Competitiveness Anthropology Graduate School

[jellyfish1]

For the most part, I very much agree with DigDeep's assesment. I would add to this discussion, however, (as a point of clarification,  not dissent), that the reputation of an institution in general or the undergraduate program does not necessarily correlate with the excellence of the anthropology department. Some "higher ranked" schools have mediocre anthro departments and some "lesser ranked" schools have more highly regarded programs. If you select where to apply based solely on presetige as a whole, in particular the Ivy League schools, you may be overlooking more highly regarded scholars in your field. For example, University of Arizona has an extremeley well regarded archaeology program and is considered by some to be one of the top departments in the county for particular types of research, even though it is not necessarily a top undergraduate school. However, as a historical archaeologist, I didn't even consider Harvard or Yale because they're not very strong in my area or in regards to the type of theory I choose to use. I agree with DigDeep that reputation is a HUGE factor in acquiring tenure track positions, but I think some on this forum have confused institutional or US News prestige wtih the prestige of the department. Top scholars in a field are well-connected and having them supporting you can be a huge advantage. A "big name" should refer to an individual or program, not a school in general, in my opinion.

The other logical fallacy present in this chain (discussed early on), is the use of the term "safety school." These days, it is rare or non-existant to find a program that is an automatic acceptance, and if you have a poor or mediocre academic record, you will have a difficult time of getting in anywhere at all. The statistic of an 88% accept rate was mentioned somewhere in this thread, and that is clearly related to undergrads only. I don't know of any PhD programs that accept even 25% of applicants. At any given school there are very few spots and there is always competition. The fact of the matter is that not everyone who wants to get a PhD in anthropology will be able to get in, and especially not with funding.

Also, many schools' websites list the successes of recent graduates and those that have entered tenure track jobs. Out of Chicago, Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia, Boston U, and Harvard, ZERO of them are able to send all their PhDs into tenure track jobs, so I find it impossible to believe that some other school has a monumentally better track record. Until definitively proven otherwise, I remain quite dubious.

[anthroflea]

The other logical fallacy present in this chain (discussed early on), is the use of the term "safety school." These days, it is rare or non-existant to find a program that is an automatic acceptance, and if you have a poor or mediocre academic record, you will have a difficult time of getting in anywhere at all. The statistic of an 88% accept rate was mentioned somewhere in this thread, and that is clearly related to undergrads only. I don't know of any PhD programs that accept even 25% of applicants. At any given school there are very few spots and there is always competition. The fact of the matter is that not everyone who wants to get a PhD in anthropology will be able to get in, and especially not with funding.

 

 

 

 

All I was trying to say in my very first post is that people are wondering whether there are some schools which are easier to get into than others. I personally completely agree with you, archaeostudent, in that there really is no such thing as a "safety school". I have come across some schools which take as much as 25% of applicants, but the majority of accepances are acceptances without funding. (Which is the same thing as a rejection for most people.) I think, however, that maybe we could redefine the term. I would think a "safety school" (not a guaranteed acceptance, just a better chance) would be a school that is a perfect fit and has a comparably high acceptance rate. So it is the opposite of a school one merely applies to because of their name and which is not a perfect fit. I am not trying to advocate going to a less selective program. I just started this thread because there are sooooo many people who come on this forum asking the exact same questions year after year. So I am really glad we got a good discussion going:) 

 

After talking to many people and watching a hiring process at my former department, I very much believe that there are different ways to make your Cv shine. Obviously, having a degree from a highly selective school will definitely help. Firstly, it is clear that you were a strong competitor at the time of your grad school application already. Then, as many others have said, networking is an important factor as well. Also, there is and always will be this subconscious connection of ivy/top-tier gratuate = smart.

 

However, it is also very important to find your research niche and to attend the right program for your. If your focus is zooarchaeology in a specific region of the world and there is a lesser known school with a perfect lab just for that, this might be the better school. I can already hear the objections, but the reason I am saying this is because publications and grant money play a huge role in the departmental hiring process. Your odds of having all that, in turn, increases if you are in a good environment to work on those things. In fact, in the hiring process which I was able to witness, past grants of the applicant played a huge role. Sadly, it seemed to overshadow a lot of other factors. 

 

Obviously, the combinatino of a degree from a top-tier school which was a great research fit, lots of grants and publications is ideal on this lousy job market. And when there is a ton of competition over just one faculty position, having the "ideal" CV will really increase your odds. However, there is more than obe way to build that ideal CV, especially if you are a good networker. 

 

To add some diplomatic words, "big names" is a very relative term in anthropology. Once you find your own research niche, you will learn about and idolize very different people from your heroes in undergrad. There certainly are people who have done some ground-breaking research who did not come from some of the absolute top schools. Similarly, you could study under a very big name at a state school. For instance, Dr. Erik Trinkaus has taught at the University of New Mexico for a long time and some of his students went on to do amazing research and work for amazing schools. To give another example, people who are big into dental microwear and want to make it in that field, tend to apply at the University of Arkansas. 

 

I also think that the reason why people from more prestigious schools often have better chances is not only the name of their school.  I think much of it is also the institution's ability to attract awesome researchers with an extensive network of other researcher friends. If you look through the CVs of some older, well-known anthropologists, you will notice that many of them started out at non-ivy/non-top-tier schools. If you do some additional research you will notice that some of their advisees who studied under them at their old universities, have also made it big in the field. So I do think that while big name people with big grants and extensive networks tend to "gather" at the most prestigious universities, these are not the only places you will find them. However, there are big name people with well-known labs who teach at non-top-tier schools. Often, it is just as hard to get into those programs to study with that specific professor as it is to get into a "big name school". 

 

What I am trying to say is that all this is VERY relative and very much depends on your research focus. DigDeep has some very good points but I am just trying to say that things aren't as black and white. 

 

We also need to remember that it is actually not that easy to set up a PhD program. I am not sure whether the requirements are the same at each university, but I know that usually there has to be at least one full professor at the department, for example. So when we talk about the PhD, we are talking about rankings and prestige differences of departments which are all good schools to begin with. I think this is why there are so many disagreements over whether a specific university is a good school or not. Also, this is why there are no true "safety schools". 

[blablupp]

To get back to the original topic:) Tulane had 110 applicants this year, 15 for social, 46 for bioanthro, 49 for archaeology. 4 spots are going to archaeology, 2 to bioanthro, 2 to social/linguistics. 

 

Also, and I personally don't think this is worth much, but because I know it influences the thinking of some, here's a ranking done by the National Research Council. This is an old ranking of anthropology grad schools from before they switched to their different way of ranking schools: 

 

1        University of Michigan

1        University of Chicago

3        University of California Berkeley

4        Harvard University

5        University  of Arizona

6        University of Pennsylvania

7        Stanford University

9        Yale University

9        University of California Los Angeles

9        University of California San Diego

11        University of Florida

12        University of Texas Austin

13        New York University

14        University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

15        University of California Davis

16        Columbia University

17        Washington University

18        Duke University

18        University of Wisconsin Madison

20        University of California Santa Barbara

21        Johns Hopkins University

21        City University of New York

23        University of Virginia

23        Rutgers University New Brunswick

25        University of Pittsburgh

26        Arizona State University

27        Princeton University

29        Indiana University

29        University of Washington

29        University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

31        Cornell University

32        Pennsylvania State University

33        Southern Methodist University

34        Northwestern University

35        University of Massachusetts Amherst

36        State University of New York Binghamton

37        State University of New York Buffalo

38        State University of New York Stony Brook

39        State University of New York Albany

40        University of Connecticut

41        University of Hawaii, Manoa

42        Southern Illinois University

43        Brown University

43        University of Iowa

45        University of Oregon

46        Michigan State University

47        Tulane University

47        University of Utah

49        University of Kentucky

50        University of Minnesota

51        Boston University

52        University of Tennessee Knoxville

53        University of Missouri Columbia

53        Temple University

55        University of Colorado

55        University of California Riverside

57        Vanderbilt University

57        University of Kansas

59        Brandeis University

60        University of South Flordia

61        Syracuse University

62        University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

63        Washington State University

64        Wayne State University

66        University of Oklahoma

66        University of Rochester

66        Ohio State University

68        American University

69        Catholic University of America

[blablupp]

Hoping this will lead to a fun debate;)

[jellyfish1]

Anthroflea- I very much agree with what you are saying; you make some very good points. My apologies- I got the start of this thread a bit confused with the thread about choosing to go to a "lower tier" anthro program, and so my comments about "the start of this thread" were actually referring to those posts. My bad! In that thread (which is a little buried now), the question was posed that if you got rejected everywhere this year, did it make sense to apply to schools that would kind of take anyone. In my opinion, as those in this thread seem to have agreed, there really isn't a school that will actually take just anyone and that all programs have at least some competition- usually for admittance, always for funding. I may not get accepted anywhere this year (although I have only heard from 1/5 schools so far), and if I do, my plan is to try to work to improve my resume and application, rather than lowing my goals, although I realize everyone has different types of priorities.

 I absolutely agree with your analysis of the determination of a "good school." Ultimately, schools hiring for TT positions will be interested in your research and research interests and working with a respected scholar in that subfield is important. Ah, "fit," you ambiguous devil, you appear again! Top scholars are often considered that because they usually have innovative research, ideas, and approaches. You really can find them at nearly any school, and I think it's important (to me at least) to work with someone whose work resonates with my interests and who will push me to expand my thought horizons in innovative and marketable ways.

Again, sorry for my mistake in discussing the wrong OP! Thank you for starting this conversation!

[anthroflea]

Again, sorry for my mistake in discussing the wrong OP! Thank you for starting this conversation!

 

No reason to apologize for writing things which are true;)

[strudelle]

I love all the debate in this thread. Y'all are gonna make great academics

[DigDeep(inactive)]

My argument was predicated on the fact that the University System is a prestige economy, complete with it's own social and cultural capital. Why would someone go into so much debt to go to a so called "prestigious" school. Similarly, why would the Maori hunt whales or foragers during the last Ice Age hunt Mammoths, for that matter. Why kill a mammoth or whale when you could simply "not" risk your life for easier prey? Similarly, why go to Cornell without funding and layer yourself in debt when you could go to a state school with funding, potentially. Just as the Maori hunters and early foragers are not hunting for caloric intake, neither are those who bury themselves in debt looking for education they could get elsewhere. They want the name and the prestige; they want the social and cultural capital; and they want the access that prestige offers.

 

Prestige economies are embedded within our cultural systems. This means, for America, that our capitalistic system promotes prestige through a shallow and callous perspective that defines "success" by "how good you look" which converts into "how much money you make". Having Harvard next to your name makes you look good and implies that you are successful (i.e., have, had, and are going to make "money"). 

 

I'm not saying that you have to go to a prestigious school to succeed, or that if you do you will succeed. My reaction was based on the fact that someone said that "school name means nothing". Unfortunately, it does. I don't agree with it either, but the mere fact there are "peer plus policies" exemplify that fact. 

[anthroflea]

Yes, DigDeep, unfortunately there is much truth in what you are saying. Brings me back to the nights of reading Bourdieu in my social anthro classes:)

[Daisy123]

I think what we can summarize is that 1) going to a "top " school in the right department/ subfield IS an advantage, 2) not going to a big name school will not necessarily hinder your chances of success, 3) the most important thing is what you can do with yourself when you are in a program, 4) it is important to have a POI that has a network and a name that can get you to those academic events and projects that will dictate what you can do by your self once you are out of his/her hands. Thats what i understand and believe....please feel free to add. Everyone has made great points, thank you for the inside. 

On the topic of competitiveness.: 

University of Arizona had over 200 applications, 8% were accepted, and 8 people were accepted into the sub-discipline of archaeology. 

[DigDeep(inactive)]

Yes, DigDeep, unfortunately there is much truth in what you are saying. Brings me back to the nights of reading Bourdieu in my social anthro classes:)

 

Exactly right. Combine that with a little Evolutionary Anth  (i.e., group selection, cultural transmission, costly signaling) and I think it would make a succinct and convincing argument. Generally the perspective I take on most things, at least. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by DigDeep

[anthroflea]

Louisiana State University has a brand new pure anthropology PhD track. So I wonder whether their acceptance rate might be relatively high considering they are trying to build the program? This is pure speculation though. 

[DigDeep(inactive)]

I'd say it was a fair assumption!

[FaultyPowers]

Louisiana State University has a brand new pure anthropology PhD track. So I wonder whether their acceptance rate might be relatively high considering they are trying to build the program? This is pure speculation though. 

 

Can you link up where you found that info anthroflea? Is it brand new for 2015 or is it currently available? I just went to the website but all I see is an MA in anthropology...

[anthroflea]

I know some people there;) This is their new website: http://ga.lsu.edu/graduate-program/

 

They used to just have the geography PhD and people interested in anthropology could get a geography Phd with a focus in anthropology (which is what they changed). 

[Daisy123]

It is so funny you would post this right now , because i was JUSTTTTTTTTTTTT about to post a new topic about if anyone is familiar with new PhD anthropology programs

[anthropologygeek]

Daisy- Notre dame have a relative new PHD program.

I stand by my statement. At least in physical anthropology the name of the university means nothing. It's who you worked under, and what you did while you are there and the connections you have made. I can give you a list of grat physical anthropologist who work at Smaller Universities. Actually kent state used to be one of the best programs to go to for your phd. to me any R1 program is good enough to get you a good job. Dig deep has yet to state what he/she considers prestigious. And keep posted things which I countered.

And for the list of top anthro programs. A college had to request to be included in the ranking so they left a lot out.

As for placement- Yes I understand its not common at most schools but my university have great profs who train their advisees to be very successful. I give all the credit to our training as anthropologist by the profs to the successful job placement. Again I will say at min 50% drop out or get kicked out. If your not serious and don't show the work effort they want they will kick you out.

[anthroflea]

So, I wanted to add some data to the hypothetical discussion   This is taken from the faculty websites of a few schools.

 

How many Anthropology faculty members earned their PhD at which university?

 

Northwestern:

NYU (2 faculty members)

Emory (2 faculty members)

UFlorida (2 faculty members)

Michigan (2 faculty members)

CUNY

Stanford

Chicago

Berkeley

UNC Chapel Hill

Syracuse University

University of Utah

Columbia

Iowa

Cambridge

Northwestern

 

Harvard:

UChicago (5 faculty members)

Harvard (3 faculty members)

London School of Economics (2 faculty members)

UPenn (2 faculty members)

U of Connecticut

NYU
Stanford

UCLA

Columbia

Oxford

York University (Canada)

UC Santa Barbara

University of Michigan

Duke

UC Berkeley

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

 

University of Chicago:

UC Berkeley (4 faculty members)

UChicago (2 faculty members)

UMichigan (2 faculty members)

Columbia (2 faculty members)

Harvard (2 faculty members)

Syracuse University

University of Vienna

Johns Hopkins

UC San Diego

NYU

UPenn

University of Munich

UCLA

MIT

 

UCLA:

UMichigan (4 faculty members)

UC Santa Barbara (2 Faculty members)

UChicago (2 faculty members)

UC San Diego (2 faculty members)

UPenn (2 faculty members)

Harvard (2 faculty members)

Yale

UArizona

University of St. Andrews

NYU

University of Southern California

UChicago

Duke

Stanford

Yale

Indiana

Rochester

CUNY
UWashington

Arizona State

UC Berkeley

Northwestern

Florida State

UCLA

[mutualist007]

I find this argument boring. You have your opinion. I have mine. 

Excuse me, my cat and I have crime to fight...

 

You won the internet that day with this. The last bit was a funny effective way to exit.

[mutualist007]

I generally agree with Forsaken and DigDeep. Presitge matters but maybe what we need to look at is actually the realtive presitige that includes the school ranking, and the specific faculty one studied with at the department. The relative prestige may also need to include the prestige relationship or differential between the doctoral school of the applicant and the school that is hiring.

 

Can anyone point to a faculty member teaching at a top ranked school who received their degree from a lesser known unranked school - or someone from a top 10 ranked school who teaches at a small state university in the sticks with no PhD program (nothing wrong with those btw... I would rather teach there I think)? I'm willing to stand corrected, and I imagine it happens, but I suspect that those instances will be the exceptions and outliers.

 

I don't like saying that one school has more prestige than another, but I think they get ranked nonetheless.

[skylarking]

I went to a small state school in the mountain west with a PhD program in Soc but not Anth. Two professors (one of whom was my Soc advisor) got their PhDs at Iowa (http://www.sociology.uiowa.edu/newsoc/stories/iowahist.htm in case anyone is unfamiliar with the Iowa school). Another went to Indiana. Two went to Penn State (top 5 in demography). One of our Anth professors got his PhD at Chicago. My Anth advisor got her PhD at Michigan and then taught at Chicago before coming to teach at my uni. We're not a great school for social sciences, but people know the people with whom I studied and that's helped me make more contacts across academia. 

[anthropologygeek]

Mutual- please explain what's programs are most prestigious to least prestigious and that would be super easy to prove. Say university of arizona less than Yale yet someone got their phd from uofa and teaches a Yale. Is that what you wanted?

[anthroflea]

There are a few I can think of. They all graduated at great departments, just not top ten: 

 

-          Dr. Geoffrey Hayes faculty member at Northwestern, PhD @ University of Utah

-          Dr. Charles Adam, faculty member at University of Arizona, PhD @ University of Colorado

-          Dr. Barbara Mills, faculty member at University of Arizona, PhD @ University of New Mexico

-          Dr. Caroly Rouse, PhD from University of Southern California, chair of the anthropology department at Princeton University

-          Dr. Christian Tryon, faculty member at Harvard, PhD @ University of Connecticut (Great, great program. I just think Connecticut to Harvard is a step up in terms of prestige).

-          Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, huge name in bioanthropology & curator for the Smithonian, PhD @ University of Kansas

-          Dr. Dolores Piperno, archaeobotanist for the Smithonian Institute, PhD @ Temple University

[pears]

There are a few I can think of. They all graduated at great departments, just not top ten: 

 

-          Dr. Geoffrey Hayes faculty member at Northwestern, PhD @ University of Utah

-          Dr. Charles Adam, faculty member at University of Arizona, PhD @ University of Colorado

-          Dr. Barbara Mills, faculty member at University of Arizona, PhD @ University of New Mexico

-          Dr. Caroly Rouse, PhD from University of Southern California, chair of the anthropology department at Princeton University

-          Dr. Christian Tryon, faculty member at Harvard, PhD @ University of Connecticut (Great, great program. I just think Connecticut to Harvard is a step up in terms of prestige).

-          Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, huge name in bioanthropology & curator for the Smithonian, PhD @ University of Kansas

-          Dr. Dolores Piperno, archaeobotanist for the Smithonian Institute, PhD @ Temple University

 

Although it's likely a bit outdated now, this reminded me of the SAA's publication that attempted to rank PhD programs in archaeology; click here for link. I believe Michigan (U of), Cal (Berkeley), and Arizona (U of) fell in the top 3 positions, while ASU was 5th; not sure about the 4th spot. Unfortunately, I don't have the full list, but I think that this survey did a good job of finding a way to assess what matters the most. The five most important factors, in order: research opportunities for students, graduate funding, curriculum & quality of university library (tie), success of faculty in competing for funds, & a strong emphasis on method & theory. I interpret that as fit, funding, fit, funding, & not-quite-either-one (closer to fit, though).

[anthroflea]

Although it's likely a bit outdated now, this reminded me of the SAA's publication that attempted to rank PhD programs in archaeology; click here for link. I believe Michigan (U of), Cal (Berkeley), and Arizona (U of) fell in the top 3 positions, while ASU was 5th; not sure about the 4th spot. Unfortunately, I don't have the full list, but I think that this survey did a good job of finding a way to assess what matters the most. The five most important factors, in order: research opportunities for students, graduate funding, curriculum & quality of university library (tie), success of faculty in competing for funds, & a strong emphasis on method & theory. I interpret that as fit, funding, fit, funding, & not-quite-either-one (closer to fit, though).

 

Yeah. I guess "top ten" is hard to define anyway. I was looking at the ranking that was posted in the thread earlier and just vague ideas of which program might be more prestigious than the other. While I personally agree with everybody who argues that there are a ton of problems with rankings, I do find myself looking at them every once in a while. I think they matter, unfortunately, because a good placement in a ranking will probably increase the number of people applying to that school and in turn have an impact on the department's prestige. Most people on gradcafe are relatively well informed and will make decisions based on criteria other than rankings, but I am sure there are many people out there who look at these things.