GREman

All the good points that can be made here have been made. I basically think it's a gamble if you're in it just for academic work. Getting into a good masters is >50% chance, then getting into a TT PhD program is >5% chance. Then getting a job from there has been covered, though I'll additionally mention that it totally varies by institution. At my institution (Within the 5 TT) I believe all but one former student from the past 3 years has a tenure-track position. If you're in the Christian tradition and open to pastoral ministry, then I think graduate work in religion/theology is a solid plan, even if you have to go into debt for it. It seems like all the mainline denominations have a guaranteed job at the end of the road, at least implicitly, provided you are doing well along their paths to ordination. Why is debt okay in this instance? Because of the IBR/PAYE plans which you can get forgiven in as little 10 years if 30+ hours of your work includes non-proselytizing, non-profit like work. The problem is the amount forgiven could count as income the year its forgiven, though we have yet to see whether that will actually be the case or not. I anticipate that there could be last-minute legislation on this that'll simply forgive the amount. What if academics and pastoral ministry both don't work out / appeal to you? The possibilities are endless and limited only to your own entrepreneurship and openness to other possibilities. Publishing and writing could be a viable path for some. Non-profit work is the non-ecclesial route taken by many. You could do further graduate work in professional fields like law or business. All my artist friends stay afloat by working in the service industry while they do their artwork in their free time. And other stuff still could happen. For example, I'm taking a job offer to go into real estate research, which will help with living expenses while I take some time off prior to doctoral work.

I did my masters apps 2-4 years ago. Last I heard it was more like 30 offers for a total admit of 20. The wait list is used to varying degrees depending not he circumstances of each year, but I suspect there is quite a bit of fluidity to it since only 4 students get full scholarships.

I can tell you with Duke that no one professor can sway the decision of a committee. They don't have a say in who they'd prefer to advise until it's dwindled down to just a few candidates, and even then, it is not the end-all/say-all. Also, it is highly probably that your POI isn't even on the committee, nor even the chair of theological studies. Some things you could do that are intangible but will possibly prepare you for another round: You might try re-taking the GRE for some better Q scores (be careful though in case some schools only consider the most recent score for whatever reason). The main thing is keep up what you've been doing with presentations and publications (hell, I feel like I need your advice on how to do this, I've tried but have done 0 conferences so far). Perhaps study a language or two to have that settled. Keep up with scholarship and tweak your goals so when you apply again it doesn't look like you laid dormant for a year. Worst case scenario: get another masters? Beyond that, I think tsgriffey is right: ask POIs what went wrong and what you can do for the future.

At my institution all the M* decisions are separate from doctoral decisions, and even decisions on particular M* degrees are separate from one another. The acceptance/rejection pattern of one degree in no way effects the other.

I have heard that the informal cut off is 3.5 GPA for a universally regarded as top-tier school. That means half your transcript can be Bs technically.

Some questions to help clarify What are your interests? Who have you read / who would you like to read? Any specific tradition you'd be interested in working from (Methodist, Reformed, Baptist, etc.)?

The link Lux Lex Pax posted is as close ass you can get to a ranking system. The problem with ranking religious studies programs is it is pretty much impossible to do. The field is simply too big and, if you begin including institutions that do more confessional work, you have to think about the spectrum of theological viewpoints represented in rankings. For these reasons, rankings have largely been dismissed as being meaningful ways to measure program quality. The real key is probably, for you as the student, how much the program covers your tuition and living expenses. Tuition + Stipend = Top Tier (with few exceptions). Research output on the part of the professors is also important and can be reflected in rankings, but even that isn't necessarily the case since your POI will have her/his own particular rate of publications. The real key, and here I agree with Kuriakos, is placement. Every doctoral program will have other institutions within its networks where its graduates often end up. The goal is to end up in the right network.

I am not sure how often something as great as 100% funding is achieved at institutions and I really am not sure how well Eastern Christianity is represented at each institution, but I can mention the following basic insights. 1. There is a lot more funding for denominationally-affiliated institutions if you are from that particular denomination (e.g., Presbyterian and going to Princeton, Methodist and going to Duke), especially if you consider ordination a possibility. 2. The older the school and the bigger the endowment, the better the funding. This essentially means focusing on top tier programs, which I am confident you can easily get into. I don't think there is a need to bother with any back-up institutions that might be second-tier. 3. Every school set in the Western tradition (vast majority of schools) will have some Eastern Church representation, but you will be hard-pressed to find it represented as a main area of interests by many professors. At schools I have been Eastern Christianity specialists have been at best adjuncts teaching a course every year or two. That said, there does seem to be a lot of Patristic scholars who focus on early church fathers and mothers who are very competent in Eastern studies. 4. ThMs across the board have no funding. That said, here is what I know specifically: U. Chicago (MA) - 50%, goes up for many students Boston (MTS) - At least 60% Duke Department of Religion (MA) - 50% for every admitted student Duke Divinity School (MTS) - 22% if there is financial need, four students get 100% out of the 20 or so who end up attending Emory/Candler (MTS) - At least 60% Vanderbilt (MTS) - At least 60% I wish I knew more about the northeast region, but I can't say anything with confidence regarding masters programs.

Very helpful. Any thoughts on how much coursework and what types of classes? Elementary + Intermediate German (+ Advanced) vs. German for Academic Reading?

Yeah I get it, but you would be disadvantaged to ignore the nuances of this sort of question, which really circles around seemingly qualitative considerations like the ones I mentioned before. Put shortly, If your interests and convictions fit well with an institution, then that alone should be seen as a very real measure of your chances of succeeding. There are no guarantees, even with perfect GPAs and amazing LORs. I think "fit" matters more than any concern or qualifier you could throw at us. It doesn't matter where you come from so much as where you want to go. That said—with sacklunch's mention of SOPs, LORS, GPAs, etc. in mind—I think you'll find every TT masters program except Yale's MAR field-specific programs have acceptance rates of at least 20%, I think Princeton's MDiv has been as high as 50%+, though they are evidently starting an MTS soon as well which may mix things up. MA programs in departments of religion (which you might find sometimes line up with your interests more than seminaries and divinity schools, since their scripture specialists tend to be linguistically-oriented, a lot of TT specialists are into integrative biblical-theological work these days) may be more of a challenge, although some of the best TT MA programs have high acceptance rates (50%+) as well. So will you get in? If you don't, I will be absolutely shocked. Apply to at least 5 if you are really worried, and make them all TT, no safety schools needed at this stage IMO. I overdid it and applied to 10 (7 TT) for my first masters, including all the ones you mentioned. I came from a school affiliated with an incredibly unknown fundamentalist/evangelical baptist denomination. I got into 8 of the 10, including all the ones you mentioned and 6 with at least 50% funding.

Having read this thread, I want to attend to your first question while being mindful of your reasons for wanting to apply. Honestly, I don't think you can go through an MTS, especially at places that require core or introductory courses, without necessitating a fairly dramatic change in your views to be very productive in classroom discussions and papers. It is not that professors will not respect your different perspective, but the experience of the MTS as a whole will be a formidable challenge to your previously held beliefs—more so in some areas than others. In the core courses themselves, lectures will focus on multiple perspectives but will also argue the merits of a particular viewpoint. As a sympathizer with post liberal theology and approaches to Scripture who has been to several institutions that are formative in that area, I would also argue that such approaches to Scripture do not provide a "safe haven" from critical scholarship if that is what you are hoping to get out of it. If you go to a mainline school, you will be exposed to new ideas that will be formative, ideas that will cause seismic shifts in your thinking. I don't think you will enjoy master's work in particular if you are not open to possibly changing even foundational presuppositions. I do think you can do PhD work a lot more easily as an inerrantist, and that is pretty much the typical route of scholars like the ones newenglandshawn mentioned. I think this sort of pathway has gotten harder due to competition. They often go to a conservative seminary, especially an institution tied to their own denomination, and then only after that go to more popular institutions for their doctoral work. In such a scenario, it is not hard to imagine statements like "I can take everything that was useful to me and put it in one lecture" being made. The, at best, moderate forms of discussion you would enjoy in coursework, conversations with your advisor and fellow students, and at conferences would not have nearly the same powerful effect on your thinking as those core courses in a master's program would. The difference between making such a move at the master's level vs. the doctoral level is you are not exposed to those formative classes, and any sharing of ideas or different perspectives takes place simply through discussions, which I do not think are nearly as formative. A PhD, after all, is designed to build upon introductory degrees like the MDiv or MTS. In these discussions there are at least two theories of the purpose of a theological education at work. Theological education is either a . . . 1. Selectivist or Individualist Task in which education takes on individualist and selective overtones. The primary task is the mere assembly of knowledge, and probably out of an ideological world that is constructed upon presuppositions you do not accept. Your goal here is to merely select from what is otherwise a large, unrelated mass of "epistemological material" those elements of their ideas that are helpful to your project. In this approach, your work is probably better spent with people whose ideological work or a . . . 2. Formative or Communal Task in which education takes on communal and participatory overtones. You, with fellow students, are participating in the life of the school and learning about the merits of the "forms of knowledge" offered by the faculty and its students, and you in many ways see yourself resonating with them, in other ways not. No two persons here completely agree, but they still operate around a formative center of beliefs and practices that help bring to life theological projects that are at least somewhat cooperative with those forms of knowledge, build off of them, and bring the conversation into new areas of consideration. In this way you do draw particular ideas from a larger mass of "epistemological material" in this approach as well, but it is still in many ways a project of construction upon the foundation from which that "epistemological material" is built. I think this is what you will experience at institutions that are a good "fit." Honestly, I think you have probably done enough masters work to get into PhD programs. A masters would help insofar as it allows you to gain recommendations from people in that area of the academy whose conversations include potential advisors at institutions where you want to do doctoral work, but it would not be helpful for the purpose of academic work itself if you are afraid of being re-formed or are unwilling to participate on a deeper level in the sorts of formative work that takes place in MTS programs. They are, after all, introductory degrees. Besides this, you will definitely ant to ask yourself how you sure you want to work with the specialists at, say, Harvard or Emory? Are they a good fit at all? Because they can only accept like one or two students a year, and they will not end up selecting you if you find yourself at an uncrossable ideological gap between them. That said, I get the sense that you are perhaps anticipating the likelihood of change and seem more easy-going in this regard. After all, none of us are going to think the same things now as we will in, say, 20 years. You could find yourself in a place of denominational transition, but the solution to that particular problem isn't found by merely attending TT institutions, it is found in attending places where you can both be formed, challenged, and ultimately be a scholar that builds upon a foundation that is conducive both to your work as a PhD student and as a scholar thereafter. Besides this, most Christian theological institutions of higher learning will represent many denominational perspectives well, so you won't be found wanting if you don't go TT. Further, presuming you are a part of the SBC or a smaller conservative Baptist association/convention, you could possibly transition to the CBF or even the NBC, thereby solving most of your potential concerns of denominational fit. Denominational preference is a fickle thing, especially when you don't have any particular interest in being a pastor. I know incredibly intelligent people who have changed denominations three times throughout their masters. For reasons like the ones I mentioned above, I would try to re-orient your thinking about your reasons for applying and what sort of path you want to take indoor academic preparation. Every advisor, professor, and admissions director will tell you unequivocally that it is ultimately about fit—or the sharing of enough common ground to make your educational experience conducive to both your goals and their goals in educating their students. If you can make that work, I do not see why you would be nervous about what will actually be taught to you. If you find yourself nervous and against the stances each institution takes on things like biblical inerrancy or methods in linguistics, translation, etc., then you would be better off operating in institutions that share your interests and approaches more deeply.

Having read all the topics on this forum, I am not sure the question of a 2 year MTS (or MA) vs. a 1 year ThM has been addressed enough. But I am curious since it is a question that has come up for me. I recently completed a MDiv at a TT Divinity School on the East Coast. I took 15 courses in my area. I received an A-/A in over half of those courses (B+ in the rest) and have a GPA around 3.55 (3.7 GPA in UG). Given the competitiveness of doctoral applications, I am worried the GPA could sink me, though I otherwise have a strong SOP and GRE (160+), and strong LORS. I guess I do not have much work experience, but I am working in ecclesial settings now and could pursue ordination if time allows. I imagine the benefits of another masters as follows: (1) more time to develop interests, (2) opportunity to strengthen GPA, (3) get to know professors and POIs better, and (4) to simply be more thoroughly trained (although that will also be accomplished in two years of coursework in a PhD). But I'm wondering what some of you fine folks think. Does it seem reasonable for a person in my position to do another masters at all? Or is it reasonable to also just go for a PhD, keeping in mind I'm shooting for TT? Also, if anyone has general comments to make about whether to do a second masters, whether to choose the 1 or 2 year program, etc., your comments are most welcome.

My wife and I are studying for the GRE to get into our respective programs, mine in the humanities and hers in the sciences. We got pretty similar "baseline scores" (no preparation) from the first PowerPrep II practice test: Me: 156v, 149q Her: 154v, 147q I really need to get at least 95th percentile (maybe not so much for Quantitative). My wife needs 60th percentile, (>154v, >155q). 1. How much time do you think we should spend preparing? 2. What should we use? Definitely Official ETS Guide, 2nd Ed. and their forthcoming little practice book supplements, but anything else? 3. Best way to study for verbal? Focus on reading things in The Atlantic? Study vocabulary profusely? Other approaches. I will of course be scanning the forums for suggestions, but anyone's insights on these specific questions would be nice to have given the specifics of our situation. THanks

http://www.auburnseminary.org/sites/default/files/Report%20on%20a%20Study%20of%20Doctoral%20Programs_0.pdf