Rendar

Long story short.... Who the frack cares about the GRE. Just plug away through the books and get some practice in. A horrible score will most certainly affect your application to American schools but do at least decent and it's fine. Most schools will be far more interested in what you've done to prepare for grad school, your excavation history, languages, etc. The GRE is really the least of your concern...and Canadian schools won't even look at it.

If I can throw in 2 cents.... This is completely normal and a sign that you're human. I think one of the biggest problems about people going into the PhD land is that they treat is like school. It is and it isn't. Yes, you're attending a school but you're also training for a very specific career. Furthermore, the MA and PhD zones are two very different things. Even in these combined track prgrams you can always finish your MA and then decide that academia just isn't for you. That's fair. At a PhD, well, as was mentioned if after a semester or a quarter or whatever you just it ain't for you....then it ain't for you. That being said, don't rush into any decisions. Give it a lot of thought. A good grad program is going to be a lot of work, involve a lot of effort, and probably take a big toll on you at certain points. Welcome to the game, basically. My personal 'demon' (if you can call it that) is worrying about the whole realm of publishing. I love what I do but I don't necessarily look forward to this mentality of having to write a ton of articles just to get a secure job. Mind you, that mentality can be very different depending on where you land a job. It's also easy to think that everything published has to be a piece of gold when it really doesn't. Hell, just pick up any journal and check out what most articles are these days. Not everything written is a Renfrew-style seminal work. That's a bit rambly but...it's end of quarter. I can't think straight, haha. rmgerdes gave you a lot of good advice. I'd definitely stress talking to someone you trust that is either in a PhD program or is a professor. Generally I've found that people in the application process, etc, etc are horrible downers and aren't the best source of advice.

My two cents would be who the heck goes into academia looking for a job There are always jobs out there. Use grad school to do something you love but also expand your knowledge base and skillset. Everyone I know in Classical Archaeology has graduated and got a job. It's not necessarily a tenture track position at Harvard, but they're all happy and doing what they love. Think outside the tenture track, university position box and you'll find that there *are* options out there for archaeologists. But at the same time, particularly when you're doing Classical work, make sure to get a solid anthropological foundation and not get too buried in Classics alone.

Well - to a point. Admitted doesn't necessarily mean funded. The prospective weekends are a two way street used to make those final decisions. You get to check out the program and see if it's right for you while the profs and grad students get to see if you're a good fit for the program. Indeed, show up and have some fun. Talk to people (especially the grad students) and find out as much as you can. FIT is one of the most important things about grad school, in my humble opinion. You may get into a great program, but if it's not really the best for you personally or the grad students are haughty pricks it won't be a good time.

Have you looked at Canadian schools? We have an excellent program at Alberta! UBC is another great place. Unfortunately I don't know what the funding situation would be for international students in light of the tuition differential.

I think we're got 16 people invited and can accept five or six.

I thought I would pass on some quick news for anyone on the archaeology side of things. Invites from the Cotsen at UCLA should all be out or will be within the next few days. There were quite a few applications - 96 in total. I'm afraid I don't have word from the Classics department proper or NELC, but I'm guessing those decisions will happen soon, if not already.

Early in your PhD career, no. Well, there are always ways but I really wouldn't recommend it. It all comes down to the individual program and their requirements but if you hope to bash through coursework and comps as quickly as possible then you'll probably need to free yourself up from full time work. Or go crazy Even getting a job after being ABD can really hinder your final progress. It's hard to come home after a full day of work and sit at the computer/research for another 4/5 hours.

I'd agree with Veilside. Anticipate a general timeperiod of around the middle of February. Unfortunately no news after that time period is probably bad news If you're applying to American schools that do interviews you'll probably hear something a bit earlier than schools that do final acceptances/rejects, such as Canadian universities.

I think those all sound like good programs. Some stuff to keep in mind is the cost of the darn things since funding for post-bacc's can be tricky. UPenn, for instance: although it has a great reputation and all is it really worth $30,000 a year? eeeehhhhh.....

I'd personally say your GPA, etc, is fine for applying to Classical Archaeology programs. People looking at your application will be able to see that your Classics courses are high. One of the most important things you need to figure out is WHY you want to do this, what you want to research, and how you're going to do it. Oh, and why it's important and why each school you apply to is a place you can get it done in. Selection committees are going to look to find students that are not only a good fit for them but vice-versa as well. It's just as important for the school to be a good fit for the student. At the same time if it's archaeology you want to get into you better get some field experience. I've had quite a number of students in the field that start gungho but then find at the end of the six weeks field archaeology is definitely not for them.

I agree with random_classicist. It's a tricky question and, like so much, comes down to specifics. Even NRC rankings have to be taken with a grain of salt as they certainly emphasis certain aspects of a program over others. For instance, although Bryn Mawr is rated number 12 I've heard more than a bit of grumbling that it's archaeology division isn't exactly the hottest these days. Naturally my own area is archaeology which is a rather different world within traditional Classics. Just off the top of my head I'd say places like Brown, Michigan, UNC, Penn, and Stanford have excellent programs for archaeology in the Classical realm. UCLA is a little different due to the Cotsen being a research unit which pulls in people from Classics. Anthro, Ancient Near East, etc, which is what attracted me to it. I like being an archaeologist first who happens to work in the Classical area. So often I find that Classics departments have a horrible lack of training in anthropological thought and theory. It also depends on what opportunities each school has. I did my MA at U of Alberta which probably wouldn't even register on Veilside's list but allowed me to work on a new project that has led to amazing research, publications, and introduced me very nicely to the inner workings of the Greek bureaucracy in the area I want to work. Of course listening to scuttlebutt and the like from people established in the field (or current PhD students) is always interesting, as well Long story short, it's a complicated matter that you have to personally look at a lot of factors to figure out.

That's a rather bleak way to look at things and I certainly wouldn't agree. Having a fancy name on your degree will naturally help to a degree but it's more important about what you do in your years at grad school to set you apart from the pack. Basically that bit about rather few tenure-track jobs in Classics is bang on - so...if that's what you want, what makes you the best choice? At the same time not getting your dream job first off is hardly limited to academia. That might mean doing some post-doc work, sessional instruction, teaching at a smaller University, etc, for a while...whatever you need to do to get into the field if it's really your passion. That's a somewhat tricky questions which all depends on your own specific area. Instead of Ivy-league or not I would pay more attention to the individual program and it's strengths. Again, this all depends on your own individual area of interest. I'd personally say that some of those 'par-Ivy' schools that Veil listed are actually more impressive at the moment than the traditional Ivy schools. I think if it comes down to it and the place you go is offering some funding and this is what you want to do...grab the opportunity. Use the opportunity to grow and develop in ways other than just Classics knowledge and research and you'll probably be surprised at how you can leverage your skills and abilities.

I'd very much agree with the above statement. Your GPA and GRE will be fine for any program, so don't worry about that. You're languages look very strong as well. What things will come down to is the "why" and "what" of your applications. Where do you want to study? Is it necessarily a good fit for you? Are there people to supervise you (and more important - do they have space for more students that year?)? Just because a program is well regarded does not mean that it will be the best thing for you. In the end one of the biggest factors is that you find a place where you are capable to work towards what you want and do the best you can. At the same time various programs will be looking for people whom they think are a good fit for their individual expertise and kind of program.