cravingsunshine Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 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. Are you kidding? All of those schools have very reputable programs and some of them are top in their field. The research done at flinders is both interesting and influential. I know many students that went to flinders. I myself am looking for maritime archaeology programs and all of those schools are pretty damn good for their worth. In the us pretty much your only serious option is texas A&M which prizes grades over experience and is much like yourself elitist. You can get a great education at any of those programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newleaf Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Are you kidding? All of those schools have very reputable programs and some of them are top in their field. The research done at flinders is both interesting and influential. I know many students that went to flinders. I myself am looking for maritime archaeology programs and all of those schools are pretty damn good for their worth. In the us pretty much your only serious option is texas A&M which prizes grades over experience and is much like yourself elitist. You can get a great education at any of those programs. Hi Cravingsunshine, I think we come from different trajectories and interests in the discipline, so we might be writing past each other. What I meant was (which I did not make clear), is that if someone wanted to earn a PhD in the UK and come back to teach at a research 1 in social anthropology in the United States, I do not think that those schools in question would be very helpful. One would have to work twice as hard to achieve the goal. You can get a great education at Ohio State University, and its one of the largest schools in the US by enrollment. Notice how few anthropologists emerge out of the school? Its because the academy invents itself in its own imaginary. That means that the undergrad from NYU with poorer grades and little experience but letters from Rapp and Martin will get into UChicago, and the undergrad with impeccable grades from Ohio state might not get his or her application read. That said, things are radically different if one is going to the UK for an MA, or is not in social anthropology. I can't speak for Texas A&M, but I don't see any reason why experience should trump grades, or vice-versa really. Applications as we all know are holistic, and 3 years of experience doesn't make up for the general consensus that poor grades in undergraduate usually don't indicate a strong graduate school candidate. One redemption for A&M's supposed priority on grades is that you can go to the field and get experience if you dont have it, and there is a clear-cut path for that even in timeline of a phd program. There isn't a clear-cut path for rehabilitating poor grades and making a lackluster student a better one. You're putting the program at risk of having a student who cannot get grant money because they cannot get good grades. zillie, ellieanth and Armadilla 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armadilla Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 That means that the undergrad from NYU with poorer grades and little experience but letters from Rapp and Martin will get into UChicago, and the undergrad with impeccable grades from Ohio state might not get his or her application read. Well, if you are into feminist anthropology and effect of bipolar drugs on the brain cognition or something, then Dr. Martin's letter can get into a program where there is FIT, i.e., a professor who studies similar issues and actually sees some potential in you. If she just barely knows you, I doubt that a letter of rec might make that big of a difference. However, if she REALLY knows you and is willing to support your candidacy and even go out of her way and give whoever a call, then you definitely have that competitive advantage that other people do not have. The irony is, you can have all these perks without going to NYU--you just have to work hard, go out of your way and do interesting research projects on the national or international level. ellieanth and Armadilla 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newleaf Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Hi Armadilla, Im not sure where we got onto this trajectory, but I'll respond with how I've perceive things. I don't that agree that you need a letter from an undergraduate advisor with the same research interests as you to have a strong application. Most departments understand that kids' interests change from freshman year to senior year. Going from one feminist sts advisor to another would make things incredibly boring for...well everyone. I am also not sure about the import of "REALLY" knowing a student. I think a couple of courses and sustained contact over a year or so is all one needs to get a strong letter, but maybe not that phone call. That said, I don't really know what goes into writing a letter of rec and have never written one. You can't have the perk of NYU-star faculty (there are a lot of heavy weights in the department) and good grades in NYU caliber courses by working hard at a school that has less anthropological prestige. You have so so so much working against you if you're at Boise state and want a PhD at Columbia, for example, even if it is the best fit for you, than you do at NYU. This is how I see things, and maybe its totally off. Hello PhD apps round 2! anxiousanthro, zillie and newleaf 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthropologygeek Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Wow just want to say how arrogant people on this have become and to say in my field I have yet to meet someone at conferences or in my school or and very little have been written in a journal from nyu. Just saying school focus on very specific things and honesty you know how many recs they are writing both from students from their university and everyone they have encounter at field schools and etc. The more so called famous someone is the more recs they write. Not to mention everyone has enemies. And everyone have programs who will reject you because they hate one of your recs. Professors love some professors and hate some just like everyone does. newleaf, zillie and Armadilla 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newleaf Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 @anthropologygeek: what? edit from last post: You have so so so much working against you if you're FROM Boise state and want a PhD at Columbia, for example, even if it is the best fit for you, than you COMING FROM NYU. anxiousanthro and newleaf 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthropologygeek Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 New leaf- Actually being from one school won't be the deciding factor. The applicant is the deciding factor and if the nyu student was lazy for four years they would not get in over the person from Boise State who work hard for four years. For undergrad it doesn't matter the university it's what you did. This is coming from a person who went to the small university for undergrad and is now in the middle of the top program in m field for my phd. Armadilla 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zillie Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) That means that the undergrad from NYU with poorer grades and little experience but letters from Rapp and Martin will get into UChicago, and the undergrad with impeccable grades from Ohio state might not get his or her application read. I don't think either of these factors are as important as fit with the program and your potential advisor's research interests. From what I understand, schools are interested in your research fit, your potential to produce creative and publishable research, and at times your ability to fit in with the existing students and faculty: i.e. if you come across as highly arrogant in your SOP or during a phone interview, profs are less likely to want you to be in the same room as them. have so so so much working against you if you're at Boise state and want a PhD at Columbia, for example, even if it is the best fit for you, than you do at NYU. This is how I see things, and maybe its totally off. Hello PhD apps round 2! In my opinion, you might be totally off. Especially if this is your round 2 for PhD apps. Edited January 16, 2012 by zillie zillie, newleaf and anthropologygeek 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthropologygeek Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Zillie- Couldn't agree more. zillie and newleaf 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newleaf Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Zillie, I agree with you about fit and advisor's research interests, and was responding to another poster's point on grades vs. research experience. Clearly I don't know what I'm talking about in general, and the prestige of one's undergrad institution isn't a silent contributing factor overall. If there is any merit to what I'm saying, when you go to UT's acceptance day, try to find out how many kids there are from schools that aren't from anthro power houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armadilla Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Zillie, I agree with you about fit and advisor's research interests, and was responding to another poster's point on grades vs. research experience. Clearly I don't know what I'm talking about in general, and the prestige of one's undergrad institution isn't a silent contributing factor overall. If there is any merit to what I'm saying, when you go to UT's acceptance day, try to find out how many kids there are from schools that aren't from anthro power houses. ehhh...I am 2 blocks away from the University of Texas at Austin (if that's the UT you are talking about) . Anyways, most of my friends who are in the PhD programs at UT (anthro and linguistics) not only did an MA at a number of very much unknown schools from texas (although, to be fair, all these schools are located located an hour 9or 2 hours) away from UT so everybody knows everyone) but also did their undergrad at some foreign universities that never come up on the US News report or whatever. The big research universities are not looking for a stratified sampling of East Coast elites from Beacon Hill (if that's what you are talking about), they are looking for people who can actually DO the research because in the end, those are the people who make these universities so prominent and outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armadilla Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Zillie- Couldn't agree more. I totally agree with you, guys. Anthrogeek, there were some good presentations from NYU in Montreal, but I definitely wouldn't say that this year's AAA's were dominated by that department. I really don't get newleaf's fascination with all the elite schools. It makes sense in our highly "stratified society", but this kind of thinking is really far away from anthropology and the nature of anthropological thought. I think that kind of thinking is more applicable to an MBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthropologygeek Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Armadillo- yeah in business, law or something like that new leaf might be right. Plus the so called elite schools new leaf is referring to all focus on the same things, and l have zero interest in those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baybiobabe Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Plus the so called elite schools new leaf is referring to all focus on the same things, and l have zero interest in those things. what things are you referring to? also, let's be totally clear: academia is most definitely a stratified field. but it's not so much the name of your phd institution that matters as it is the name of your advisor.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthropologygeek Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Bay- couldn't agree more. What I meant was In certain fields it depends on your advisor and not the university. But I will say in some fields it does matter zillie and newleaf 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now