NOWAYNOHOW

Ok I am going to say this and I know ill get a lot of hate on this board. MA are not a waste. In fact where I got my phd, they will not accept you in the phd if you don't have a masters from another school. A lot of programs will not accept you into the phd if you don't have a masters. I know I don't accept you as a phd student without a master's.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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!

Having a hot topic for US based research helps too.  I happen to have stumbled onto one which seems to help.  There are trends in the discipline it's worth paying attention them when your trying to sell your project to prospective schools. 

Since there are some fundamental methodological differences between sociology and anthropology, it should not be the case that a project should not be deemed "sociology" just because of where it is located.  However, this does happen and sociology does not have the bias against projects in the United States that anthropology does.  Fundamentally, I believe that it is just a matter of tradition because as has been noted in this thread, there are many great anthropological projects located in the United States.  However, the process of learning a language and "going abroad" to conduct fieldwork is something of a rite of passage for anthropologists.  For a group that is so concerned with rituals, conducting fieldwork abroad is dearly held in the anthropological cultural cache and important for earning legitimacy and status within the group.   

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. 

This post is spot on.  I know that I have a good project and am fortunate to have been picked up by a good program this time around.  However, I have received similar feedback to what you describe here.  The bias in anthropology against "Americanists" is a thing.  I was turned down by one program that had expressed a great deal of interest in my project and told me they believed it was very "important" while cautioning me that it is difficult to find funding for projects in the United States (this conversation occurred before I applied).  My POI at that school works as an Americanist now but went through graduate school and did original fieldwork in Asia.  The faculty at the program that accepted me told me how good they think my project is while also acknowledging the difficulties of attaining "legitimacy" as an Americanist anthropologist in the United States.  I'm fortunate to have been given a chance but I was told that I will really need to distinguish myself because the bias will raise its head against me again when I'm looking for a job and for grant money in years to come.   

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

I would add a caveat to this: nobody cares about the AW as long as you get a 3.0 or higher.  It might be a red flag if you get below a 3, since you basically have to write less than the two sentences or go completely off topic to score a 1 or 2.  But yeah, I hit the 98th percentile in AW and got super excited for about 5 minutes before I realized that it wouldn't actually help me get in anywhere

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. 

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. 

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. 

you two both know my deal, and I mostly agree with you, nwnh. particularly at the programs regarded as 'top' in the discipline. one of the big questions I asked every program I reached out to before applying was "how does the *department* feel about US based projects?" because I knew that was a big problem for me. I was also very skeptical about my odds applying to straight antho programs (hence, only 2). but, I didn't even get to ask that to each place.  
 
I have also been incredibly surprised by both the number of prospectives still in or just out of undergrad at the interviews I've been too, and, honestly, impressed by how much a year or two of growth can do to nuance your project and perspective. So, that's a choice which often has me raising my eye brows at adcoms, and thinking that you shouldn't totally throw the pooch if you're not from the right background. 

NOWAYNOHOW I don't agree 100% with everything you said here but I'm 100% behind your decision to post your perspective.  Plus the comment on the white man in a pith helmet is pretty right on.  I know there is a handful of us who are proposing projects based in US. I am and a large part of that is due to Anthropology's sordid past.  I'm curious who else is proposing to do fieldwork in the US as a cultural anthropologist? 

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. 

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. 

I'm also in the "Third Time's the Charm" club. Fit is the single most important element of your application, I have FINALLY realized that. But fit doesn't just mean fit within a program, it also means fit within current research paradigms. When I first began applying to PhD programs I was trying to get in to do Maya bioarchaeology. But the problem there is that, with a few exceptions, nobody wants to DO Maya bioarchaeology. Too Maya for the bioarchaeologists, too bioarchy for the Mayanists. So I had to realize that my interests simply did not have an audience in PhD programs. So I gained experience in bioarchaeology outside of the Maya context and stayed regionally non-specific in my SOPs, focusing instead on broader theoretical approaches. 
 
Everybody's right about letters, you should have no problem. And if you do secure a research assistant position, consider finding a letter writer there. My strongest letter was from my supervisor at work.

Accepted at Columbia, rejected from Berkeley. I felt Berkeley was my best fit, but it was the earliest app I sent in and riddled with problems. I am really happy though! I couldn't have imagined a better cycle. Good luck and best wishes to everyone else.
 

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! 

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! 

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! 

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! 

So.... there are acceptances, waitlists, and rejections posted for UCLA. But I got nothin.
 
 
I think someone needs to teach graduate programs what the phrase 'process of elimination' entails...... if you didn't waitlist me or accept me SET ME FREE