Well,  I have wanted my Ph.d. for a long time.  I have applied to over 40 programs over the course of 6 years.  I have a Masters degree with a 3.7 GPA, 10 years of field experience (7 years post Masters degree)... and I don't get in either.  I think I might have too much CRM-stink on me for the academics, but mostly I think it is wrong place, wrong time.

Even though you seem to be trending towards Lab/museum, I would probably get some more field experience.  Also, simply contacting professors you are interested in studying with is not enough.  You need to go to the school and speak with them face to face (if you can).

You aren't doing anything wrong.  Probably just unlucky.  If the professor you are trying to study with has two or three grad students (which can take anywhere from 4 to 10 years), you won't get in no matter how good you are.  Some profs cap the # grad students they work with.  You need to talk to these folks face to face and get them to anticipate when they will likely have an opening.  At least then, you have a chance.  Expand the number of programs you find acceptable (i.e. the shotgun approach... might hit something).

If it is a Ph.d. you are after you may want to go ahead a develop your data set ahead of time (not necessarily collect the data, but know the question you want to pursue and where the data is to pursue it).  Be so specific in your statement of purpose that it almost sounds like your Ph.d. proposal.  A professor might see you as an easy candidate if you have all that crap ready to go. 

Acceptance Committees do NOT go by the hard numbers all the time... sometimes it is a gut feeling.  Sometimes arbitrary.  I have been on acceptance committees (for MA only program) where someone was denied entrance because, "We already have a Jennifer in the program".

Good luck, though.  I have pretty much given up on the doctorate, myself.  

Have you scheduled appointments with the department professors? Have you talked with those on the selection committee? Have you talked with the Dean of the Department/College? You need to know what it is they are looking for in an application and letter of intent.

If yes, and you're still not getting in then maybe applying to different schools altogether would help.

Have either of you considered that one of your letters of recommendation may be bad?  Maybe someone is not writing you a good recommend and not telling you.  The university you apply to won't necessarily tell you if they are.  I have heard some real horror stories from people this has happened to.  Either that or you are just applying to the wrong places.  They may be very competitive, they may not be taking students, they may have openings the next year, or they may not have any funding for new students.  McBain is right about the face to face, that is the best way to assess the situation.

I understand your frustration - but you should not be surprised.  a 3.2 may be a good cum for some fields, but as noted, Anthro/Archaeo is very competitive and a 3.2 is probably far from the top of the group that is applying.  You have to keep in mind that most entering Grad students are usually the best of the best (mostly As in undergrad) and many them find the grad level work very challenging - dropping their cums by .5 -1 point in many cases (apply this to yourself, the 3.2 could easily drop in the 2.5 range for Grad work).  It might be helfpul for you to look into taking a class or two at the grad level at the closest place you can find to where you are - and then working your tail off to get As in those classes.  This would help you demonstrate that you can handle Grad level work.

It would also help to show that you can write well.  You do not mention if you have submitted any samples of your writing as part of your applications?  Did you do any research/writing at the undergrad level  - if not, that may be a factor (and a result your undergrad schools program). That is another factor that may be involved, does your undergrad school have a good track record for Grad students?  If they have not sent others on - or if others have started and not done well - even great grades may not look good to Grad schools.  A way to counter this is to show them you can do research successfully.  See if you can tie into ongoing projects of some kind (even through the museums you have worked at) and do some original research, write it up, submit it for publication (even to regional avocational journals if that is all you can find)  and prove to the grad schools you have the ability.  IF you take this route, be sure that you have others review your work before submitting - both for writing style (use the writing center at your alma mater if necessary) and for process/content/method - perhaps folks at the museum can help - . 

I know this may seem like a lot to do, but if you are serious about going on - it may prove very helpful.

Good Luck
DM

I've been down this road before and it can be depressing, frustrating, and incredibly expensive.  My advice is to:

1) Identify and maximize contact with the adviser you want to work with.  This can be a long process but will be the single most important aspect in getting into grad school.  I've seen the process work, where a packet is handed off to a faculty member and s/he is asked "are you willing to work with this student"?  You may be great and your potential adviser may concur but s/he already has several grad students, it might not even be an option.  It's always best to find out if this person is available prior to sending off your application packet.

2) Identify a region, time period, and artifact/specialty for your personal statement.  This can and will most likely change but the more prepared you look, the better your chances will be in getting in.

3) Talk to the people who are going to write you letters of recommendations.  In my case, all of mine gave me a chance to look over them before they sealed the envelopes, and one actually had me write my own.  I don't know how rare this is, but at the very least give them a complete copy of your application and resume and tell them the primary points you'd like them to hit.  Also, think about who you ask to write them; in a lot of ways it may be better to have a recent professional reference than a letter from an undergrad professor who only barely remembers you.  Also, don't discount references from those in the CRM field; many have lots of contacts and are well respected in their sub-fields.

4) Present or publish something.  If this means a poster at the SAA's or a paper or presentation at your state or regional archaeology conference, then go for it.

5) Maximize your GRE scores and research the schools you are applying to.  Many have arbitrary cut offs for GRE scores and grades and many more have informal cut off points.  Even if the committee doesn't really care about GRE scores, the department probably likes to keep them up in terms of looking good at the college, and there are many arbitrary cut off points for funding.

Oh god, your making me very nervous now.  Im waiting to hear from a school and I am getting anxious.  This is my second time around applying as well.  I just don't understand why they cant let you in if your gpa and everything is good.  I mean, we are paying you after all.

McBain, I have been in the field twice. I was going to sign up to do an excavation overseas, but when the economy crashed, I thought it would be better to take an internship.

Dmack, during my undergraduate studies, I did take several graduate level courses and did very well in them.

Dwarmour, I hope you get to the schools you applied to. I do agree with you on letting us in if we are paying for it. I also understand that professors can't take on more than 3 or 4 graduate students at a time.

Does anyone else have any advise? All of the advise given has helped me a lot and given me back some of the hope I lost.

Where are you applying too?  Some schools are just VERY selective...especially if their funding has been cut.  Maybe it's time to apply to second or third tier schools?

Personally, I'd be concerned that 3.2 is light for an undergrad degree GPA. You didn't mention which schools you're applying to, but my guess is that NO first tier school would look at a 3.25 GPA unless you had  other 'mitigating' things in your application. i.e. published research out the wazoo, 99.99% GRE score AND a great sob story about how you raised that 3.2 from a 1.3 by six terms in a row of 3.9 semester GPA's.

DMack has a great point, my guess is that the committees are worried that someone with a 3.2 undergrad GPA isn't going to hack it in Grad School.  You do know that if you drop to below a 3.0 in grad School, most will kick you out?

I'd go back an pop off a second Bachelor's to raise that GPA and look more well-rounded (and keep the Student Loan folks at bay. wink wink).  Most schools will not insist you do all the GenEd crap all over again, a 30something credit core cognate will usually add another diploma and raise your GPA higher. Try Geology or Chemistry or something scientific that will impress them.  Most Humanities types think anyone who can take Calculus and has a BS is pretty damn smart.

Speaking from expereince, if the school says 'Min. 3.3 GPA to admit" they really mean 3.5 or higher.  If they say 3.5 or higher to admit, they want a 3.8 or so.  Graduate school isn't a technical training ground, its damn hard work and usually designed to allow you to be able to do independant research. You might suffer from 'unrealistic expectations' syndrome. 20 years ago 80% of Grad students in Anthro were there to teach, 20% went off to CRM jobs.  It's flipflopped today.

Also, how much research did you do on the places you are applying to?   The program I have my heart set on, it's very selective and since there are only 35 folks in that program today, that tells me they only admit one to three a year.The bonus is, the area I want to do research in is HUGELY underepresented there right now and the faculty people who would be my advisors are twiddling their thumbs.

You're 3.x gpa should have no bearing on your ability to perform in grad-school. Undergraduate work is generally mindless tedium of repetitive regurgitation exercises (not that you dont learn anything, but the process is pretty much that). Graduate work on the other hand requires one to be able to piece together coherent thoughts based on readings of various sources and present those in a variety of formats.

What you want to be doing GJKnight is to be looking for a graduate program that fundamentally understands that they are providing an education to people who want to be there, and not to a bunch of kids still on mom and dad's dime who move directly from high-school part II on to a graduate degree simply because they know of nothing else to do. I see those kinds all the time and they still have no clue what they are doing, or are going to do.

Remember too, all "requirements" are guidelines, they can be negotiated to your advantage if you find the right people with which to negotiate.

I have to respectfully disagree.  Undergrad, like grad school, is a process that whereby you get out of it what you put into it.  When these 'High School II" students want to move to grad school, their GPA's are usually the best indicator of what they are going to do, based on what they have done.  If someone has spent their time in Undergrad, performing at B level work, they are going to find themselves left behind when the schools select the A, A- and B+ students for grad programs. That's just a cold, hard reality.

Since 99% of undergrad degree holders are applying to Grad School with nothing to offer other than grades and possibly GRE scores, their grades and GRE scores become pretty important markers of their potential for future success. The reality is they have no resarch done, they have nothing other than some lab work and possibly field school experience to offer, and that's it. *IF* GJKnight wanted to offset the low grades with something else, that's where your 'negotiation' advice somes into play. But from direct experience, it's a hard sell.

Instead of applying to Tier I schools, I'd suggest anyone with lower GPA's try and get into a lower ranked program and transfer after their first year, or try to inflate their undergrad degree GPA somehow with post bachelor's work.. Having a backup plan is never a bad thing.

gjknight123 and other -- Hang in there.  I was devastated (perhaps too strong, but that's how I felt at the time) when I was not accepted to an antro dept to pursue a Masters in archaeology.   I was a former student at the undergrad level, took courses from the Chair of the committee (and held my own taking grad classes from her at the undergrad level), graduated with my anthro undergrad with honors, etc.  When I was declined, my attempts at contact with her were fruitless.  I was pretty pissed off, to say the least. 

I, like many others, want to work in a museum context and I felt screwed at this point.  However, on a whim I checked out a "local" historic preservation program and became very interested.  After meeting with the program director, I was sold.  I would be able to pursue coursework directly and related to museum studies, and the program is extremely well respected.  I applied, was accepted, got a fellowship and have never looked back. 

Long - short; chin up and keep plugging along.  Perhaps investigate historic preservation programs.  There are a bunch of anthros / archies like us in the program and your past will be an asset in this field; there are a lot of things that are related.  If you'd like, you can contact me off line and I can give specific details about the program I am in.

Good luck!