inca2011

If you study bioarchaeology you will likely be able to do both historical archaeology and forensic anthropology, since they require the exact same skills. I don't know what biohistorical archaeology is/would be, but there is already a field that looks at archaeological questions with a biological perspective, focusing on the human remains, identifying age, sex, diseases, fractures, etc. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioarchaeology UPenn is a nice program, you can definitely do bioarchaeology in it, and its fully funded. However, it's not necessarily the best program for bioarchaeology. I'm not sure about Columbia. Harvard focuses more on evolutionary questions, as does Yale. I don't think you would be able to do any bioarchaeology at UMich, but I believe U Illinois has lots of people for bioarchaeology (especially the Indiana Champaign campus), as does Ohio State and Arizona State. The only problem with state schools is there is often little funding. You should look for people whose work you like and look where they are.

It may depend on the type of archaeology, however. If it's a historical archaeology (e.g. of colonial America, medieval China, etc. etc.) history may be a better complement.

It's good to go in depth into anthropology/archaeology and work on a good research project and experiences, if you already know what you want to do. Grad schools like to see that you are committed to research and can handle tougher coursework. Can you do minors or concentrations? That might be a better option than doing a whole second major, since you could do both more anthropology and more of other-things. If not you could take courses to shore up your knowledge on your particular region/area of interest, maybe making a non-official concentration.

It might be worth it to do a masters in anthropology before going into a PhD, though there are definitely places that will accept people with little or no anthropology background. If you do a masters you'd get to take more classes and familiarize yourself with the field, narrow your interests, and also get a chance to do some research and get a relevant writing sample done for your PhD applications.

If these are schools you have already been accepted to, I'd go for Binghamton or BU. I've heard good things about BU generally, and I've heard of Binghamton, but have never heard of the LSU program... If you are planning to apply in the future, then I would apply to a PhD program directly, unless you have no experience in human osteology or bioarchaeology. If you have no experience, you might want to apply to the masters programs at NYU (Skeletal Biology) or Mercyhurst masters.

You should try to get the highest GPA you can, and if you know extra languages it's always good. Teaching will look good if you explain what you did, why, what you learned, etc. It could look really good for an applied anthropology degree, especially if you intend to study that region. Do you have field experience?

Linguistic anthropology is not necessarily about beng bilingual. There are many ways to study language and languages. I'd say go for it. You will probably have to learn some other language anyway, but you don't need to be fluent at it as long as you can get the basics. You can also learn it purely from a written form, I'd guess, since it wouldn't be a regular undergrad language class with speaking etc.

I think you may be able to find those kinds of opportunities but they'll be rare, or you'll have to work for them. It'd probably be easier to switch before your PhD, is my guess, but it's not impossible to switch after. I know a few people who have switched fields post-PhD, and some who have pursued an anthropology PhD after doing a degree and working in another field. Your background would definitely be great in many ways, but at the same time there are a lot of specifics about human evolution you'd have to learn. This is the kind of place where you may be able to find a suitable postdoc: http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/

I'm a paleoanth student, and I got into a handful of great programs. I didn't have any field experience but did have a lot of research/lab experience, and good grades/GREs. A biology background is a great boon to paleoanth programs, because it's so difficult to find anthropology students with a solid science background. However, paleoanthropology is not geology/history of life. You should look into paleoanthropology specifically if you haven't already. There are many ways to approach it (paleoenvironment, archaeology, skeletal anatomy/fossils, genetics, behavior, etc. etc.) and each can be tedious if you don't love it. Maybe you should take some classes, if you can, or audit some anthropology classes. If you don't know specifically what type of thing you want to do, it'll be more difficult to get into programs or even choose what programs to apply to. I would suggest that you finish your masters at least, so that you do not come out empty handed. Finishing a PhD you hate won't be worth your time. I also think it's easier to switch PhD programs if you haven't yet completed a PhD. It'll be easier to get funding and get accepted, and having a masters degree always looks good. Maybe the best thing is to finish your biology MS and then do an anthropology MA/MS if you can, so you get a basic anthropology grounding and get to do some basic research.

Always go with the funding. Whatever happens, it'll mean less/no debt. Prestigious degree is no guarantee of a job, and for PhDs the department reputation is more important than the university reputation.

In my opinion, you can never go wrong with a rigorous, broad MA. If your interests change, or if you end up going to a different department than you originally wanted, it'll be more applicable. You can usually do your MA thesis on a specific topic of your interest, using the broader resources or perspectives available in the department. It could also be helpful to get different, broader perspectives that you can later use to better understand your own specific topic. You can always take 'concentration' courses or try to focus all your papers on your specific topic, so that you are not 'out of the loop' on the research. A more narrow MA at a less prestigious school may end up backfiring or limiting your options. I think this would be a better option than a broad MA if your intentions were to start working right away (e.g. in government) or as someone else said, if you want to do applied anthropology. For academia strong, broad foundations are always better. Just my opinion though. You should also ask your faculty advisors at your BA school.

Doing an MA/MS program would probably be the best way to up your GPA/experience. You'll be able to do similar kinds of research, getting more experience, and you'll be a more competitive applicant. If you can, you should try to work with nearby archaeological collections in your free time, and if you go to an MA/MS program, try to publish. Study for the GRE! And don't leave it 'til the last minute. You should also consider universities that are near museum collections for the Southwest, which may or may not be the same states. Chicago has some great collections at the Field Museum, as does the Smithsonian in Washington DC. You'll probably eventually have to do fieldwork, is my guess, but you may be able to work out something like a whole year of fieldwork (so you can just move for a year, if that's possible), or just a couple of weeks at a time. Since it's in the states, it shouldn't be too bad. I've met a lot of people in PhD programs who started out relatively late (in their late 20s or 30s), so I don't think that'll count against you

What are the costs of living/tuition? Would you be able to get a part time job, or maybe a tutoring or teaching job at the university or community college (both in terms of your grad student contract and qualifications)? I know most fellowship deadlines have passed but there may still be some for things like foreign languages, etc. You may also be able to reduce your living expenses if you can find roommates, always cook for yourself, and reduce things like telephone/cable/internet spending to the bare minimum necessary. Would you be able to get help from family, maybe? Personally, I would not go anywhere that could not give me at least some funding or financial aid. However, if this is the only place you got in and you don't want to reapply, I guess there's no choice.

I didn't have any problems with any of the other schools I applied to, just RGGS (or perhaps they were so minor compared to the RGGS that I have discounted them). I could only reach them intermittently and they were not very helpful, but you have to ask them to delete files so you can reupload if you want to change something or made a mistake. You can't upload anything until you submit your application and pay. Never underestimate the importance of collections, though, which are important on their own and are the most important resource for many researchers, and don't think they are equivalent to academics. A great collection is a result of hundreds of years of work by dedicated curators, not necessarily a reflection of the faculty there at any given time. If your research will be really collection heavy, it might be worth it to apply to the museum separately, or if you want to expand your chances of working at the same place/with the same people. Admissions are low enough everywhere that every little extra chance is worth it if you can afford to get it. Is there anything in particular (other than particular faculty) at one place or the other that you are really interested in? You might want to check to see if they graduate anyone this year and see if you can find their placement. I know that people who have done research there as doctoral students get good placements but they have gotten their degrees through other institutions.

I think that emailing the professors or visiting the program can be really important, not only for them to know you as a person but also for you to know whether or not you really love that department as much as you thought. You should also be sure that your recommendation letters are personal and positive. If your professors barely know you it's no good, or if they don't know what you've done before meeting them (send them your CV!). Your statement of purpose and writing sample are of course very important, and you should try to describe whatever work you have done in detail, as well as what you're interested in working on for your PhD, with what professors in the department, and why you think the department is good for you. If you can have someone comment on your statement before submitting it'd be helpful. You should have someone read and go over your writing sample as well. What's more, you should apply to a range of schools. Top choice, bottom choices, top through bottom tiers. There's no point in applying only to top schools--they get all the best candidates and have their pick, so you can't pin all your hopes on one of them. You should find a good (but not best) school or two that you would be happy with attending.

You should ask your advisors and look at the publications of the faculty if you are concerned about academics. You should email current grad students there to check on departmental support and living in San Diego. If your concerns are about funding or requirements and such, your person of interest or program director are usually willing to answer any questions.

Duke Evolutionary Anthropology sent out acceptances a while ago just a couple of weeks after interviews. The ones I know (3) of have already been accepted by the prospectives. I know I am either on the waitlist or rejected. Tried to post on results search but it was deleted.

They have really good facilities, collections, and I hear they have really good money. I'm not sure how they fare academically or how they will fare in terms of placement (I don't think they've graduated anyone yet). If someone there does something you're really specifically interested in, or you already know specifically what you'd like to do if you go there, I'd say it's worth applying. Otherwise, I'd guess a University is a better bet. I applied and the whole process was kind of annoying (awkward website, discrepancies between their stated GRE number and their actual GRE number, difficulty contacting people about application), much smoother and straightforward with a normal department at a University.