Josh J.

Congrats!

If you are applying for a degree in math, or in a program that is math heavy, then yes, absolutely, retake the GRE and do everything you can to get as close to 170 as possible.

Right when I was beginning to start my applications, my advisor gave me two pieces of advise: don't contact POIs, and to limit the number of programs I applied to because he thought my application was very strong. I struck-out, 0/7. I found out after the fact that one of the POIs I put in my SOP is no longer taking students. I will be contacting POIs next year, though I am not sure how much of a difference that will actually make, but at least I won't apply to work with people who are unavailable. I will also apply to more programs next year. I have multiple research interests and several possible projects that I can describe in my SOP, and I will tailor each application and project specifically to the school and the POIs that I am interested in working with.

Just to clarify, the job is in Oregon, not at UO. Wish it was. I'll be making $1500 a class. Full time, if I could get it, that is $12,000 a year. But right now I only have one class. I'm doing it for the library privileges and the experience. I'm sorry I'm so down, everyone. I know I shouldn't complain. This is just so frustrating between realizing what I've given up to get this far, and having my undergrad and masters professors all telling me that none of them understand why I didn't get in, even at top schools, let alone the couple of safe schools I applied at. I'm waitlisted in the Graduate Department of Religion at Vandrrbilt. But they do not expect to take anyone studying American religious history this year... And depending upon how it shakes out, they might not next year, either.

You only need one. But I got none. And to think I gave up a secure government job to go to school.

Thank you for applying to graduate study at UCLA. We regret to inform you that you are not being offered admission. UCLA receives many more applications than there are student places available. Each of these applications is carefully reviewed by a departmental faculty committee. In this extremely competitive environment, many talented and promising students are not recommended for admission by these committees. We understand that this decision is disappointing. If you have questions about your application or the decision, please contact (History gradoffice@history.ucla.edu or (310) 206-2627 ) Please accept my best wishes for success in all your future endeavors.

I really don't understand what it is that UCLA is doing trickling out responses to people....

The thing is, Divinity Schools aren't telling their students that at all. I could imagine something like that coming out of a conservative seminary, but the large Divinity Schools are largely approaching the study of religion from a post-Christian point of view. I am surrounded by atheists, agnostics, and a smattering of Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, Buddhists, and other religious and non-religious people. As MarXian hinted at above, theology, when removed from its faith context, is ideas, and a historian of religion dealing with theology is in effect dealing with the history of ideas. Can you write a history of something without seriously engaging in the history of ideas? Sure. Can you write a history of religion without doing so? Probably, but it gets a lot harder. But I would completely reject the idea that Divinity Schools are telling students, explicitly, implicitly, or otherwise, that you must approach the topic from an insiders prospective. Some of the best scholarship on religion comes from outsiders because they can be more objective. What I think I hear going on here is a conflation of Divinity Schools with seminaries and bible colleges.

As someone finishing up an MTS right now, and planning on studying American Religious History at the PhD level, I wanted to throw my two cents in about the worth of an MTS versus a focused MA, or say, the MARc at Yale. As has been stated above, the MTS is a broad degree. It is the generalist, entry level masters degree for the study of religion. It is a foundational degree for the further academic study of religion. You can get into an MTS program with a B.S. in Biology, because the MTS is meant for students who don't necessarily have a BA in Religious Studies or Christian Minister or Bible or Theology. At the same time, I would argue that this type of degree can be very useful for someone who does have a bachelors degree in religion. The undergraduate religion degree is just that, undergraduate. Undergrad religion degrees are typically broad, but they don't typically attend to the subject matter with the same type of rigor as the MTS, nor do they often promote the same type of critical thinking skills that a top tier MTS program does. Furthermore, there is something to be said about having a good foundation in all areas of the academic study of religion if you plan on attaining the PhD in Religion in some specific field. For example, the historian of religion will have a much better grasp of what is going on historically if they have a good grasp of theology, and even better, if they have actually done theology themselves in an academic program. Likewise, a sociologist studying religious groups will have a better grasp of what is going on in a Christian group if they understand the bible, and if they've undertaken their own study of the bible at some point in their training. The MA, on the other hand, being all history or all theology or all biblical studies, etc., just doesn't prepare you broadly like the MTS can. That is why, more and more, the standard in many schools is multiple M* degrees before moving on to the PhD. There is just too damn much to learn about religion to get it all done in one degree, even if it happens to be a three year MDiv, for example. As far as class sizes and Vandy, the MDiv required courses (Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Formation of Christian Traditions, Reformation, American Religious History) can be quite large. As soon as you step out of those five classes, however, you walk into seminar courses with 4-12 people in them. Finally, I think there is something to be said about theologically conservative folks studying at a "liberal" place like Vanderbilt. Many, if not most of the students at Vanderbilt are more conservative than their professors. But what you get at Vanderbilt, that you won't get at a Fuller or a Dallas, is FULL academic freedom. When you take a class on the Hebrew Bible at a "liberal" Div school, you won't have the professor pulling punches about whether or not all of the historical and archeological evidence supports the claim that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt (hint: pretty much no evidence whatsoever, and plenty of evidence to the contrary). Likewise, you won't have professors pulling punches when dealing with errors of geography, history, science, logic, theology, etc. in the New Testament text. People are free to actually look at the evidence and make their own decisions and not be branded a heretic for following where it leads. That, too me, seems much more Christian than the approach of some of the avowedly conservative Christian seminaries, IMHO.

I emailed the DGS at Vanderbilt and just got a reply back. If you don't have an acceptance, you are rejected. I don't know why in the hell they are waiting so long to send out rejections.

Congrats Heimat!

Well, I just got a job offer to teach a class on U.S. History Through Film back in Oregon in the Fall....so at least I'll be in a classroom, teaching, if not studying.

i'll pm you.

Well, I just got my rejection from Baylor.... From everything I can surmise, it looks like I'll strikeout 7/7.

The fact that UCLA has not sent out rejections is really starting to annoy me...

Thanks! I am hopeful that I will receive a slot, but I am trying not to get my hopes up too much. I should know by next Friday about whether or not I receive an offer or am waitlisted. Should also know about funding on Friday as well.

The interview went really well. I have a good feeling about it, but we'll see. They are only taking two people total, and they interviewed five. They also have an internal candidate. I feel a lot better about the program now that I am here. They are bumping their stipends up by $2k next year, adding health insurance to the funding package, and so far they've never had an admit that didn't get a university fellowship with extra $.

Well, got rejected by the Kroc Institute at Notre Dame....

None of us are imposters! We all deserve it and will kick ass once we are in!

Well, unless Notre Dame's Kroc Institute contacts me this week, I'm probably SOL. I do interview at Baylor Thursday-Saturday though. We shall see how that goes...

I'm currently dealing with rejection through beer.

Congrats!

As Mrazy mentioned above, I loved social studies as a kid. Not much else in school interested me, but social studies did. I also loved to read. My mother would take me to the library, and they often had books in one corner that they had pulled out of circulation and that they were giving away. Many of these books were history and political science. I would take these things home, and I remember pouring over 1920s election statistics, looking at how many people voted for socialist and communist Candidates in Oklahoma or Texas or Wisconsin even. Growing up in the 80's with Reagan talking about about the evils of communism, I wondered how it was that anyone ever voted for these candidates...but also marveled at how, if people did in the 1920s, why they weren't now...I think these early questions might have spawned my fascination with history. The humanities and social sciences have always really fascinated me, probably from my early fascination with social studies. I took a lot of social sciences classes in high school and college, and I enjoyed them, but I always felt most at home studying history. While I enjoy studying social and cultural phenomena using different methods, there is just something about the methods of historical studies that fits like an old shoe for me. Currently, I'm finishing my Master of Theological Studies degree, focused on history, which also required coursework in textual studies, sociology of religion, ethics, theology, etc. I've enjoyed these, and even excelled in few of them (such as theology), but still, even so, when I settle into my historical course work, its just so much better, even if I'm studying the same topic from multiple perspectives at the same time. Finally, I find that one of my major goals in this whole education project, besides getting a job and being paid to teach and research, is to do cultural criticism. It seems to me that history is the best way to do this. Through history, I can study ANY subject, including the rest of the humanities and social sciences that I'm interested, and also other topics, such as science, if I want to. This might give VR4douche some fodder for his thread on the dilution of history, but I find this to be one of the best things about history...its versatility.

Laura, that would be per field. Vanderbilt is slated to take 10 this year total.

Same here! Interviewing at Baylor on Thursday/Friday and I'm getting sick! Blah!