Ajtz'ihb

If there is no obvious maximum length for the statement of purpose on the department's website, I think you're okay making it as long as you like.

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.

I'm a Mayanist doing my Ph.D. at Tulane currently. Your list looks good to me; the only (possible) addition I would suggest off the top of my head isthe University of Arizona (Tucson). Brown does indeed sound like a good choice given your interests, although I suggest you spend a couple days in Providence before you commit (assuming you get in) to see how you like it. Some people love it, but the city isn't really my cup of tea. I've met Scherer a few times though and he seems like a nice guy, and his work is excellent (of course). Penn State is a very large program and one that puts a lot of emphasis on human-environment interactions and Mesoamerica. One thing to be aware of, however, is that the general theoretical stance on human-environment issues there (well, at least among the Mayanists) is pretty old-school, and still fits pretty squarely within Steward's cultural ecology. Not a dealbreaker by any means, but just be aware that the spirit of Bill Sanders continues to loom large over the Mesoamerica program there (see Webster and Murtha's chapter in Tikal: Paleoecology of an Ancient Maya City (2015) for an example). Tulane is a great match for your interests so I suggest being in touch with Verano and other relevant members of the faculty (Canuto, Balee, Nesbitt, Rodning, Murakami...) to see how interested they might be in your application. Verano and Canuto both have a lot of students presently so it's conceivable that they'll pass on bringing anyone new on until they've moved a few of their current students through. Nevertheless, it never hurts to inquire.

Consider doing some searches on Google Scholar or Web of Science on subjects like "Black Atlantic" or "afro-caribbean anthropology." You'll likely turn up scholars working on subjects that interest you that way, and then you can follow up by looking at those people's programs. Bear in mind that you won't just be applying to a school, you're also applying to work with an individual. So you should focus your efforts on identifying particular scholars you'd like to work with and then figuring out how good a fit their overall program seems like it would be for you. I'll put in a shameless plug for my own program here: Tulane has a huge number of faculty and students working in the regions that interest you, both within and beyond the anthro department. Plus, I mean, New Orleans...

Haha, so was I actually! So I guess my above comment isn't particularly helpful to the OP...

I didn't hear until early-mid April in 2012. So I wouldn't get worried yet.

When I applied in 2011, the stipend was right around $19k, plus another thousand or so in RAships. This is for what they call the "presidential fellowship"--it seems like not everyone who's accepted is offered funding, or at leas that's the impression they gave at the time.

I pretty much agree with annywn across the board. Your department will probably have you declare a subfield as your "concentration" but it's wise to get as strong a foundation in all of anthropology as you can early on.

I did my undergrad at the University of Pennsylvania (a.k.a. Penn/UPenn, the ivy) and I'm currently in a Ph.D. program at Tulane, which has one of the best programs in the world for my area of study. The other students here come from a huge range of places: small liberal arts schools, including some I was unfamiliar with before I arrived; huge state universities (including Penn State); highly-ranked private schools like Vanderbilt; and international universities like UNAM, del Valle (Guatemala), and Montreal. I also know some students who were denied admission coming from highly-ranked schools. About half the students here have masters' degrees from other universities (which is something I recommend doing only if you're still figuring out your own interests). Based on my experience in this environment, I would say that your undergraduate school matters but not for the reasons you probably think. Professors are not going to be impressed by the letterhead on your transcript, so don't start thinking about which program is more prestigious (frankly, you won't know much about what programs are good and not until you've finished your undergrad anyway). What matters instead is the connections you're able to make with serious scholars who can help direct you to good fieldwork or other research opportunities, and who can help connect you with graduate programs down the road. I was very lucky to make connections with scholars at Penn who were well-regarded in my area of study and who ( a ) wrote me strong letters of recommendation and ( b ) helped guide my research interests as they were developing. Those are the type of scholars you can find just about anywhere, not just the places you think are going to look prestigious. So really try to investigate the people working at these universities, the resources they have available for student research, etc. That matters far more than the name. And for what it's worth, Madison is a wonderful place to be a student and they have an excellent group of anthropologists in that department. I highly recommend it.

Ditto about getting outside, being active, and reading some novels (or at least non-academic nonfiction). The summer before I started I was on my honeymoon so of course mine is a bit of a special case, but my wife and I backpacked around the Andes for 4 months. One perk of having done so is that I've got a pretty solid handle on Andean prehistory and contemporary Andean cultures even though I'm a Mesoamericanist. Also, I read a lot of Borges, which was great.

The most obvious choice is CRM (Cultural Resource Management), which goes by various other names in various countries ("applied archaeology" in the UK, "private sector archaeology" in some circles in the US, etc.). Given the nature of the work it's also sometimes referred to as "salvage archaeology." CRM firms are the ones who do contract work for large companies and (usually) local governments to document and recover archaeological material, usually prior to construction or something similar. Other non-academic jobs for archaeologists--many of which also loosely qualify as CRM--include various branches of the federal government (National Park Service, BLM, Forest Service, etc.), tribal governments, museums, non-profit research centers (like Crow Canyon in Colorado), and the like. I also know people who live in parts of the world that are particularly rich in archaeological remains, like the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. Some of them are project bums, who are well-known as skilled field hands and work on just about any project that appeals to them for 3-6 months per year, and get by on odd jobs for the rest of the time. It's not the life I would chose for myself, but for those who love the field above all else it seems to work just fine. Are you familiar with Shovel Bums? If not, you might want to check it out. It's basically a clearing house for people who love archaeological work and are trying to make a living at it. http://www.shovelbums.org/

This chart explains the issue rather succinctly: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/fig_tab/nbt.2706_F1.html The basic problem is that the number of PhDs awarded every year has been steadily climbing since the 1980s, while the number of new academic positions created has been mostly stagnant, albeit with some year-to-year fluctuations. But one important thing to bear in mind is that all of the talk about "the job market" for PhDs is specifically related to academic jobs. There are a ton of other things you can do with a PhD, including many positions that will allow you to continue doing research (even fieldwork). It's just that there is a diminishing number of tenure-track faculty jobs and similar well-paying university-based positions. As smg says, the university system as we know it is under a lot of pressure and may undergo some dramatic transformations over the next few decades. Since you're an archaeologist, bear in mind that there's a whole world of CRM work out there, and that archaeologists regularly find work with the Park Service and conservation organizations.

Social evolution is the idea that it's analytically useful to classify societies into "types" that are taken to be the social equivalent of specific organisms, and to then postulate ways that one type (say, a "band" of hunter-gatherers) might evolve into another (say, a "tribe" or "chiefdom"). There's been plenty of good scholarship done within this framework (looking at the development of inequality, for instance), but it also has serious problems. If you're interested, Elman Service, pre-1970s Marshall Sahlins, Leslie White, and Julian Steward were all evolutionists working within cultural anthropology (most of that scholarship was in the 1940s through the 1960s). Joyce Marcus, Kent Flannery, and Henry Wright are archaeologists of the same persuasion. For one easy-to-digest critique of the idea from an archaeological perspective, see Timothy Pauketat's Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. None of this should be to dissuade you from a place like Michigan or Penn State, for archaeology or anthropology more generally. It's just something to bear in mind.

If you're interested in archaeology, one thing to bear in mind is that both Michigan and Penn State have a very strong social evolutionist bent. That's not inherently a bad thing, but it does mean that you're likely to get a very different perspective on archaeological theory than you might get some other places. At the undergraduate level, the most important thing to focus on is finding a place where you'll have the freedom and resources to develop your own interests and pursue them, as well as a general academic and social environment where you feel you'll be able to thrive. Finding the ideal anthropology program is what graduate school is for. So especially if you're not sure what part of the world you want to focus on or what branch of anthropology most interests you, I would focus on finding a school with a good overall fit and an anthropology department that seems diverse enough to help you shape your own interests wherever they may lead. It's also worth bearing in mind that there are some wonderful undergraduate programs that combine anthro with other social sciences, like Middlebury's Department of Sociology and Anthropology.

An MA is an expensive degree. Its value really depends on the maturity and focus of the individual involved. Somebody who doesn't really know what they want to do or who has very little background knowledge on the topic that interests them is likely to benefit from a Masters program. Somebody who has that focus and background knowledge is likely to find many components of a Masters program redundant when they do their PhD coursework, and would probably not be well served seeking out an MA program as a first step.

While letters are always phrased that way, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where a "recommendation for acceptance" does not translate directly to "acceptance." Both of my acceptance letters said the same thing. In which case, congratulations!

The appropriateness of reaching out really depends on your rapport with your POI and their personality. In NOWAYNOHOW's case, it sounds like the rapport is such that doing so is probably fine. In most cases I would continue to advise against it, but (in keeping with the above conversation about priorities, personalities, and departmental fit) by the time you're debating whether to reach out, you would hopefully have gotten enough of a feel for the personalities involved that you'll know whether it's the right move or not.

I'm sending you a PM. In general, I would make sure you're able to say what you want and need to and only worry about word limits if the department specifically requires them (or if the online application won't let you enter any more text).

Well I agree with you there.

I (partly) disagree. While prestige and pedigree do matter to a limited extent, more important is the professional reputation--and this is very different from "prestige"--of your POI and the other members of your committee. Neither, however, can substitute for an innovative and well-executed dissertation project. But the thing to remember is that it's hard to produce a really strong dissertation if you don't have advisors who are willing to challenge you and help you to shape such a project. Those advisors aren't necessarily going to be at "prestigious" schools, but they are likely to be people with a good personal reputation within their area of expertise.

I had the same experience as Daykid: some people interviewed, some visited campus, others didn't do either. I chatted briefly on the phone with my then-POI (now advisor) just to make sure everything was in order with my application, but I wouldn't have called it an "interview." It really depends on the individual POI, how many compelling applicants there are for the same position in a given year, etc.

No, I think that's a relevant addition to your application that shows you're engaged and not just impatient or needy. So I wouldn't worry about it. I think Dan's advice above is good, especially with regards to the fact that students should see themselves as choosing a program as much as a program chooses them. But I still think that even very level-headed potential advisors might be annoyed by someone pestering them for news about their application--except, as someone already pointed out, in cases where a student has a looming decision deadline.

Forget "too early"--it's a really bad idea to pester POIs about your application. At this point, if they have any news for you, they'll let you know. It's easy to come up with reasons why it might seem like a good idea to reach out and "check in," but it is not. Ever. I recommend digging into some good TV to calm your nerves and waiting it out. You've done what you can at this point, now it's their turn to be in touch with you.

True that.

I think the LSE one is pretty good, the CNJ page is a little over the top and provides so many details that you're likely to get lost in them. Both convey the general point, though, that what you're doing in an interview is confirming that you are intellectually mature and serious, that you know what you're getting yourself into and have well-articulated reasons for doing so, and that you're not a completely intolerable asshole. When it comes down to it, those are the three main criteria for admission to grad school.