extracurricular information in anthro grad school apps?

[anthrogradhopes]

I know that extracurriculars are more or less important in different fields as far as grad school admissions goes. Does anyone know how valued things like published articles, internships, field work, academic conference attendance/presentation, and the like are to anthropology grad school admissions? Do most schools barely glance at such things or do they seriously consider their relevance and value?

Also, has anyone seen listings of median GRE and GPA scores for admission into top anthro programs? Just want to know if I have a shot...

[a fragrant plant]

I know that extracurriculars are more or less important in different fields as far as grad school admissions goes. Does anyone know how valued things like published articles, internships, field work, academic conference attendance/presentation, and the like are to anthropology grad school admissions? Do most schools barely glance at such things or do they seriously consider their relevance and value?

Also, has anyone seen listings of median GRE and GPA scores for admission into top anthro programs? Just want to know if I have a shot...

I wouldn't group publication, fieldwork, conferences and internship under the "extracurricular" category. In my opinion, these are significant experiences that make one stand out from the rest of the applicants. Have you done all these? It's actually pretty impressive!

Edited November 10, 2009 by peanuttheanthro

[anthrogradhopes]

I wouldn't group publication, fieldwork, conferences and internship under the "extracurricular" category. In my opinion, these are significant experiences that make one stand out from the rest of the applicants. Have you done all these? It's actually pretty impressive!

Well, I haven't published an article yet (maybe next year, I have third-year undergrad standing), but I have done the rest. I mean, I'm sure just about every candidate has done something significant and unique. And I have some rough issues on my transcript (two straight semesters of withdrawals due to a tragic sort of personal event) and I'm trying to avoid the necessity to explain it anywhere in my app by having a wealth of positive stuff to draw their attention away from the ugly black mark. Also, I'm not an Anthropology major and have been trying to remedy that by taking as many Anth courses as possible in my last two years of college. So the more appealing things I do, I've been thinking, the better. Good to hear some people think these are actually worth something.

Beh.

[modernity]

Also, has anyone seen listings of median GRE and GPA scores for admission into top anthro programs? Just want to know if I have a shot...

For the most elite schools GREs of over 1400 and GPAs of 3.8 or so are the norm from when I did my initial search a few months ago.

[anthroboy2010]

For the most elite schools GREs of over 1400 and GPAs of 3.8 or so are the norm from when I did my initial search a few months ago.

where did you get this information? considering that most programs do not release this information, I find those numbers highly suspicious.

[Dubya]

where did you get this information? considering that most programs do not release this information, I find those numbers highly suspicious.

Few universities (I only ever came across stats for Duke and Minnesota) publish stats (though plenty give a vague idea of averages on their web pages). I can't find the Minnesota stats page, but here are the links for Duke:

http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admitcanth.htm

http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admitbaa.htm

As you can see from looking at past years, the stats of admitted students are quite variable. Cultural anth average GRE's have been as low as 1150 and as high as 1400...GPA's seem to be a bit more consistent, hovering around 3.5/3.6

Biological anth has slightly higher numbers most years with min/max GRE's of 1240/1425 and GPA's generally in the 3.6/3.7 range.

...so saying top programs have averages of 3.8 and 1400 may be stretching it a bit, but it's not implausible.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Dubya

[anthroboy2010]

Few universities (I only ever came across stats for Duke and Minnesota) publish stats (though plenty give a vague idea of averages on their web pages). I can't find the Minnesota stats page, but here are the links for Duke:

http://gradschool.du.../admitcanth.htm

http://gradschool.du...cs/admitbaa.htm

As you can see from looking at past years, the stats of admitted students are quite variable. Cultural anth average GRE's have been as low as 1150 and as high as 1400...GPA's seem to be a bit more consistent, hovering around 3.5/3.6

Biological anth has slightly higher numbers most years with min/max GRE's of 1240/1425 and GPA's generally in the 3.6/3.7 range.

...so saying top programs have averages of 3.8 and 1400 may be stretching it a bit, but it's not implausible.

Yea, i apologize for the snippy tone i might have written with in the last posting. My issue was more dealing with the fact that people (including myself) want indicators to see if we "have a chance of getting in," when in fact PhD admissions is so much NOT about the numbers. At the end of the day, a strong applicant with good connections will get in over the student with perfect numbers.

I wish PhD admissions processes we are easy to predict as law school or, to a lesser extent, business school. I guess the thing I keep telling myself is that applying to graduate school is NOTHING like applying to undergraduate (or professional) degree programs.

[Dubya]

...when in fact PhD admissions is so much NOT about the numbers. At the end of the day, a strong applicant with good connections will get in over the student with perfect numbers.

You're absolutely correct. If an applicant has decent GRE's/GPA then they're at least in the running...but on the other hand, some departments place more weight on numbers than others. For example, a professor in a decent (but certainly not top of the field) department told me that he had been fighting for me, but ultimately lost the battle because of my "low GRE scores." My GRE score was above 1300. The department website said that their average was in the 1200's. Goes to show just how unpredictable the system is.

[jacib]

You're absolutely correct. If an applicant has decent GRE's/GPA then they're at least in the running...but on the other hand, some departments place more weight on numbers than others. For example, a professor in a decent (but certainly not top of the field) department told me that he had been fighting for me, but ultimately lost the battle because of my "low GRE scores." My GRE score was above 1300. The department website said that their average was in the 1200's. Goes to show just how unpredictable the system is.

That's so weird! I don't have time to find it now, but many schools other schools besides Duke publish all their numbers. University of Minnesota and Northwestern I know do for sure. Here's University of Minnesota Twin Cities Anthro and here's Northwestern's anthro program... though now I realize Northwestern doesn't give scores, only # applied, # accepted. For other non-anthro kids lurking, you can find more Northwestern info here, more Minnesota info here. This again from Minnesota is something I hadn't seen before but is really interesting. It's the "Program Management Survey Responses". I would guess those numbers, especially places that offer year by year, are probably accurate... though what Dubya just said is unnerving for the whole process in general. Can you tell us more? Were you applying to a particularly competitive subfield?

[jacib]

where did you get this information? considering that most programs do not release this information, I find those numbers highly suspicious.

I think "are the norm" gives a good idea of the process. I'd imagine Anthro admission to be pretty similar to sociology admission. The top ten programs all had 1400+ averages, I'd guess the top twenty, maybe top thirty usually had 600+ on each section (quant is more important to sociology so that might matter). I know this because my father is a professor and emailed all his colleagues. That's what they told him. They were being honest. One private school in the top 20 was known for placing particular importance on the GRE's (a few of the other programs mentioned it specifically "while we don't put too much weight on them, a place like Elite Private University does."), but even at that place, one of my father's close friends wrote students normally have at least 620-30 in each; students with around 620-30 often decide to retake for admission. One low score won't kill you, but if there are two there needs to be something really extraordinary in the application. That said, they did accept someone with scores below 620 who had written an award winning BA thesis. This was clearly an exceptional case, but it shows they do at least look at those apps. So numbers can hurt you, but you definitely can make yourself stand out... it's just difficult.

My point is, you both can be right. They are the "normal range" of students, but a few really exceptional students who test poorly might be able to push their way to the top despite test scores. It's not a hard cap like in law school.

[anthroboy2010]

I think "are the norm" gives a good idea of the process. I'd imagine Anthro admission to be pretty similar to sociology admission. The top ten programs all had 1400+ averages, I'd guess the top twenty, maybe top thirty usually had 600+ on each section (quant is more important to sociology so that might matter). I know this because my father is a professor and emailed all his colleagues. That's what they told him. They were being honest. One private school in the top 20 was known for placing particular importance on the GRE's (a few of the other programs mentioned it specifically "while we don't put too much weight on them, a place like Elite Private University does."), but even at that place, one of my father's close friends wrote students normally have at least 620-30 in each; students with around 620-30 often decide to retake for admission. One low score won't kill you, but if there are two there needs to be something really extraordinary in the application. That said, they did accept someone with scores below 620 who had written an award winning BA thesis. This was clearly an exceptional case, but it shows they do at least look at those apps. So numbers can hurt you, but you definitely can make yourself stand out... it's just difficult.

My point is, you both can be right. They are the "normal range" of students, but a few really exceptional students who test poorly might be able to push their way to the top despite test scores. It's not a hard cap like in law school.

Great posting thread. At the end of the day, we all know what's being said is true: "the numbers matter, but they are not the only thing that count."

I am wary of whether these averages are suggestive of our own likelihood of being accepted though. I've always been told that the GRE scores matter more for University fellowships than they do for admissions (then again, that could only be true for the schools that I asked AND the department told me that they offer funding that is not given by the graduate school). Considering at most places you have to be "accepted" by both the Graduate School and the Department, I would venture to guess that it varies at most Universities who (graduate school or department) places what (a lot or a little) emphasis on the GPA or GRE. You can already imagine the combo's: Duke Graduate School likes high numbers, Anthropology doesn't care; Berkeley graduate division has a 1200 threshold, Political Science has a much higher expectation.

I look at the issue of averages with a grad school admissions "fact-rumor" i've always been told: "1200 on the GRE is the general cutoff." While I'm not into averages, I think it's safe to say that anything substantially below that one might want to reconsider taking the exam again. As far as GPA is concerned, sure a 3.5 seems to be a general expectation, but you can't do anything about changing your GPA if you're out of school. The solution: apply anyways with tons of field experience or enroll in a masters program and knock it out of the park. Again, just my two cents.

Edited January 19, 2010 by anthroboy2010

[jacib]

3.5 again is probably a general thing. If you went to a school that's known for tough grading, if you tried to be a physicist your first year and it was an epic fail, etc. they probably will tend to look at your a) major GPA the grades from your last (two) year(s). I for one have a GPA lower than 3.5, with GRE scores well above average (without my language courses, my GPA is much higher). I am guessing/hoping my GRE scores will balance out my overall GPA (my major GPA and my last two years GPA are both between 3.55 and 3.60).

[modernity]

3.5 again is probably a general thing. If you went to a school that's known for tough grading, if you tried to be a physicist your first year and it was an epic fail, etc. they probably will tend to look at your a) major GPA the grades from your last (two) year(s). I for one have a GPA lower than 3.5, with GRE scores well above average (without my language courses, my GPA is much higher). I am guessing/hoping my GRE scores will balance out my overall GPA (my major GPA and my last two years GPA are both between 3.55 and 3.60).

Agreed, but also coming from personal experience/hopes. I was in a completely different major my first two years where I did quite poorly and struggled with languages. Once I changed my major, things looked much better. My in major GPA is close to a 3.8, and considering that's what I would be doing in grad school I really hope that this is something they pay attention to and place weight on.

[anthroboy2010]

Agreed, but also coming from personal experience/hopes. I was in a completely different major my first two years where I did quite poorly and struggled with languages. Once I changed my major, things looked much better. My in major GPA is close to a 3.8, and considering that's what I would be doing in grad school I really hope that this is something they pay attention to and place weight on.

I wonder just how important one's GPA really is in the admissions process. I stick by the "generally need a 3.5" standard, but I question how much field-work/research can overcompensate for a lower GPA.

At the end of the day, PhD admissions committees look for the potential to succeed in a graduate program. One's GPA is probably the easiest way to look for academic success. However, I wonder how the writing of an honor's thesis and over three years of field-experience can augment the detriment of a lower-ended GPA (and by "lower-ended" i mean, a GPA between a 3.0 and a 3.5). Let's not forget with much of socio-cultural anthropology, research is based on language work and field projects.

It is my hunch that a 3.4 doesn't look bad when the person comes coupled with relevant field experience or a 3.35 with fluency in the language one seeks to do research in. Also, I wonder how much school "name" comes into play here. Does a 3.4 look as bad if you went to Harvard vs. Local State University? I supposed, like everything else in the process, that your numbers/experience are only relevant to your own application. In other words, you may be fresh out of college with a 3.9 and perfect GRE scores, but without stand-out letters of rec and a fantastic statement of purpose, something tells me, you probably will not get an offer. However, in applying to the same school, you had a Fulbright, wrote an honor's thesis, worked for a couple years more in the area you seek to focus on, but you had a 3.4 in college, all of a sudden you're a more competitive applicant than the 3.9 right out of college.

Does that make sense? Any one agree with me?

My sole point: statistical averages don't do much to tell you whether you're going to get in or not.

anthroboy2010.blogspot.com

Edited January 20, 2010 by anthroboy2010

[modernity]

I wonder just how important one's GPA really is in the admissions process. I stick by the "generally need a 3.5" standard, but I question how much field-work/research can overcompensate for a lower GPA.

At the end of the day, PhD admissions committees look for the potential to succeed in a graduate program. One's GPA is probably the easiest way to look for academic success. However, I wonder how the writing of an honor's thesis and over three years of field-experience can augment the detriment of a lower-ended GPA (and by "lower-ended" i mean, a GPA between a 3.0 and a 3.5). Let's not forget with much of socio-cultural anthropology, research is based on language work and field projects.

It is my hunch that a 3.4 doesn't look bad when the person comes coupled with relevant field experience or a 3.35 with fluency in the language one seeks to do research in. Also, I wonder how much school "name" comes into play here. Does a 3.4 look as bad if you went to Harvard vs. Local State University? I supposed, like everything else in the process, that your numbers/experience are only relevant to your own application. In other words, you may be fresh out of college with a 3.9 and perfect GRE scores, but without stand-out letters of rec and a fantastic statement of purpose, something tells me, you probably will not get an offer. However, in applying to the same school, you had a Fulbright, wrote an honor's thesis, worked for a couple years more in the area you seek to focus on, but you had a 3.4 in college, all of a sudden you're a more competitive applicant than the 3.9 right out of college.

Does that make sense? Any one agree with me?

My sole point: statistical averages don't do much to tell you whether you're going to get in or not.

anthroboy2010.blogspot.com

I agree that statistical averages - particularly in a subject like anthropology aren't that decisive. I was just saying that, if they're going to look at the GPA I hope they focus on my major GPA in anthro, rather than my lower overall GPA which is the result of less than stellar grades in unrelated subjects.