Anthropology Results 2014

[Canis]

Noticed the first 'result' for 2014 was posted today for Emory (PhD) indicating a writing sample was requested. Anyone else heard anything from their programs? It's quite early but there was one result for 2013 as well (for those who didn't follow that thread) for admission in Archaeology at University Of Albany, SUNY.

 

 

[laurissimo]

No news from any of my schools yet... I'm hoping to hear back from at least one of them by the end of this month. Although that's highly unlikely   A lady can dream!

[anthropologygeek]

Lauri- based on your schools you should hear back at one by end of feb and the rest but one early mar then one not till almost April if their history holds true

[jellyfish1]

Noticed the first 'result' for 2014 was posted today for Emory (PhD) indicating a writing sample was requested. Anyone else heard anything from their programs? It's quite early but there was one result for 2013 as well (for those who didn't follow that thread) for admission in Archaeology at University Of Albany, SUNY.

 

I'm wondering though if this wasn't just an "incomplete application" type e-mail. The Emory website states that a writing sample is "optional" but sometimes that information isn't up to date. The website also states that Emory's Anthro dept is on break until Jan 3 and the results claim the e-mail was sent Jan 2. I'm not insinuating the result is false or anything like that, but I just doubt they've had time to fully assess applications if the dept's been on holiday for the past few weeks. It is likely, however, that they might send out an e-mail to applicants who didn't send in a writing sample requesting one, if possible. The website in one area lists application documents and excludes any mention of a writing sample and elsewhere states it's "optional". So perhaps that's all it is.

That being said, I've noticed that in other fields, the some school interview results are a few weeks earlier than last year's (comparing the same program at the same school with several cases). There was even a thread about it by a STEM type applicant of some sort. I'm *really* trying not to get expectant of any results anytime soon because it will only make me more crazy. However, I've heard rumors that the past few years were extra rough and this year should be better. Something about the first round of "it's the recession, I can't find a job so I'll go to grad school" students finishing their PhDs and opening spots. So I'm hoping (or choosing to think) that these results might be a positive sign. If schools can be certain about applicants before all the applications are even in, they might have some extra spaces/funding/wiggle room? All we can do now is hope for the best!

[Canis]

Great questions! I looked through the last two years of anthro results just now (yes, it's what we do when we're waiting, right?) and noticed that Emory has asked people for interviews as early as January 10th. I bet they review them electronically and so faculty on the committee start as soon as they can to get it over with. So, it's possible this email was sent in order to get more information about an applicant they want to invite for an interview but aren't sure about yet (pure speculation).

 

I was told by one school they would notify me of result by the end of January - but that school hasn't has any results posted here earlier than March in the past - so perhaps they are all moving things up a bit? Or trying anyway...

[monfemme]

hey--so i am going to 'out' myself as the person with the emory request. i didn't turn in a writing sample because the application says don't do it unless the department wants it and the website said optional. so, i got a request for one stating that they wanted all 'qualified' applicants to be on equal footing. i got the feeling from it that they had made the first round and were choosing interview applicants and needed the same information from everyone. but, you know, could be pure speculation. also, i checked the email, and it definitely said the 2nd.

 

that said i also got an email a week ago from chicago with a strong suggestion to apply for a FLAS for funding. I saw this as a good sign and it means that programs are definitely starting to look applications over. I second what archaeostudent said about the strong possibility of programs getting back to us way earlier this year.

Edited January 5, 2014 by monfemme

[jellyfish1]

hey mon- Congratulations!! That does sound like really excellent news about Emory! I hope we'll all be hearing from depts soon! This waiting is driving me a little bonkers, but I know it's still so early. In the past none of my schools have started notifying before the end of January, so I'm trying *really* hard not to think about it (and failing, obviously).

I also got the FLAS letter from UChicago. It was sent to me on Dec 20. The weird thing is, it is in not really relevant to my area of study (I want to study 19th century US archaeology). Did anyone else get it? Did it go to everyone? Either way, it suggests they have lots of FLAS funding! Did you apply?

Here's hoping we all get good news soon.

[daykid]

I got the Chicago letter as well but none of the eligible languages through the CLAS are relevant to my project. I'm getting the impression that they just want to bring it to applicants' attention as a potentional source of funding.

[eriatarka]

I also received the FLAS email from Chicago. I'm applying to do Mexican historical archaeology, but none of the languages seem directly applicable. For example in Latin American languages they have Portuguese, Yucatec Mayan & Kiche Mayan, etc. I talked to one of the Meso grad students I know and he told me to try for Yucatec Mayan since it's used a lot in Meso studies. But not sure...? Still debating if I should waste my time on it.

 

PS - I am the SUNY Albany admit. lol

[monfemme]

alright seems like i might have gotten a little overexcited about any response from chicago. if you check the results from previous years it seems like next to no one gets in. i interpreted any sign of life as positive .

 

i did end up applying for the flas for korean. you only had to write an additional one page description of why it would augment your graduate experience and i figured it wouldn't hurt. i would encourage anyone who can to go ahead and do it. i wonder if previous year applicants also all got flas emails from chicago or if they are just flas-loaded this year.

[anthropologygeek]

Remember this site represents a great minority of applicants

[Canis]

Really important to remember anthrogeeks point! - many of these schools get hundreds of applicants, and there are just a few results posted here.

 

Using Duke as an example, there are 21 results posted for 2013, and 2 were acceptances.  But the program gets between 120-200 apps and admits around 5 people each year. So, that's a lot of people (a lot of the successful people!) who aren't on here or who aren't sharing their results. For all we know, it might even be the case that people who tend to use Grad Cafe forums are actually less likely to be admitted for any number of reasons - it would be really interesting to see an analysis of this.

 

We should probably also all remember that the whole process is unfair, and not transparent enough for students to really know what's going on behind the scenes. So despite being a great candidate if you don't get in, or don't get into your dream program that doesn't really mean anything about you and you would be well served by applying again in the future!

 

I describe it as unfair, despite school's contention that it is, for many reasons - especially having seen the process from the inside at one school. But you don't even need that inside experience to know - just look at the contradictions in information provided by programs.

 

For example using Duke's program again - the web site says:

"In the interest of fairness to all applicants, departmental visits from prospective students are strongly discouraged. Applicants should be advised that contact with faculty members does not advantage their application. Students are admitted by the faculty as a whole, rather than on a mentorship model in which applicants are vetted by particular faculty."

 

But if you read the sample statements of purpose they provide from "successful recent applicants" - one of the students explicitly describes visiting all of the professors he wants to work with and getting their support prior to applying, this is in his SOP.

 

These committees are, after all, only human.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Canis

[mutualist007]

hey--so i am going to 'out' myself as the person with the emory request. i didn't turn in a writing sample because the application says don't do it unless the department wants it and the website said optional. so, i got a request for one stating that they wanted all 'qualified' applicants to be on equal footing. i got the feeling from it that they had made the first round and were choosing interview applicants and needed the same information from everyone. but, you know, could be pure speculation. also, i checked the email, and it definitely said the 2nd.

 

that said i also got an email a week ago from chicago with a strong suggestion to apply for a FLAS for funding. I saw this as a good sign and it means that programs are definitely starting to look applications over. I second what archaeostudent said about the strong possibility of programs getting back to us way earlier this year.

 

Did they notify you by email or postal mail? Very curious, but also wary of disappointment. I have have not received either and may decide to take that as a sign to move on to Plan B.

[mutualist007]

Really important to remember anthrogeeks point! - many of these schools get hundreds of applicants, and there are just a few results posted here.

 

Using Duke as an example, there are 21 results posted for 2013, and 2 were acceptances.  But the program gets between 120-200 apps and admits around 5 people each year. So, that's a lot of people (a lot of the successful people!) who aren't on here or who aren't sharing their results. For all we know, it might even be the case that people who tend to use Grad Cafe forums are actually less likely to be admitted for any number of reasons - it would be really interesting to see an analysis of this.

 

We should probably also all remember that the whole process is unfair, and not transparent enough for students to really know what's going on behind the scenes. So despite being a great candidate if you don't get in, or don't get into your dream program that doesn't really mean anything about you and you would be well served by applying again in the future!

 

I describe it as unfair, despite school's contention that it is, for many reasons - especially having seen the process from the inside at one school. But you don't even need that inside experience to know - just look at the contradictions in information provided by programs.

 

For example using Duke's program again - the web site says:

"In the interest of fairness to all applicants, departmental visits from prospective students are strongly discouraged. Applicants should be advised that contact with faculty members does not advantage their application. Students are admitted by the faculty as a whole, rather than on a mentorship model in which applicants are vetted by particular faculty."

 

But if you read the sample statements of purpose they provide from "successful recent applicants" - one of the students explicitly describes visiting all of the professors he wants to work with and getting their support prior to applying, this is in his SOP.

 

These committees are, after all, only human.

 

I would like to know more about what you think on this. The biggest issue I have is this: How do different departments define "fit"? We talk about "fit" a lot, and I had a prof of mine tell me that "fit" is what matters more than merit. So how can we operationally define "fit"?

 

How much personal information (age and background, interests, academic socialization and network, conference exposure, etc) silently enters into the "fit" consideration?

[strudelle]

I'm curious about "fit" as well.  We have all heard of people staring graduate school with one project in mind and then moving on to something else.  I have also had professors who advise graduate students tell me that many come in with no real project proposal or clear idea of what they will be doing.  So is the fit just based on what you're interested in as opposed to what you actually plan to do? 

 

I could say I was interested in any number of things to get into a school, but this doesn't mean that my ultimate research goals would necessarily end up making me a good "fit" for the program. 

[NOWAYNOHOW]

I would like to know more about what you think on this. The biggest issue I have is this: How do different departments define "fit"? We talk about "fit" a lot, and I had a prof of mine tell me that "fit" is what matters more than merit. So how can we operationally define "fit"?

 

How much personal information (age and background, interests, academic socialization and network, conference exposure, etc) silently enters into the "fit" consideration?

 

 

I'm curious about "fit" as well.  We have all heard of people staring graduate school with one project in mind and then moving on to something else.  I have also had professors who advise graduate students tell me that many come in with no real project proposal or clear idea of what they will be doing.  So is the fit just based on what you're interested in as opposed to what you actually plan to do? 

 

I could say I was interested in any number of things to get into a school, but this doesn't mean that my ultimate research goals would necessarily end up making me a good "fit" for the program. 

 

From the discussions I've had with faculty about fit, the impression I got was the following: fit is about having interests and a proposed project that engages department strengths.  Does it draw from the expertise of multiple members of the faculty?  Does it contribute to a growing cluster or established research group within the department?  Is there a special feature unique to the university that benefits your proposed course of study? Are you, as a student, going to bring research questions, a theoretical orientation and a methodological approach that complements the department in general.  I think it is about saying, well, not only do Dr. A, Dr. B and Dr. C work on related issues, but I am particularly attached to critical anthropology of jeggings and so is the department at Y University.

 

So if you are a student who wants to study in, say, Russia, but there are no faculty members that work on that region, it's probably not a super fit.  Similarly, if you are a student who is more invested in critical and theoretical approaches than ethnography, but the department is very much an ethnographic bunch, then it is also not a good fit.  Makes sense?

 

IMHO, fit is as much about knowing the department as it is knowing yourself.  If you can definitively express the what, where and how you want to get your PhD, it is a lot easier to find places that fit with your goals. 

 

Edited to add: I think an element of fit is also on the department side.  Even if you are a good fit, Dr. A might not be taking students because she is going out in the field. Maybe there isn't enough funding to take more people interested in the anthropology of jeggings.  So even if, normally, you'd be a good fit, there are always other factors that could count you out.

Edited January 8, 2014 by NOWAYNOHOW

[NoSleepTilBreuckelen]

I completely agree with NOWAYNOHOW (and I love the jeggings example, haha!), fit has a lot to do with compatibility geographically, theoretically, chronologically with research that is ongoing in the department. If you apply to Y University has a strength in jegging-wearer ethnography (or maybe their strength is even more broadly in the anthropology of fashion) and you apply wanting to study how video games are affecting attendance at national parks, and they don't have anyone studying anything related to video games, or national parks, or family entertainment or anything else related, they won't have a faculty to match you up with as a mentor/advisor, regardless of how great your application is.

 

I definitely found it really hard to tell about fit just from the department's/POI's websites. There were two programs that I thought I would be a good fit in, but when I wrote professors in these two programs, they wrote back to let me know that was not so. In one instance it had to do with changes in faculty that weren't yet reflected on the department's website. In the other, the POI was super nice and suggested a program where my interests would fit better. 

 

If you are interested in a department because there are faculty or labs there that work on projects you are interested in, then you are definitely heading in the right directions of having a good fit for the department. 

Edited January 8, 2014 by NoSleepTilBreuckelen

[mutualist007]

From the discussions I've had with faculty about fit, the impression I got was the following: fit is about having interests and a proposed project that engages department strengths.  Does it draw from the expertise of multiple members of the faculty?  Does it contribute to a growing cluster or established research group within the department?  Is there a special feature unique to the university that benefits your proposed course of study? Are you, as a student, going to bring research questions, a theoretical orientation and a methodological approach that complements the department in general.  I think it is about saying, well, not only do Dr. A, Dr. B and Dr. C work on related issues, but I am particularly attached to critical anthropology of jeggings and so is the department at Y University.

 

So if you are a student who wants to study in, say, Russia, but there are no faculty members that work on that region, it's probably not a super fit.  Similarly, if you are a student who is more invested in critical and theoretical approaches than ethnography, but the department is very much an ethnographic bunch, then it is also not a good fit.  Makes sense?

 

IMHO, fit is as much about knowing the department as it is knowing yourself.  If you can definitively express the what, where and how you want to get your PhD, it is a lot easier to find places that fit with your goals. 

 

Edited to add: I think an element of fit is also on the department side.  Even if you are a good fit, Dr. A might not be taking students because she is going out in the field. Maybe there isn't enough funding to take more people interested in the anthropology of jeggings.  So even if, normally, you'd be a good fit, there are always other factors that could count you out.

 

 

There is the standard issue definition of "fit", and then I think there is something else altogether that so far remains intangible

[MPollywog]

I had a phone interview with a POI from Harvard yesterday (January 7th, 2014). He said that all of the professors will be getting together at the end of January to make final decisions.

 

I met with a professor at the University of Texas in December. She informed me that they were only able to accept one archaeology student (not me) due to funding restraints.

[mesoarch]

I had a phone interview with a POI from Harvard yesterday (January 7th, 2014). He said that all of the professors will be getting together at the end of January to make final decisions.

 

I met with a professor at the University of Texas in December. She informed me that they were only able to accept one archaeology student (not me) due to funding restraints.

 

Thanks for the info!  Are you the new linguistic anthro post for UT that showed up on the results board, or are you archaeology?

 

I'd heard through the grapevine that UT was having particularly bad funding issues this year, but I didn't think it'd be bad enough to only have one archaeology admit with the number of arch professors there.  I suppose it's not over til it's over, but I'm guessing that admit was not me.

[NoSleepTilBreuckelen]

Yeah, I likewise heard that there would only be one spot for archaeology at UT Austin (also not me).

 

How very Highlander of them... 

Edited January 8, 2014 by NoSleepTilBreuckelen

[MPollywog]

Mesoarch - I'm an archaeologist. The professor I spoke with at UT told me that they have a policy where they can't admit students without funding and only had enough money to cover one student. She told me that if I could aquire some type of fellowship or grant then I could enroll. From what I've heard some poor financial decisions were made with the Texas Archaeological Research Lab, which is now going defunct.

[colorless]

There is an interview thing on Results from Harvard. I wonder who the person is. It says it was a personal arrangement but still?

[colorless]

Anything on this???

[MPollywog]

It was me, I posted about it on the first page of this thread.