I think the decision about which graduate school to attend is often terribly misunderstood. The criteria which one uses to evaluate undergraduate colleges simply do not not apply to graduate institutions, where individual faculty members and their precise research interests become much more important than the general reputation of the university as a whole. When I applied to Ph.D. programs in archaeology/anthropology, I already had a pretty good idea of what sort of dissertation research I was interested in. This helped me immeasurably. I applied to about 10 institutions, including 3-4 "hail Mary" applications to high end programs and about the same number of "safe" applications to low-brow schools. I was able to interview at about half of the graduate schools to which I applied.
In the end, my level of interest in the particular program, my "fit" with faculty research interests, and the degree to which I interacted with the department (through interviews, phone conversations, etc.) mattered much more than the perceived prestige of the institution. As, a result, I was rejected by most of my so-called "safe" schools and accepted by three of my favored choices (Harvard, SMU, Michigan). From this point on, my decision to attend Harvard was based, sanely, on the amount of financial aid offered (no one gets rich doing archaeology, so it is better not to accrue too much debt in grad school), along with research facilities, faculty interests, geographical location, and other minor considerations. I haven't regretted my choice.
To anyone who might be considering a graduate school career in archaeology, I recommend careful construction of the essay portion of the application, interviewing with all faculty members in the department to which you are applying, and choosing institutions where the faculty have regional and topical interests which closely match or compliment your own.
Return to Choosing a School
