MarthUser

The benefit of going to Columbia is that it’s also close to Princeton, Yale, and UPenn where other Americanists can assist you/help expand your network. Which century are you working on for American religion?

I wonder if it might be helpful for your to pursue some level of seminary training to see how far your interests go (as opposed to a divinity or theology school, though these are good options as well, a seminary training might be more attentive to the spiritual formation-dimension of your congregation that your theological education can help with). There, you can get basic exposure under the guidance of professors who can help you think of career paths aligned with your interests. For some evangelical churches I've been to, they give paid-internships to folks to teach Sunday School (at both the youth, college, and adult-levels) and play an assistant-ship role to the pastor. As soon as you study at a seminary (or divinity/theology school), you will encounter opportunities to travel to places like the Holy Land with some professors. In addition, having ties to institutions like seminaries means that you will also have access to alumni resources for further education. I know some folks who end up working within the seminary in some administrative capacity, having access to the resources to learn on their own at their own pace but with proximity to professors and the lack of pressure from being a graduate student/professor in training. In short, there are a lot of benefits to becoming affiliated with an institution (assuming you can also afford it) that you would otherwise not have if you pursue it on your own. And it sounds like that might be the best place for you to start.

In the past two years I've been here, everyone usually comes around to post as soon as February/March comes around. People are usually in a scramble inquiring if others got interviews/acceptances/rejections.

I would say it might be to your advantage to pursue a Ph.D. in English instead. Part of this is because from most of what I've observed in most religious studies departments, they've often taken more ethnographic(anthropological or sociological), historical, or philosophical/theological methodologies over literary analysis. On the flip-side, you'll find people in English departments who do religion quite well and are read by people in religious studies departments. Some scholars that do religion and literature in English departments include Emily Ogden at UVA and Sarah Rivett at Princeton. You can also do an English department at a religiously-affiliated school like Baylor where they might want to cultivate your skills/abilities in biblical literary analysis.

So because I do history of religion, it requires familiarity with working in archives, familiarity with historiography (how previous scholars wrote about the subject), and knowing how to use primary sources to build a historical argument. Despite being in a religion department and not having a strong-scholarly argument regarding the category of "religion," my admission into the department revolved around having the tools to do the research required by my sub-field, not necessarily just having a good thesis/proposal. My seminary professors emphasized the importance of languages for Biblical Studies, but I've spoken to PhD students in early Christianity/Temple Judaism who mention that languages actually don't matter too much. With that in mind, it might be helpful to see what other people in other sub-fields/disciplines sense might be their equivalent.

At the base-level, having a strong Master's-level GPA and good GRE scores is important. Undergraduate GPA might not be too important. I had a barely 3.0 undergraduate GPA (granted it was in a completely different discipline and I accounted for this low GPA in my personal statement) and was able to get into a top-tiered PhD program. In my first year of applications, I was rejected from all schools I applied to (even low-tiered seminary PhD programs that offered no funding). Second-round, I got interviews at half the schools I applied to (about 12) and was accepted into four strong programs. One of my advisors at my current program mentioned that she remembered my application from the previous year and said that I was simply lacking the research skills to succeed in the program. And that was me having near-perfect Master's level GPA and strong recommendations from my professors. So from my experience, not even having the research skills already placed me in the "People who have absolutely no business applying to top PhD programs" as exemplified by me not getting any interviews/acceptances, even from no-stipend seminary programs. I want to say most people are probably really qualified by certain metrics (GPA/GRE scores-wise), but the range of "people who have absolutely no business applying to top PhD programs" extends well into how equipped someone is to do PhD-level work in their particular discipline, familiarity with methodology, and their knowledge of the scholarship that's already there.

My sense from other Theology/Philosophy folks (and even some Biblical Studies folks) is that not having languages does not disqualify a candidate. They might expect you to draw up a plan on your personal statement on how you will address the lack of language skills, but having it also doesn't make you a strong candidate either. With regard to your GRE scores, I would say a 164 Verbal is pretty good and should already establish you as a viable candidate. Professors who review your file and select students seem to rely heavily on how a candidate would "fit" into their department, and "fit" seems to come down to 1. how well your research interests align with other professors in the department/area of focus (and not just your advisor) 2. how open do you seem to be molded/challenged by your advisors (or are you already too wedded to your proposed dissertation topic? 3. do you have the basic tools to be a scholar in your field/sub-field (if you're doing history for example, have you worked with primary sources? can you show that you know how to analyze one through a religious-historical lens?) Most programs seem to want students who are already aware of the types of questions scholars are asking and finding ways to contribute to the discussions that are already ongoing within religion departments. If your personal statement doesn't reflect an understanding of the disciplinary tradition you're entering into, then it'll be difficult to make a case for how you might be a strong fit for a religion department. If you really want to prepare for the next round, talk to others who are already in the program. Ask them what they're researching. Attend conferences and get a sense/feel for the types of questions people are asking. And also (this helped me as well), don't be afraid to ask your professors straight up: what's a good thing for me to research if I want to get into a PhD program and am interested in this thing?

I came out of an MDiv program, but it was from a seminary not a divinity school like HDS. Before I was able to get into a program, I had to take that supplementary year of a ThM to better develop my research skills that would better prepare me for a PhD program. Because PhD programs are research-oriented and MDiv programs aren't all structured to produce researchers, it may fall on you to prove that you have the chops to do it well. My sense from having taken classes at HDS is that it doesn't seem like there's much of a difference between the MTS and MDiv programs in the course flexibility it allows. But from the general perception of MDiv vs. MTS, I would suggest going for the latter if you're already set on staying the course towards a PhD program. I'll add that I do know some people who wanted an MDiv for ordination purposes on top of wanting to prepare for a PhD program in the future. I see this as perhaps one of the few advantages of an MDiv over an MTS.

Given the metrics you've shared (GRE and GPA), I would say you're a very competitive candidate. That being said, being competitive does not mean you're a strong candidate for a particular department. As others have already echoed, it all comes down to more subjective factors like "departmental fit" and your research interests. What might help is if you use the SOP as a way to tell your story, incorporating the challenges you've faced along the way (accounting for your undergraduate and graduate shortcomings) with the evolution of your interests over the years, leading up to what you hope to bring to the program you're applying for and the research interventions you will make as a member of that department. As I've heard it said in the business world, show the progress you've made in your weaknesses and it becomes a strength. I share this as someone whose undergraduate GPA wasn't stellar (I was a Finance major in undergrad and wasn't all to interested in it as a subject) and whose GRE scores weren't impressive by any means (averaged around 160 on both), yet was accepted into a top-tier program.

In my own experience, a recommendation from Professor A would go a long way. I’ve had interviews where they asked me about classes I’ve taken with my Professor A recommender, showing that for most programs name recognition gets your application to stand out above the others.

I would say evangelical-seminary professors inhabit the space between “academia” and “ministry” which might be what you’re looking for. Some are in ministry, some are not. Some are pastors while teaching, others are directors of think tanks or of other projects while teaching. They publish but mainly in Christian journals and publications. They teach others in the same faith background without the pressure for interdisciplinary respectability that shapes religion/history/philosophy departments. 1. Pastors positions typically require an M.Div. because it’s a well-rounded degree. It gives the baseline training in all the disciplines you listed (both in your interests and the ones you are not interested in). I’m not sure if a D.Div fulfills that requirement, though I’m seeing less and less D.Divs in general. 2. You will need a Masters degree to pursue any doctoral-level study (at least for the humanities). Part of this is that the Masters degree gives you a flavor of what subjects and discussions scholars are engaged in that would allow you to contribute to the broader scholar community. An M.Div gives you a broad overview of every seminary discipline (biblical studies, church history, ministry, preaching, counseling, etc...). Because it’s so broad, it typically requires you to do a ThM/STM on top of it (an additional one-year) so that you can narrow your interests and find which discipline best fulfills your intellectual curiosities. An MTS (Master of Theological Studies) is generally more flexible than an MDiv and allows for a student to pursue research that an MDiv might not allow. From those I’ve spoken to, MTS CAN allow you to go straight into a PhD once you’ve demonstrated your research chops. 3. The route you laid out might be the best approach if you want the flexibility to teach and maybe be a pastor in the future. On a more practical-level, however, I would say doing a PhD (over a ThD) might dissuade you from being a pastor down the line, or if you end up not liking your PhD push you towards ministry instead. While it’s perhaps overstated in churches that academia might cause someone to lose their faith, there’s definitely some truth to it. For example, my field is in religious history in the U.S. If I was an evangelical and I’m learning a lot about evangelicals and their issues with race, gender, whiteness, etc, I’m often put in an indefensible position about my own religious tradition. Intellectually, I won’t be able to make assertions to a congregation that evangelicals were on the right side of history or that my congregations’ faith-tradition has historically been a force for good. It’s hard for me to preach on what it means to be a good Christian in the workplace if the tangled histories of Christianity and capitalism prevents me from proposing any benign combination of the two. It’ll be hard for me to say that the Bible is infallible if the notion of its infallibility was a historically created claim by fundamentalists to combat what they perceived as the “liberal modernists.” I can’t make any claims about our “modern culture” which congregants might want but my discipline shows that there might not be anything that is “modern culture.” In short, a PhD changes the way you think about particular subjects in a way that might not be the most helpful to your congregation and might actually weaken your ability to meet other people’s needs.

Everyone already mentioned the disadvantages of an MDiv. I want to echo them. However, I also want to highlight a key advantage of an MDiv: you're exposed to the various ways of potentially studying religion within a particular religious context. MDiv classes allowed me to sample all of them and to get a feel for which one I can truly invest time in. I was originally interested in studying either the New Testament or some variation of the sociology of religion. However, I realized that I didn't have too much interest in either the language, ancient history, or archaeology that would help me get through the demands of the discipline. After taking a post-Reformation Church History courses, I realized that I really enjoyed reading through primary sources from the 18th century, more so than translating a text from Koine Greek. And so I ended up pursuing a PhD in American Religious History instead. An MDiv introduces you to the various disciplines that might be of interest to you. While you might be taking courses that won't necessarily interest you (I was not a big fan of ministry-related and ethics-heavy courses), you 're exposed to multiple disciplines so that you can make a more informed decision about which track you'd want to pursue in your PhD. In addition, you pick-up various skill-sets along the way that might help you in the future. I never thought a preaching class would be valuable until I've appreciated developing presentation/public-speaking skills when I'm presenting papers at conferences. Even though I'm studying 18th century U.S. history, the figures I'm studying are well-versed in their Greek and Hebrew, and so I can engage with them in ways other scholars in my field might not be able to. While an MDiv might disadvantage you from entering a PhD program directly, a ThM or STM (one year programs to supplement your PhD) readily provide you the research bulk you'll need to be competitive with PhD programs.

I can only speak from my own field American Religious History. Top history programs rarely (if ever) admit students coming in with a religious studies Masters program. In my own experience, I had two Master's degrees in the study of religion and when I applied to History departments, they almost always recommended I go through their Master's program first and then reapply to their PhD program. However, some history programs in religiously-affiliated schools like Notre Dame and Baylor University are more open to students coming in with an MA in religious studies. Methodologically, scholars in my subfield and historians take similar approaches to their research. Some slight nuances might appear in the particular theories informing their work. While historians might feel comfortable using the term religion, scholars of religion might feel the need to elaborate on their theoretical approach, perhaps sometimes even avoiding the term altogether. One good example might be the Branch Davidians. Historians might not think a "cult" like Branch Davidians falls into the presently-understood category of religion. If it was to be studied, historians might include it in a history of violent government military interventions in civilian activities. However, scholars of religion might find the Branch Davidians' "religion" as worthy strong example of a movement that troubles the boundaries of the category "religion." Religious studies folks are invested in the history of religion as a category constantly constructed, reinvented, re-imagined, and imposed by society and institutions (in the case of the Branch Davidians, government-intervention distinguishes between "appropriate" religion and "cults". This troubling of terms by exploring the periphery, which relies on works by philosophers like Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, is something historians might not be as concerned with.

I know of some people who have finished their generals but not yet finished their language exams. It varies by department/school, but for some programs I'm familiar with, it would seem that the language requirements might simply be a formality with a seemingly strict deadline that's only loosely enforced. Perhaps check with your advisors to see how strictly they hold you to the language-requirement deadline.

I want to echo @xypathos's remarks about BTI and the realities of living in Boston. Given the cost of living, most folks commute into the city so you may want to factor that into your decision-making. One key benefit is that a lot of BU School of Theology folks cross-register with Harvard Divinity School, Boston College's School of Theology and Ministry, and Boston University's religion department. However, it would probably help to look at the strengths of the program. If you're looking for a theology/philosophy emphasis, perhaps you should look into Boston College's program as well. Although it is more Catholic in its orientation, my assessment is that they have a stronger theology and philosophy program with an emphasis on the intersection of the two in the medieval period. I find that Boston University's strength lies more so in social ethics and applied theology. If these are where you want to focus your interest in theology/philosophy, then I would say it is a good fit. If not, then it might help you to look into programs more aligned with your interests.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies @sacklunch and @marXian. Sacklunch, I like your recommendation to ask the folks in the History sub-field for their take on this. From what little interaction I've had with history folks (especially those trying to tread between economics and history), they also have a hard time getting economists to take their historical approaches seriously. I appreciate the list of folks Marxian mentioned as a helpful counterbalance to the list of people I have in mind (people like Kathryn Gin Lum, Catherine Brekus, and several of my advisors for starters). Off the top of my head, I can add to that list Tisa Wenger and Heather Curtis (latter has a ThD). I also think you're right though, Marxian, that the dismal job market is a concern for everyone across sub-fields which might help to explain this sub-field anxiety that I'm sensing from the folks I've been in conversation with. It seems that a key takeaway might be to play to the strengths of the religious studies departments in our research.

I'm curious to hear if people have the same experience I've been encountering more and more. It seems that religious studies PhDs are seen as the lesser PhD in a lot of fields. In my sub-field (History of Religion in the United States), most of the scholars and professors have PhDs from history departments, NOT religious studies departments. A lot of scholars do religion within history departments, and can transition easily into religion departments. Furthermore, a lot of the texts we read are written not by folks with religious studies PhDs, but with history PhDs. In the larger scheme, you see a lot of people with history PhDs in religion departments, but next to no religious studies PhDs in history departments. Likewise, I've heard some people doing ethics/theology in religious studies departments who have to compete with folks from Philosophy departments. I've also heard the same is true for religious studies PhDs focusing on eastern religions, having to compete with Asian Studies folks for positions. So, my question below: 1. Do you find it the case that religious studies PhDs have a hard time getting into other departments while people with PhDs from other departments have an easier way of getting jobs in religious studies departments? Or are there instances where this might not be the case? 2. What are the practical advantages of studying religion in a religious studies department over studying religion in a philosophy/history/other social sciences department?

I would throw in Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts. It's definitely on the more progressive-end of evangelicalism. They have partnerships/scholarships for students who need funding, have had success getting their alumni into reputable PhD programs, and allow you to take courses at other schools in Boston/Cambridge (from BU, BC, and Harvard). Let me know if you have any questions about it!

As someone who is doing American Religious History PhD right now (at Princeton University) and went with an MDiv below is some advice: Use your electives to take more church history courses and if there aren't any, try to do independent research with any church historians at PTS. Most graduates who go onto PhDs in American Religious History do an MA in Church History or bring some other historical studies emphasis in their application. A traditional MDiv would not necessarily handicap you, but you're in a bit of a disadvantage since professors are looking for applicants who can demonstrate strong historical research skills which an MDiv doesn't necessarily prepare you for. On that note, expect/plan to do a ThM/STM on top of your MDiv to strengthen/better demonstrate research skills. On the note about research, if you get the option to either take an exam or write a research paper in your classes, opt for the latter. Look at the Witherspoon Institute which has summer programs for scholars. Some American Religious History folks attend and they have some fellowships that could help you with historical research. Attend conferences like the ASCH (American Society of Church History), AHA (American Historical Society), and AAR (American Academy of Religion). Familiarize yourself with the questions scholars are asking in the field and who some of the key people you'd want to work with. Note that you can still attend without being a member, or you can be a member, read the journals, and not attend. Since you're at PTS, you can cross-register with classes in the Religion Department. Take advantage of this, particularly with the Religion in the Americas professors since they can help you think about your research interests. See if you can meet with folks in the History Department who are also doing something around American Religious History (like Kevin Kruse). While it would be good to get published, I wouldn't say it's necessary. Hope this helps!

I would say it depends heavily on what you want to truly study. I can give you my perspective from my field which is History of Christianity in the U.S. You can pursue a study of the history of Christianity from three possible departments/arrangements: 1. Pursue a history PhD from a religiously-affiliated research school like Baylor and Notre Dame. The history departments there focus a lot on the history of religious intellectual movements and the intersection of political/social histories with Protestant denominational histories. Students who graduate with a history PhD from these schools tend to be recruited by seminaries and state-schools, but rarely by big research universities (at least from the small sample size I've gathered). These graduates end up joining associations like the American Historical Association (AHA) and maybe American Society of Church History (ASCH) 2. Pursue a church history or historical theology PhD from a seminary (like Princeton Theological) or theology school (like Boston University's School of Theology). This one is similar to the history PhD from religiously-affiliated schools mentioned above, but the expectation is that you're going to be teaching in a seminary capacity or maybe in a theology department. These graduates end up joining the ASCH and the American Academy of Religion (AAR) 3. Pursue a religion PhD from a research university. This one is different in that you're studying religion rather than history, which means that you're less expected to do historiography and more theories on religion (think Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Pierre Bourdieu, etc..). These scholars tend to join conferences like AAR. In short, there is definitely some options of study within each department/program, but you will be encouraged to "broaden" your horizons in different ways. In a history department of a religious research university, perhaps they might allow you to take historiography courses and histories of specific religious traditions in particular regions of the world. In a theology school/seminary context, they might want you to take more biblical studies (which means Greek and Hebrew), theology, and maybe a bit of church history. In a religion department, you will be encouraged to take religion and theory courses. If your goal is ultimately a PhD, the question to ask yourself would be: where do you see yourself teaching? I found that history PhD programs don't really look favorably on MAs in religion/theology/MDivs/MTS. I applied to several history departments who had professors who studied the Puritans and was recommended to apply to their MA programs instead (I had an MDiv/STM with a church history focus, which is the rough equivalent of an MAR). Even though, one could argue, the study of the Puritans could be done in both religious or historical contexts and am familiar with the historiography of the Puritans, history departments still suggested that I obtain an MA in history.

Congratulations! Some pointers below, but I'll PM you last year's schedule: 1. Make sure to bring formal business attire, even though you will probably be touring campus on foot for some parts of the day. 2. You will probably be interviewing all-day. All of my interviews were held with multiple professors in the room, so do some research in advance on all of their specific research/sub-fields. 3. There's usually a dinner at the end of the day for each sub-field. This is a chance for you to get to know other graduate students and see how you might get along with the people in your subfield. Make sure to do some background on the other grad students as well and prepare some questions in advance to ask them about the program. Best of luck!

Got it, thanks for clarifying. If I might add one more, perhaps consider Boston University's School of Theology (in the few years I spent at BU and doing a one-year degree at the School of Theology). Despite its Methodist history, it has a very strong interfaith culture and emphasis. Furthermore, BU and HDS are both part of what's called the BTI (Boston Theological Institute). If you don't get into HDS but you get into one of the affiliate theological schools (like BU School of Theology), you're allowed to take some courses at HDS through BTI to meet your MDiv requirements at BU. http://www.bostontheological.org/ Update: Hartford Seminary has recently been added in the BTI, so you can also take classes at Hartford Seminary to finish your degree at HDS or BU School of Teology

Claremont, YDS, and HDS have already been mentioned. Some other ones I've read/encountered: Hartford Seminary Auburn Theological Seminary I guess one question I would ask is whether or not you're concerned about ATS accreditation. Last I read about interfaith seminaries, that was one of the difficulties for upcoming interfaith seminaries: inability to gain accreditation prevents them from confering degrees that would be recognized by other theological/seminary programs.

I would echo this point. Master's programs tend to be more lenient and don't typically vet as heavily for religious affiliation/research bias as much as PhD programs do, especially given that most Masters programs don't really offer funding. I think so long as your statement of purpose/writing samples don't reflect a strong attachment to your specific denominational/religious affiliation and you highlight how the particular program fits your strengths/interests, you should be fine. Anecdotal, but if it helps, I got into both Master's programs at Boston College School of Theology and Ministry (Catholic) and Boston University School of Theology (Methodist) coming from a conservative evangelical program.

The time you should hear back depends on the particular school and department. From my experience with applications, below was the timetable from hearing from programs: Some programs make an early decision and the POI reaches out to you via e-mail as soon as possible, sometimes as early as mid-January (i.e., FSU) For programs that have a formal interview schedule where they bring in students, they usually start contacting students to interview anytime from late-January to mid-February (i.e., my experience with Vanderbilt) and bring them in to interview mid-February to early March. Some programs don't have a formal interview schedule and instead, the POI conducts an informal interview (via call or skype) to help them narrow down the candidates they will submit to the graduate school for approval. These can start as early as mid-January. Typically, these programs hold-off on bringing in students to campus until after they've decided who they want to accept. They then invite accepted students onto campus to sort of market the program to students (usually from mid-March to April) Sometimes, POIs have to conduct informal interviews with various candidates until they find one they like. These informal interviews can go on until mid-February until they finally land on a candidate they like. Some programs don't have a formal interview session and just send out acceptance or rejection letters (Harvard, Yale, but this is might be sub-field specific.) Typically, people hear back from these guys around mid-to-late February. Some programs don't really get back to you and you never hear anything until you follow-up with them (my experience with UVA) It also helps to look through the "Results" tab for last year to get a sense of when schools typically get back to their students with this information. Hope this helps!