newleaf

UCSC is less competitive, but its still competitive. I suggest you apply to both and then see what your options are...that goes for all schools. Anthropology programs especially among the "top tier" schools are super competitive...apply to 6-8 schools that are good fits for you, a couple "reaches", a couple "back-ups"...see where you get in and then decide where to go based on where you get in rather than counting a school out before you apply.

elusive

DId you just randomly pick schools to apply to? Think about your research interests and see if there are faculty there whose work align with your interests in one way or another in addition to the suggestions above.

Samjones, please please help me to understand what I've written that is so bewildering. Do I have a serious misreading of the academy? I have no problem finding out that I'm wrong, I just want to know how so.

I definitely need to widen my reading lists. While I agree that potential hires are based on their research, I don't know how much personality and "how research fits" makes a difference. Usually a hire is made in relation to a lack in the department. Im most familiar with Stanford and Harvard as having new hires. Stanford hired a new South Asianist (Thomas Blom Hansen...who is funnily enough a PhD from Denmark...but had to sink some years into a habilitation before he would be hired in the US) because they lost Akhil Gupta to UCLA. Harvard hired/is hiring three new faculty who work in/on subjects that the department lacks. These individuals come from: UChicago, UChicago, and...UChicago. Two of them came from the same graduating class of about ten people. Sorry homie, as much as anthropology wishes it nurtured a more democratic university, it absolutely cannot in the current university system. Who you studied under definitely does matter, but unless you are in a situation as you are, working with a giant in the discipline who happens not to be employed by a top tier department, your university often makes or breaks your application (as a sidenote, founders of subdisciplines usually are found at top tier institutions anyway). Graduates from top tier doctoral programs are popping up in lesser-known departments these days. Why? Because jobs in anthropology are shrinking, and XYZ not-so-big not-so-well-endowed department would love the prestige that a University of Michigan faculty member would engender rather than the candidate from U Iowa who does similar work. It is absolutely not fair. It is also absolutely the world we live in today.

great post!

I understand that social anthropology was invented in London and that anthropology is indebted to French theory. Maybe this is a call to making the discipline more transnational, but I have never even heard of Aberdeen. I looked at faculty lists for both Aberdeen and Goldsmiths and I could not find a single faculty member's name who rang a bell. I've never heard of their department heads, but I would venture to guess that would not be the case if these students looked at faculty lists from American schools with the same prestige. Maybe not, in which case we have a very serious problem if the discipline is going to move forward. Getting back to my original point, I think one would have a hard time getting a job (in the academy) in the US with a PhD from Aberdeen since the market will have at least 3 people with similar research interests who graduated in the same year from NYU, Chicago, and Berkeley. With those names comes the names of recommenders who will be friends of faculty who will be hiring, etc. etc.

Maybe this is a sub-disciplinary thing, but really? Im social-cultural and the only international schools that I have seen represented at top departments that are Oxbridge, LSE, UCL, and sometimes a random canadian school. A lot of people here were targeting NYU. I took a quick look at their faculty profiles and all but two of their professors got their PhDs in the US. I understand that anthropology might be on its way to becoming less U.S.-dominated, but it is still the center of theory, teaching, and research. I think you could talk about "losing the race" if there was a significant percentage of new hires coming from non-US schools and we were citing a lot of non-us academics for our work. At least in social anthropology, new hires come from the elite american schools, and I'm still citing Emily Martin, not Emile Martin.

Not to be a negative Nancy, but don't go to any of those schools if you want to come back to the us and teach at a research 1. you'll do adjunct work for a decade before tt becomes an option. Flinders u? Wtf IS THAT? sorry to come off elitist as hell, but don't commit yourself to a dissertation that isn't worth the paper its printed on. I think people in the academy forget to realize that it's just as stratified as any other system. The elites reproduce themselves and the non elites lament.

Not that im interested in playing tit-for-tat but: 1) I wasn't aware that its a commuter campus, but I'm sure that only holds for undergrads...so unless you were looking to get hot and sweaty to lady gaga and drinking tampico laced with Popov, you should be ok 2) who picks a grad school in relation to its weekend life? weekends are for reading anyways

Irvine Irvine Irvine. That kind of funding is so rare in the UC...and its a UC!!! If you want a job afterwards, I would go with UCI...top notch faculty, great resources, and California. Madison is a great town, but I mean cmon...

Quick Q for everyone applying and the friend of a friend who got in/interviewed: Who has an M.A.? I am under the impression that there is a de facto MA requirement, although the last years cohort was slightly different. thoughts?

Christine Fair. In terms of MAPSS scholarship, they do give out a lot of scholarships in the range of 1/3, 2/3...but I know of three people who got full rides, one of whom got into berkeley (diff department) while applying when they were in their MAPSS year. As another poster mentioned, a big part is showing success at the graduate level. Caveat: some schools are seen as more rigorous than others which is why the 1 open job in XYZ school will likely go to the guy with the phd from Irvine rather than the one from UGA. Fair? Nope. Reality? Sadly.

I think it depends on what your goals are. If you're interested in going into applied anthropology or do not necessarily have your heart set on top 10-ish schools, do your M.A. wherever. If you need to be at a top department, you'll need good grades and good letters from a top MA program (also not necessarily in anthropology). You should also easily be able to target more than 1 department for PhD options. Having your heart dead set on one school with an all-or-nothing mentality is dangerous and can lead to despair of the worst kind

While I appreciate your undying commitment to GW (great school, one of my fav social scientists is there), when it comes to improving your chances of getting into a top school, going to a top school for your masters makes all the difference. Im not saying you should dish out a years+ salary for it, but its the sad truth of how things work. Go to UChicago mapss, get mostly As, a letter from one of the Comaroffs or so, and you're set.

FYI, the funding package you get (or don't) for MAPSS is supposedly indicative of how close you were to admission.

Hey Guys Just wanted to add in my two cents... I've studied at the University of Chicago (MA program, hence stalking the forum), and the rumor of it being a cut-throat unfriendly place is definitely *not* true. Now, that said, it has a very weird academic culture and the university as a whole is not a fun place to be (for me). The grad students are focused on getting their shit done and the undergrads are focused on getting into med school or going into finance. And that's about it. You share a lot of classes with (smart) undergrads, entire seminars can be hit or miss, but there is little in the way of competition per se. Everyone is just anxious that the person next you is doing better. That said, I wouldn't recommend applying there if you're super interested in medical anthropology since there aren't many resources in the way of it. However, they did hire a new guy from UCI (Sunder Rajan) who is really good. As for Berkeley I also have a couple friends who have recently finished their PhDs there in social, medical, and linguistic. Though there have been a couple of unfortunate incidents in the last decade or so, I think the routine bashing of that department that goes on is unwarranted and tinged with jealousy...lets be real: its loaded with the most prestige at the moment. I dont know anybody, (including a couple of undergrads) who finished their education at Berkeley and regretted it. I definitely know at least a couple undergrads who were not satisfied when they left Stanford and felt that they were left unprepared for grad school (but they're also trying to boost medical anthro and are making some new hires). From what I understand and have heard, the sentiments regarding Harvard are true. In sum, I think its plain stupid to not apply to a department if it appeals to you because of things you heard, regardless of if they came from your best friend. Your experience will be your experience and not theirs, and you'll never know if you would have gotten full funding from that institution unless you try. I am surprised that more people haven't emphasized "fit." Every department has a certain posture and grammar to their work, and if your work doesn't "gel" right, you're unlikely to get in regardless of your 4.0 and 1600 etc. I think that in terms of reputation right now in my head, its HASTS, UCB/UCSF and UCI.