Applying to graduate programs in anthropology

I've written so many emails and hosted so many meetings with students on this topic, I figured it might be worth just writing some of it down and directing folks here, so question and answer sessions can be more tailored to specific projects and nuts and bolts programmatic stuff. Also, some students have a lot of guidance from undergraduate advisors and some don't. Jess Calarco has written an excellent guide demystifying aspects of grad school to help level the playing field, but many anthro students won't be familiar with her. Her resources are excellent if you aren't.

Why apply

Before you start applying to programs or to work with specific people, you should probably know why you want to apply. What sort of career do you envision for yourself? Do you want to continue dabbling, in which case an MA/S program might be a good fit, or do you have a very clear idea of what the next four to six years of your life might look like? Most importantly, what is the question you seek to answer? This should be a broadly appealing question that anyone can connect with. You want to understand when and why uncles invest in their nieces and nephews instead of their daughters or sons in Southwest China (ok, that was my dissertation idea). That's pretty specific and not super exciting to someone who isn't already there. Backing out a bit is helpful - "Raising kids is hard. It's expensive. Humans put a whole lot into children compared to many animals. Strangely, they also put a lot into other people's kids, sometimes, apparently at the expense of their own. Why? This demands an explanation."

The question - along with a theoretical or "epistemological" approach (I admit that I don't love this word - it's too big to be useful for most folks, including ,me) but how you approach your question is important) is what helps to identify what program is right for you and, perhaps more importantly, what person is right to lead in guiding your journey through that framework.

Who do you want to work with?

For folks who have strong mentor-mentee relationships in their undergraduate programs (I wish this were everyone!), you will probably have a good idea from your advisor about what programs and people might make sense for you. It obviously takes more than that to figure this out cause your advisor(s) won't know everyone and there may be people out there who are even better fits for your work than your advisor is aware of. Still, it's a good place to start. Asking graduate students in your institution or well-informed undergraduates can also help to identify people and programs. The internet can do a lot. AI probably helps in terms of consolidating (though be careful to consider the costs of doing so for the planet, people's electric bills, and your own training).

I think it's a good idea to have somewhere between three and eight programs to apply to, especially if those programs offer waivers for application fees. Three is definitely on the low end, but if you have established excellent rapport with someone and they indicate that chances of success are high, it's not too low. One or two programs is too few. You want to have options and you never know when something might go wrong (e.g., authoritarian governments interfering with institutional admissions processes, funding lapses, etc.). More than eight programs is probably too many. You're not applying for an undergraduate program, but one where you have a long-term, complex relationship with a supervisor and lab- or program-mates. The search should be even more tailored than it was for your undergraduate program.

Once you have a list, you can start contacting potential supervisors. Send them an email with a concise summary of your potential question(s), where and how you want to work, and why you are interested in them/ their program. Ask for a brief meeting in the next several weeks and offer some windows when you are available to discuss. Follow up at least once if you don't hear back within a week or so. Professors' inboxes are like kids' lunchboxes - they require constant viligance and lots of things fester when they inevitably go unattended. In other words, when professors don't respond, it's rarely personal. They probably forgot or got too busy. Email again. Just be polite. Busyness culture sucks, but it is also true that professors are spread very thin. Patience and graciousness are never unwelcome.

Practical considerations

There are many and these deserve their own post, although again there are lots of resources on the web about this. Just know that your personal circumstances, family life, where you want to live, how much hybridity is allowed, salaries provided, workload, etc. are all reasonable considerations. You can and should discuss anything important to you with your potential supervisor and they should hopefully be willing to engage without pressing you for personal information that you may not want to disclose. Disclosure is a choice, not a requirement. Professors should never compel disclosures, but they can invite questions that touch on those issues. The relationship you have with your supervisor isn't set in stone - it can evolve - you can change advisors - but it's a lot. You should feel confident going in that they are there to support you however you need to be supported. If it's not a good fit, you and they can and should move on. You can also talk to their other students to get a sense of what it's like to work with them.

Statements of purpose

This is obviously the most important document in your application package. In my lab, it is common for me to work with a prospective student through several drafts before they are submitted with the application package. This process helps me to assess fit, student creativity and responsiveness to feedback, and how we work together to craft a feasible project.

Penn State Anthropology has great information on how to write statements of purpose. I haven’t seen any better guidance than this yet. These statements are usually about two pages long and describe what you want to do, with whom, how, and why within the program you've chosen. They also often include a brief statement of how you got there - how past experiences led to the desire to do graduate work and pursue your specific topic. Sometimes, this type of information is in a different document - e.g., a personal narrative. Either way, more specificity is better than less and every point should drive toward the project you describe. Instead of "I worked in Dr. Brown's lab and studied biochemical patterns in energy consumption, which prepared me for this work", try "My studies of biochemical patterns in energy consumption revealed that calorie labels are a poor proxy of energy expenditure for most types of food. This led me to ask the question I pose here surrounding how different forms of nutrition impact energy." Think of your statement of purpose as a mini grant proposal (like the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, for example) and you will be on the right track.

The programs I've been part of are theoretically oriented. They want the theoretical angle (epistomological framework) up front and driving questions and methods. Not all programs are like this, but it changes how the programs are run and what they want to see in a statement of purpose. For my lab, if you don't have a clear evolutionary or bio-cultural bent to your work, it may be hard to work through the program requirements, even if your project is otherwise really cool.

Methods must also be quite specific and well articulated to questions/ objectives. Laundry listing is not ideal - instead, be clear about why you need a specific method to answer your question. I should never be able to lift a section from your statement and drop it into someone else's. If I can do that, it's too generic. Instead of "I will use interviews and focus groups to answer my questions" try "interviews will describe how participants understand recent economic drivers of social change". Use a table (question/ aim | method | analysis | possible findings) to organize your thinking and then describe that table in your SoP (there usually isn't enough room for the table, itself). You will ultimately build on all of this when you apply for funding to support your work or write the proposal that advances you to PhD candidacy after you finish your coursework.

The end of the statement should indicate why the program you're applying to is the right one and why its faculty are the right people to help guide your journey. You should remind the review committee of why your work is important and why - regardless of what you find - you will help to advance knowledge in your area.

A note on AI

AI has lots of pros (e.g., synthesis, grammar, finding stuff you don't know about) and cons (environmental impact, amplified biases, hallucinations, intellectual property issues, abdication of thought to a fancy algorithm that basically steals other people's work). I don't mind students using AI after we have had a discussion and worked through possible questions and methods, but I don't want to read something that is written by AI. I am working with a student, we are working together on skills that require critical thinking and creativity. I can see how AI might augment some of this, but it should never replace it. That's my view. It might change and you might disagree. That's all ok. In the meantime, I'd rather read how you're thinking through something than something that is highly polished but does not really reflect you or your thinking.

Send questions and feedback!

I'm happy to edit/ adjust this post, so let me know what works, what doesn't, and what I missed.