DigDeep(inactive)

Sarab you are just such a nice person! Truly! I wish more people were like you <3

Yeah it's the weeding process.

Congrats. Chicago! NICE

pm'd you

I'd say it was a fair assumption!

Yep - same here! I support this message.

That's easy, man. No. Do not re-take it. Your scores are fine in all aspects. What you should do is narrow what about religion and politics you like and find the professor that does it. Then, read as much as you can of his/her research, e-mail them and express interest. Spark a nice dialogue in e-mail and maybe even ask to give him/her a ring - I did that, and it went great (but make sure you have read his/her stuff). Build the qualitative aspect of your application. Visit the school, the POI, contact faculty. Your GRE will play little into the application process if you go out of your way to let them know you want to be there. Trust me. All I know is that UWashington has a nice comparative Religion and Politics program. But, you probably know that since you're in Seattle. Good Luck! And don't be scared to contact them! You must do this.

Exactly right. Combine that with a little Evolutionary Anth (i.e., group selection, cultural transmission, costly signaling) and I think it would make a succinct and convincing argument. Generally the perspective I take on most things, at least.

My argument was predicated on the fact that the University System is a prestige economy, complete with it's own social and cultural capital. Why would someone go into so much debt to go to a so called "prestigious" school. Similarly, why would the Maori hunt whales or foragers during the last Ice Age hunt Mammoths, for that matter. Why kill a mammoth or whale when you could simply "not" risk your life for easier prey? Similarly, why go to Cornell without funding and layer yourself in debt when you could go to a state school with funding, potentially. Just as the Maori hunters and early foragers are not hunting for caloric intake, neither are those who bury themselves in debt looking for education they could get elsewhere. They want the name and the prestige; they want the social and cultural capital; and they want the access that prestige offers. Prestige economies are embedded within our cultural systems. This means, for America, that our capitalistic system promotes prestige through a shallow and callous perspective that defines "success" by "how good you look" which converts into "how much money you make". Having Harvard next to your name makes you look good and implies that you are successful (i.e., have, had, and are going to make "money"). I'm not saying that you have to go to a prestigious school to succeed, or that if you do you will succeed. My reaction was based on the fact that someone said that "school name means nothing". Unfortunately, it does. I don't agree with it either, but the mere fact there are "peer plus policies" exemplify that fact.

Hooray! Thanks to everyone. Positive vibes your way - Good luck to you all! <3

Thanks, Forsaken! I really appreciate it.

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

I find this argument boring. You have your opinion. I have mine. Excuse me, my cat and I have crime to fight...

I apologize to all (excluding anthropologygeek, of course) for deviating from the discussion at hand. I simply don't like bullies.

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.

Holy hell, that's a lot of data. Impressive!

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

Dexter the Boston Terrier!!

Yeah. BU Has a two language clause. As in, two other languages than your native tongue must be completed before you finish PhD. I'm looking at it more of an opportunity than an obstacle, however.

Yes, the funding is pretty good. (30k/year) so, I'm considering just based on that.. Never had that much money..haha

What's wrong with Calgary? Just curious...

The offer is at a Canadian uni. Does that make a difference? I suppose I'm assuming it's the same as American universities; but this assumption is unjustified.

Possible? Recently, I had an offer to a PhD program that had a stipulation attached to accepting the funding package that stuck out to me: "must complete PhD in 4 years". Clearly, I understand degrees are hard work and you really have to take them seriously - especially at the PhD level. And frankly, I'm willing and capable to do so (currently completing masters). However, I read this sentence today and it really struck a chord: "Nationally, the average doctoral completion time in anthropology is eight years. At UC Santa Cruz, it averages seven years". I'm not planning on going to UC:SC or anything (I was just reading a faculty's profile there), but holy hell 7-8 years? Am I missing something? I plan on doing more research on the topic, but figured I would solicit some advice from my fellow bastions of knowledge. Also, it's not at the same institution and not associated with my Master's thesis - which I would figure is the only criterion that could make a 4 year PhD even remotely possible.

dawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!