smg

I'd try Paul Rabinow at UC Berkley.  He teaches in the Anthro Department and worked with Foucault. 

school of hard knocks

For what it's worth, I think it's easy to be too broad and difficult to be too specific. Be as specific as possible about your project topic and what you already know. The SOP is merely an exercise to show that you have thought through what a dissertation project entails, know some of the literature available, and can frame an interesting set of questions / path of inquiry. It's definitely not a contract of any sort, and your advisors will expect that you modify your research idea as you read/learn more and move through your grad program. So, be specific in your SOP to get into grad school, then be flexible once you get there!

Yeah, you should absolutely e-mail every professor you have an interest in working with. They may not reply, but you might be surprised by the feedback you get. Plus, as Bioarch_fan suggests, some professors may not be taking (or planning to take) graduate students in a given year--better to find that out now than later so you can plan accordingly or try to chip away at them.
 
Professors expect people to be proactive in graduate school, so you're not doing any harm by reaching out unless you pester someone with a bunch of e-mails (I would say no more than two unless you get a reply). The worst that can happen is you don't hear back, which doesn't necessarily mean anything other than that the POI is busy, forgetful, or bad at the internet.

Whether or not you have a chance depends on several things:
Finding a good research fit. It's great that you want to stay in a particular region but, that's going to severely limit your options. You'll need to go through the faculty at every graduate degree-granting institution in your target region to see if any of them even study the stuff you want to study. You're going to need at least one person who does something very close to your interests and, ideally, another person who is knowledgeable in your region of interest (it likely won't be someone who studies the exact same country but you need some familiar with the region).Corollary: If you're studying a less common country, will you be able to continue your language training in grad school? If you're going to need to, you might want to look at which schools have Title XI funding and/or FLAS centers where you could get money to support language study.  Also, when studying a less common country, library resources/holdings can become even more important. This is also something you need to look into.  Given all of this, it could turn out that Rutgers or another "top" school actually isn't a good fit for you. If it's not, it may very well be a waste of your time and money to apply. There are competitive candidates who get rejected for no other reason than poor research fit. Don't put yourself into that position. Can you write a senior thesis? That would give you more research experience plus a good writing sample to submit with your applications. If not, think about other ways you might gain experience. Are you currently using NVivo or another QDA software package? If not, try to gain experience with one of those. Have you had a chance to present at a conference? Do so if you can.  GRE scores. You'll need good verbal and writing scores to be competitive. Letters of recommendation. Who are you planning to get these from and how strong will they be? If your advisor isn't being helpful, then you probably don't want a letter from them. The quality and strength of your references matters! NSF GRFP. If you're applying to grad school, then you should at least think about applying for the NSF, as well as any other fellowships you might be eligible for (Ford Predoctoral Fellowship for example). Funding is important for grad school. You didn't say anything about wanting funding but that's probably something you should be looking at when you're considering potential programs to attend.  This is just to get you started. There's more obviously, but this will get the ball rolling for you. The question of MA vs PhD is one I didn't address because there aren't many terminal MA programs in cultural anthropology and even fewer that offer full funding to MA students. If that's not an issue, then by all means apply to both MA and PhD programs. But most cultural anthro programs allow you to earn the MA en route to the PhD.

IME, acknowledgments often contain vital information about a historian's due dilligence. If a given field has ten or twelve established experts and two or three deans, and a historian has gotten insight/support from a good number of these SMEs, I am more inclined to lean forward when going through that historian's work.
 
Conversely, there are historians like H.P. Willmott who are (increasingly) isolated from their peers. The isolation can lead to errors large and small as well as redundant arguments that don't advance the historiographical debates.
 
IRT reading footnotes/end notes, MOO, the key is to gain an understanding of the constellation of primary source materials that are most important at a particular time. If a book in question doesn't make use of these sources, it may be suspect *unless* it is focused on a neglected group of primary source materials. When it comes to secondary works, if an academic uses out of date materials and/or the notes are a "garland of ibids," then one might be served reading a different book. (Exceptions to this rule of thumb might be made if the author is an established titan in the field or she is exceptional when producing works of historical synthesis.)
 
Reading every note or not is a decision that should be made on a case by case basis. If a work seeks to push the cutting edge, I'm more inclined to read every note than if the work seeks to elaborate upon existing trajectories of inquiry.

Reading cover to cover is not sustainable in graduate school. You will drive yourself nuts, you will fall behind in your work, and, paradoxically, may not do as well in seminar as others.  Keep in mind that the objective is to establish a "dialog" among the book you're reading and others on the same topic. 
 
As a graduate student, you should/will be able to write a five to seven page essay on a book within four or five hours. This includes the time spent with the book, doing the background historiographical and biographical research on the topic and the person who wrote the book, doing the editing to get under the page limit, an appropriate amount of proof reading, and, if necessary, putting together an outline for a presentation on the work. This practice is not necessarily the best one, but...
 
IRT reading method, there are some older threads in this forum. For example.  also  (I recommend that one pays extra attention to New England Nat's posts on this and every other topic related to studying history. NEN is the bee's knees.)
 
FWIW, I do a lot of background research on the historian, maybe find earlier iterations of the work (e.g. journal articles). I will have in hand reviews on the book, as well as the topic, and by the author on other works. Then I will read the bibliography first, and then the introduction and the acknowledgements. Then I will start jumping around, generally reading very selectively (and backwards) while paying very close attention to the foot/end notes. If a book is related to an area of specialization, you will get to the point where you will figure out a work's central arguments by reading the footnotes.
 
When I was doing coursework, I (too often) fell into the graduate student's trap of criticizing a historian for not writing the book one thinks that she/he should have written rather than focusing on the work in its own terms. Professors would stand on my head for these lapses. I got better at not doing it, but there's still room for improvement.

I would suggest only go for the masters if your other credentials are not a solid as you want them to be, and you find a program that really matches your goals. Anthropology and psychology are cousin fields. If you decide to go another direction, there is enough cross over in the scientific style that going straight to PhD is reasonable.
 
It sounds as though you want the MA program to strengthen your credentials and demonstrate your specific career path. With not having research experience, you will want a program that will offer you that possibility. If the professors at your chosen MA program will not offer the option to do so (even as independent study goals), then it won't help you as much as you'd like to think.
 
Another possibility is to talk to professors about volunteering in their lab before another application year. Some will accept volunteers; some will not. You can also see if places besides academia offer research in death, dying and mourning. You may find summer research programs that do, or funded hospital studies. 

You calling my grandma "stereotypical" now? Damn.

This round of apps I used a writing sample from 2006 or 2007. I wrote it before dropping out of an MA program. I edited it a lot. It isn't related to my current research at all but it seems to have done the trick.  I got into two schools.  One with a full ride. I also used it for a fellowship app and once again things seemed to work out in my favor.  All this being said I'm glad I'll never have to read that paper ever again.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005
 
US schools only, unfortunately.

It's even more crazy to enter a PhD program when you don't want to do it.

Ah, I'm a dummy. Should've assumed you looked through there! My brain is now not-as-mushy so I'll add something below.
 
 
Agreed! I didn't do this and I think it really hampered my success. I also wrote a paper and submitted it that was (apparently embarrassingly) out of touch with a lot of recent and foundational work on the topic. So, being super up to date in your WS will really impress the adcomm.
 
I know this can be a controversial piece of advice but I firmly believe that contacting POI is very, very important, if done well. That is, don't just shotgun, mass-email a bunch of POIs hoping for the best, but do research about their work, the program, and try to have a good phone conversation with several that allows you to demonstrate your readiness, inquisitiveness, personality, and that you know you'll be a good fit for their program. I mentioned elsewhere already, but I'm convinced that my doing this helped me get a wait list spot rather than an outright rejection at a school or two. 

Sure. Agree completely.
 
However, I insist on pointing out: as a class, people with PhDs-- even recent graduates-- enjoy better employment and income conditions than workers writ large, and vastly better than those with only high school diplomas. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea to get a PhD; in fact, as I have argued again and again, it very frequently is not. But there's a constant slippage around here between discussing the academic job market and discussing the general plight of those with doctorates. Yes, there are many anecdotes of people who are working as adjuncts under precarious, low-paying conditions, and that's awful. They are terribly served by the academy and by specific institutions, and they need better living and working conditions. I think that there is finally some positive movement in that direction, for which I'm grateful. In particular, adjunct faculty need to be unionized. You can lament that, cast blame where appropriate, and work for change without misrepresenting the actual average living condition of the average PhD, even the average humanities PhD. 
 
I've written and engaged on academic labor issues and grad school for years, and I've fallen firmly in the pessimist camp telling people not to go to grad school. I agree with and accept the structural claims that are being made here. I tell people not to underestimate the emotional and practical devastation of emerging with a PhD and no job. I know that alt-ac stuff is harder than people think to get into. I know all of that. And yet there is a persistent sense in which this is not enough, and I'm just being honest when I say that frequently what people seem to want is for me to share a particular emotional/affective relationship to the academy that I just don't. I find that frustrating and not practically useful.

I more or less agree with the OP's central thesis. I don't agree with him constantly trying to force everyone else into his psychodrama. Again: you and him constantly show up and yell at the rest of us for not believing what you believe, and yet I sincerely cannot find anyone disagreeing with most of your points. What do you want? Is it literally that everyone on this board abandon graduate school? I'm afraid that's not going to happen. But everyone here seems to think that there's a labor problem in the academy and that the labor situation is immoral and exploitative. The question of whether or not individuals should continue to pursue graduate school is a different question than the structural point you're making.
 
Like it has been for me. I tell people not to go to graduate school all the time; going to graduate school was the best decision I ever made. Including from the standpoint of my own economic and professional interests. There's no contradiction here, as long as you permit individuals to be individuals and to make up their own minds about what is best for their own lives.

Just handed in my MA thesis. More celebration!
 

1. I see literally no one in this thread who questions that there's a labor crisis in the contemporary university.
2. I see literally no one in this thread who questions that there's exploitation in the contemporary university.
3. I see literally no one in this thread who questions the deprofessionalization of the professoriate in this thread.
4. "The faculty" is not a monolithic bloc and describing them as such does not help us in the structural or in the particular.
5. Yes, it's important to describe and criticize the labor crisis in the university; in fact, many faculty members are among the most strident and vocal in doing so. Sure, there's also faculty members who are part of the problem, and they deserve criticism, and I have made that  criticism, publicly, many times. But there is no question that the ultimate culpability lies in the hands of politicians and administrators. That's not displacement; that's a fact, a plain fact about who holds power in the contemporary university. It just doesn't fit in your ongoing psychodrama, which you are busily inflicting on the people here every da  y.
6. People who are entering the profession (and I'm not sure what your scare quotes prove, other than that you escalate meaninglessly when pushed back against) are having that conversation. We have it all over the internet, and have, for years. We have it here all the time. The fact that you don't get to dictate every aspect of that conversation does not mean it doesn't happen. We are not here to serve the needs of your ego.
7. Putting capitalism in scare quotes does not diminish the plain reality that I'm describing, which is that almost every aspect of the academic labor situation you deride is a product of the system in which it is embedded and is not reducible to a morality play which pits those mean faculty members against our hero VirtualMessage.
8. No one is "theorizing" anything; we are talking about the real world, and many of us are doing so in a profoundly less romantic and more concrete manner than you are. 
9. Labor issues are political issues and structural issues and material issues. Reducing them to a meaningless whinge about personal morality and the naivete you are so addicted to observing in others does nothing for anyone.
10. Things are bleak. Progress is possible. Both of those things are true. What is necessary is for people to formulate a plan to try to secure that progress. I see some of that from some faculty members. I see some of that from the people here. I see nothing resembling a plan from you. I just see bitterness and recrimination that plays out in the most emotional, least constructive terms possible.
11. I don't mind naivete. I don't mind cynicism. But your brand of naive cynicism is tiresome and narcissistic and personally I've had quite enough of it.

Yes, exactly. Honestly, (and not to step on any toes) I think that if the reason you're getting a PhD is because all you've ever wanted is to read and discuss literature, and become the professor you once had in college, you're in for a rude awakening. I don't think that's healthy, or even normal, but it's an attitude that I ran into a lot when applying, and it's one that I encounter whenever I interact with people in other programs. Maybe it's because my program is a constant stream of "this is how you become more marketable," but I've always viewed academia as just another job that I am good at and would rather do than other things. Is it my dream job? No. My dream job is being a rich person. But since that's never going to happen, I'm doing something for six years that is personally fulfilling to me and is unlikely to lead to my long term ruin. 
 
 
 
I think you're taking the right tack. The rhetoric of academia, and I think of millenials in general, is that you should be doing what you love and that work is its own reward. Except, that will never be true and that point of view is basically, as ComeBackZinc said, just capitalism at work. I haven't read that, but I'm putting it on my list now. Also, if you're interested in critiques of structural systems, I highly recommend Time Binds by Elizabeth Freeman. It's about queer temporality, but her take down of chronobiopolitics really helped to shape my view on how much use-value I'm willing to let academia get out of me.

Really good points. Reminds me of Paolo Virno's thoughts on affect in 'late' capitalism:
 
 
Sianne Ngai's Ugly Feelings, which is one of my most favorite theory books in the past ten years, works off Virno's assumption and thinks about Bartleby as either a manifestation or focal point of all these "minor affects" (envy, irritation, anxiety, 'stuplimity', paranoia) that can be seen as disruptions in capital's use of people's affect as "lubrication." Very awesome book!

Reluctantly bumping this thread wondering if anyone has checked out Franco Berardi's new book, "Heroes" (Verso, 2015), where he describes the conditions of "semio-workers" and "cognitarians," whose general condition is characterized by precarity, self-exploitation, the fractalization of work time, and the transformation of language into a prodctive commodity:

"Language is captured by the networked machine and turned into an essentially productive activity. Herein lies the trap: people are encouraged to consider their linguistic competence as factors of economic competition, and to manage and invest in them as such. Creativity, expressiveness, affection, emotion -- the human soul, in other words -- are considered to be productive factors and consequently, they are evaluated according to standards of productivity. Exploitation, competition, precariousness, redundancy are not perceived as the effects of a conflictual social relationship, but are internalized as deficiencies of the self, as personal inadequacies. The unceasing rstructuring of the organization of work is perceived as humiliation and brutality.
"Only non-involvement and the ability to remain extranesous, to refuse any identification with one's job and one's working condition, oonly a radical rejection of the ethics of responsibility, might offer workers the possibility of navigating a way out from this productivity blackmail [debt might also be seen as a type of "productivity blackmail].
"[...] cognitive workers have been lured into the trap of creativity: their expectations are submitted to the poductivity blackmail because they are obliged to identify their soul (the linguistic and emotional core of their activity) with their work. Social conflicts and dissatisfaction are perceived as psychological failures whose effect is the destruction of self-esteem." (166-67)

When I read this just now, I immediately thought of things I've read/learned from threads like this and wondered: is this perhaps the direction academic labor is headed -- a fragmentary, abstract labor of adjunct pay calculated by credit hours justified by a superficial link to an increasingly outmoded link to a profession that I'm not sure can really be purged of this expectation that your soul be identified with your labor?

Reading shit like that really hits this idea home for me: for my own health, an education in the humanities should be divorced from my expectations and goals related to work; my love of literature should have nothing to do with my need for a paycheck. Which is probably what a lot of you have been trying to communicate for a while -- if, at times, the ideas have lacked the proper vocabulary (which is only barely, I think, starting to be developed). I really recommend this book as a useful critique of the relationship between mental health and the current state of global capitalism as well as for describing the kind of exploitation and psychological frustration expressed by certain inndividuals in this thread.

I am not so angry at agricultural uses of water (though they are quite high and could certainly be made less wasteful) because these farmers need to make ends meet too. It's not a great system, but it's what they have for now. It'd be great if the industry could get around to fixing that aspect of their operations.
 
What's worse, in my opinion, is Nestle retaining its bottling rights to the reservoirs in California, for the entirety of the drought. It's so insulting to me that restaurants now won't give you a glass of water to "conserve," when Nestle is busy shipping California's water to Japan! Before you get a chance to vote, you can also act up and petition the government to revoke or renegotiate Nestle's bottling rights.
 
The amount of people here in LA that buy bottles of water everyday is absolutely mindblowingly infuriating. I hate it! 
 
Anyway, some sources:
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/nestle-is-bottling-water-from-california-2015-4
 
An absolutely bonkers article that details how the CEO of Nestle doesn't believe access to water is a human right (FWIW, he backpedaled on this and said, "Okay, well, a certain amount of water per person is a human right. After that amount, we should have rights to bottle and sell at whatever price we want):
 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-privatisation-of-water-nestle-denies-that-water-is-a-fundamental-human-right/5332238

Just remember:
 

I think I'm already feeling this. The first night after I accepted an offer, I couldn't sleep because I was terrified out of my mind. I just lay in bed thinking WHAT HAVE I DONE?
 
Anyone else feeling completely and totally inadequate for no reason?

Why not both? I published my master's thesis.
 
If your goal is academia published papers are always better than a master's thesis. It's not just about your ideas being validated; published papers are the coin of academia. They're what get you jobs and fellowships and grants and such (along with other things). In fact, doing a master's thesis is supposed to be the preparatory experience for writing publications in academia.
 
So when applying for PhD programs: MA thesis is good, publications are better. MA thesis AND publications is best.

Wow.  Hard decision.  I have been told to stay where you LOVE it, because you will need that fire to keep you going through the difficult phases of your grad work.  However, SMG brings up a good point about why you love it so much at UTA.  Could you pick up something like that at WashU?  You may still be able to collaborate with the professor at UTA if you attend WashU (I have friends who have done this EXACT thing with professors outside of their school at sites they love). 

50% more funding is no joke, especially since I think the cost of living in St. Louis is significantly lower.  Six years vs. four years might be an issue if you don't finish in four.  How does funding work at UTA for those students that go longer?  Are there funding options for them (RA or TA)?  The difference in the teaching requirement is a big deal too.  

There are a lot of things to consider besides funding.  If the funding at UTA is sufficient to complete the research you want, then perhaps you should look at other factors to help you decide.  What is each city like?  How well does each program support you in publication or presentation opportunities?  Does one program place considerably more graduates in the kind of job you want?
 
It's a hard decision, no doubt.  No matter which you choose, once you are there, don't second guess yourself.  You'll go crazy if you start to consider all the "what ifs?"   Congratulations too!  It's a wonderful problem to have!