NOWAYNOHOW

UCONN has a tremendous focus on health and human rights, and medical anthropology broadly. You can also easily pursue an MPH and a certificate in Human Rights during the PhD.

Let them know. Without the funding commitment, you're likely to get off the waitlist quickly. In unrelated news, is anyone SUPER annoyed at Penn? I paid an application fee! Pay me back with a robot rejection letter before I get too old to care.

Just accepted my offer from medical anthropology at the University of Connecticut. Guys, we did it!

Congrats on UCLA! I sent you a PM, BTW. Congrats to all making their decisions - Faulty, SMG, MuseumGeek, etc. YAY!

Anyone with news on the Rutgers waitlist? Spill it!

What about an MA in anthropology? It certainly would strengthen your eligibility for anthropology PhD programs, while getting you thinking and working in your areas of interest with faculty. For example, CUNY offers a great anthropology MA, and likely costs less than the Chicago program. An MA is what you make of it. They can be costly, but there are avenues to funding (I worked as a TA and RA during mine to supplement decent departmental support). Depending on your focus, more training in another discipline or field can also strengthen your profile when you are on the job market. Having a secondary qualification (MPH, JD, MSW, etc.) that relates to your PhD work is a pretty great accomplishment. With that said, professional experience in your area of interest is just as valuable (if not more) than the MA, because it demonstrates an ability to access and be in the field where you want to do your research. Committees definitely ask "Can this specific person pull off this specific project?" and one of the ways that question is answered is checking whether you have done similar work already.

Wait, I thought this outside committee members thing was really common knowledge! PSA: your outside committee members are really crucial resources, especially when you are on the job market. At least where I come from, there's like a pipeline of post-docs and junior faculty positions that come from outside committee members. I already have mine lined up...definitely something to think about!

I'm inclined to think that it is more crucial to be somewhere with a lot of support for your regional area of interest. Part of the hard work of anthropology seems to be gaining access to field sites and resources, and that means having support and inroads to where you want to actually conduct your research.

Oh, totally! And many students do just that with great success. Some of those very same people dropped the secondary site once they were offered admission and now exclusively work on the U.S. Like I said, professors from places I did not get in told me it would have been helpful to have a comparative site because it makes you look more attractive to faculty overall; however, that maneuver can seem superfluous depending on the context. In addition, a student might not be trained in the language and literature of that secondary global site if they've been too busy working on the U.S. one. At the doctoral level, it is essentially unacceptable to not know a ton about where you want to study, so adding a global comparative site is a big deal in terms of what you have to learn, especially if you're only adding it so you seem anthropological enough for committees to like you. I hope that makes sense. I wish I could walk through this process using my topic (a good example of why adding a comparative site is unnecessary/weird) but it is too easy to identify me IRL using that info. Sorry!

Exactly. I'm so glad you asked after why this seems to be such an issue (and I think other responses to my initial post have expanded on how cultural anthropology currently relates to U.S. work) because it isn't talked about much, especially across subfields. The good news is that we are each other's peers, and our attitudes will hopefully help shape the discipline moving forward. It is my hope that cultural anthropology in the U.S. will be more open to looking inward and exploring domestic topics, as there are certainly many spaces where anthropology has the potential to do important and significant work in America. That is not to say that international topics should be pushed aside for U.S. work. On the contrary, there is justification and room enough for both! But what applicants for 2016 can take away from this discussion is to think hard about what kind of work they want to do and where, and whether or not anthropology at this point in time will welcome their research and insight. If you don't need the specific anthropology PhD credential, there are many other avenues for legitimate (and even better-funded) doctoral study: American and area studies, cultural studies, media studies, information studies, public health and more.

Try to get at least a 150Q and 160V and you should be fine. Nobody cares about the AW.

I agree that fit is important, but after completing a second round of applications with only one offer, I feel like I also have learned a hard lesson about the application process and about the community of scholarship I am about to enter: anthropology is still holding onto certain ideas about disciplinarity, and what is and what is not anthropological. I've been in touch with a few POIs at places that rejected me (after interviews or in-person meetings) and I have gotten a lot of weird feedback that I feel isn't reflected very much on these boards. Fit IS important, and your SOP is largely the most important part of your application profile; however, multiple POIs have told me that committees have trouble warming to students without prior degrees in anthropology, and they are wary of (cultural) students with US-based projects. This obviously isn't a blanket statement, and I know for a fact some programs (like the one I will likely be attending) want students that work in the U.S. Similarly, plenty of places are willing to overlook a non-anthropology background for a fabulous project. But these are just two things to keep in mind. Do you want to work in the U.S.? I have been told I should have at least had an international comparative site in mind, if only to "make it more anthropological." Do you not hold a prior degree in anthropology? You better have some way to prove you're ready to do that work. And don't think a handful of courses and LORs from anthropologists (even big name ones) are enough to overcome an interdisciplinary background. You are still competing against a large pool of capable applicants who have those qualifications and more. It will take a Fulbright, considerable professional experience in your proposed project area, or a publication (or two, or three) in a major professional journal to make up for what is seen as a significant and glaring problem with your lack of training thus far. It is also why, if you look at many 'elite' cohorts, many students are right out of top-tier undergraduate programs. A BA or MA in anthropology from a brand name school is worth more than we like to admit here at TGC. Fit is important, but at the end of the day, most programs make their decisions collaboratively. Some departments can be described as being one way or the other, but that is not true of most departments. It is generally difficult to articulate one orientation or subject area that typifies an entire department. If you have a project that sits squarely in the area of interest of a few faculty, but pushes the envelope of what, say, a lot of the other faculty might see as 'anthropological,' you are taking a huge risk. If you are a student with a colorful background, but you don't have the proper institutional credentials of a 'real anthropologist,' plenty of professors can easily write you off as a dabbler or somehow less prepared than other applicants. Cultural anthropology is still tied to the figure of a white man in a pith helmet scribbling notes on a people he has already made his mind up about. That tradition and the training it inspired is still celebrated by many top programs. This historical archetype established the discipline, and haunts it still. I think this is something important to consider when pursuing this career. I considered not even posting this, because I know it isn't what people want to hear, and I know a lot of awesome people right here on this forum have had very different experiences; however, I also think that multiple perspectives on the application process can only help future applicants.

Got an email from an admin address titled "Admissions letter." FLIPPED OUT. Turns out it was just an updated copy of a form from the school I already have an offer from. Love that department, but my heart cannot take a subject line like that right now.

This needs to be on a motivational poster, or better yet, a pair of promotional sweatpants and a bottle of whiskey sent by ETS after you give them all your money. Matching set. As for UMass, if I check Spire one more time I think it might take out a restraining order against me. Historically Yale results come in over the next couple of days, so keep your fingers crossed!

Interviews were/are ongoing, so I assume the requests must be out too.