. (You also cannot work off campus on a student visa). This makes complete sense since every country wants to spend its money on its own students and most international students in most countries face this obstacle in some way or another. It becomes a problem at the graduate school level, however, once people start looking for programs with a very specific research focus and start applying all over the world.

Or shovelbums.org. The job and internship ads are listed in an external yahoo group at the moment but you will find the link on their website.

I don't know much about Canada, but an MA is a prerequisite for the PhD in many countries and you end up doing very little course work in the PhD. I also know that people tend to get through the PhD faster in some European programs because they are admitted to work on a very specific research topic. There are some pros and some cons to that, but that would be a discussion for another thread:) I don't know whether any of this is true for Canada though.

Undergraduate admission rates are veeery different from PhD admission rates. As everybody already pointed out, you apply to work with a specific person when you apply for the PhD. If that person is well known in the field, acceptance rates will be very competitive no matter the university.

I didn't pay any attention to ranking at all, actually, but applied to programs with POIs I really want to work with and which are a good research fit.

I think there should be a rule that people who post early results on the result board need to add the subfield so everybody else don't lose their minds.

Hi Daisy, I think most people here agree that it is the research focus/prestige of the advisor and not so much of the school which is important. There are some people who are very influential in the field who work at lesser known universities. Things such as grant money, publications, teaching experience and networking all play a huge role when you apply for a teaching/research position and they don't actually have that much to do with the university you went to.

No. It's a bit strange that somebody heard so early and all of us are still waiting. Makes me think that decisions have been made in one subfield but not the others. This wait is killing me...

I know. I was already bad about obsessing over my inbox before the post on the results board. Now I will not be able to move away from the computer.

I really want to know as well! Please? Somebody? Before I die of a heart attack. In any case, congratulations to whoever got in!

Anybody else feel like this might be the week?

Congratulations! Did you get an Email from your POI at Albany or was it an official email?

But at least I know I'm not the only one who is obsessing over it:)

"Results Search" http://thegradcafe.com/survey/index.php?q=anthropology&t=a&o=&pp=25

I'm just looking for ways to keep my sanity:)

Yes, yes, yes! I'm just going to ignore all evidence to the contrary and believe that screencheck has to be right about the quick turnaround lol.