newenglandshawn

By the way, even though you said you are interested in biblical studies, you didn't indicate whether you are interested in OT or NT. Either way, I think of all the schools you are interested in, Duke would probably be your best bet, and would probably be the most positive experience. HDS would, of course, be exciting, but I don't believe biblical studies is their strong suit.

I'm not an inerrantist to the degree a Southern Baptist would be, but I do have a high view of Scripture, so I'll take a stab: 1. Hire-ability. It may seem counterintuitive, but even evangelical schools often like to have professors who went to TT programs - for many reasons. 2. Finances. We don't want to pay for our schooling either! 3. Some of us do like to hear other viewpoints, even if we have no intention of changing our own. 4. As I said before, it's certainly not the norm, but it is possible to find programs, or professors within a program, who want to study Scripture in its final form (ie., from a canonical or literary methodology). It's, of course, quite possible that one will, indeed, find a torturous program. A professor from my school, for example, who went to a TT program in HB/OT (and is quite accomplished outside evangelicalism) once said that in his 5+ years of doctoral studies that he could boil down what he found to be usefu to him to about a single class period. So, that can certainly be a person's experience!

You certainly wouldn't be the first inerrantist who went through a Top Tier program - nor would you be the first person who was wanting to "legitimize" yourself "without actually being open to change." Plenty of people go that route. I could name a number from my own evangelical school alone who did their doctoral work at Top Tier (American) programs and had no intention of changing their perspective - nor did they change their conservative views of Scripture throughout. There are also a number of Top Tier programs that are post-liberal in their methodologies and have greater openness to studying Scripture in its final form, so I don't think your background immediately disqualifies you.

Excellent! Thanks. That's very helpful. If it's simply a matter of methodology (or at least part of it), I can certainly indicate how the methodology of secondary professors aligns with my own interests. Thanks again!

Thanks again marXian! I am sending you a DM with a little more detail about my specific interests.

Thanks for this! Part of my question was how I should discuss secondary faculty whose research interests very loosely connect with mine. In other words, if I say that I am interested in studying the theology of pre-monarchic Israel, wouldn't it look strange if I write that I'm interested in Professor X's work on Second Temple Judaism (even if I do have a modest interest in it, despite its strained connection with my primary research interests)? Will an Admissions Committee think to themselves, "This guy is all over the place?" or is it acceptable to mention the work of specific faculty, even if I do not make any explicit connection to my primary research interests?

Oops! I'm totally mixing up my acronyms. Yes, I meant for the Statements of Purpose, not the Letters of Recommendation. Thanks for the feedback, though! So are you saying that even if my mentioning a secondary faculty amounts to little more than what one could read about their research interests on their website profile, that I should still mention this (e.g., "I'm interested in studying with Professor X because of the way she utilizes a canonical approach to the Old Testament")? Thanks again!

I know there has been some debate about the merits of mentioning specific faculty in your PhD Letters of Recommendation. I am pretty convinced of the wisdom in doing this. However, I am facing a dilemma: in every school to which I'll be applying there is a faculty member with whom I really want to study. I would say they are "home run" interests. But here's the problem: by and large, I cannot find a single other faculty member at these same institutions that seem to have a strong intersection with my research interests - certainly not in a way that would indicate a strong connection to the areas I'm looking to do research in. So how should I proceed? It's not a question of whether I'm going to apply to these schools; I am. My question is whether I should mention only the single faculty member in my LOR, or whether I should try to come up with something - anything - from another faculty member or two that might be helpful in my research, or if I should just avoid mentioning any faculty members altogether?

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I have no concerns whatsoever about what my recommenders will write about me. They will all give me very strong recommendations. I know each of them very, very well - almost like family. So that is definitely no concern! I just didn't know how close people generally work with their recommenders. I have no problem with waiving my right to read their letters. Thanks again for the reflections!

I'm curious about the LOR process in relation to the interaction with one's recommenders. For one application I've started filling out, there is a part that one has to check off if he/she chooses to waive the right to see his/her recommender's letter. What are the pros and cons of either waiving or not waiving your right? Is it typical for an applicant to ask his/her recommender to share the letter for perusal? I'm assuming that most competitive applicants have a very intimate knowledge with the general tenor of the recommender's letter, otherwise he/she would not ask the person to write a recommendation. But does this mean that applicants actually read/proofread such letters? Somewhat related to this question: I know there is no hard and fast rule and there is a lot of variability, but what is the typical length of a very strong recommendation? One page? Two pages? Ten pages?

I hear what you guys are saying! I'm just passing along what Chapman says as it relates to Duke (and, by extension, what he seemed to think about other Top Tier programs). This is exactly what he wrote: "To be fully competitive in our applicant pool, you will likely need to score above those marks [166 v 155 Q] or come as close as possible to them. These are not official cut-offs, just expressions of my own sense about how the admissions process has tended to work in the past." By the way, theophany, are you at Harvard? If so, were your scores in the 166/155 neighborhood? For what it's worth, I'm below those scores on both accounts - so we'll see! He told me that, given this reality, other parts of my application will need to be very good.

There are many different factors in the whole process, of course, and one's GRE score is not either going to "make" or "break" one's acceptance, but in interacting with Stephen Chapman from Duke a lot recently, he definitely underscored the importance of the GRE. He said that in order for one to be highly competitive, he/she should get better than a 166 V and 155 Q. Of course, getting above this doesn't guarantee acceptance, nor does getting below it guarantee a rejection. But if one has lower scores than this, he/she will really need to shine in other areas of the application.

I am in the process of filling out PhD/ThD applications and I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on some of the questions they ask you. I know this has been discussed before, but what are people's thoughts on responding to the question about children. It seems to me that responding to this question in the affirmative could only hurt one's chances. But maybe not. Do you think it makes a difference what type of program one is applying to (e.g., I am applying to three seminaries/divinity schools)? Also, what about responding to the question about where else you are applying? Again, I know this has been discussed, but I'm just curious about current perspectives.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the application process for the ThD program - but this is not necessarily the impression I have gotten. Could you explain what you mean when you say that one is not "applying right away to a specific field"? From what I've been told by admissions, a person is definitely applying to one of four major categories - Biblical Studies, Historical Studies, Ministerial Studies, or Theological Studies.

I'm curious about the discrepancy between this number (and what Dr. Hays reported - even though it was specific to Biblical Studies), and what the admissions page itself says. According to this page, the Graduate Program in Religion received 169 applications last year, and offered admission to 12 persons (a 7% acceptance rate). This is still, obviously, quite low - but still about 50% higher than a 4.5% acceptance rate!

Thanks for this, Ryan. Two questions: is he speaking of the PhD or the ThD? Also, I didn't see him say anything about the OT there. But is the 50 you/he spoke of meaning 50 each for OT and NT (which would be 100 total), or a combined 50 between OT and NT? I would have a hard time believing it would be the former, as they get about 160 applications a year (for the PhD) - which would thus leave only 60 other applicants for all other fields.

Sounds good. I look forward to continued dialogue.

Oops. I thought I hit "edit" on my last post but instead hit "quote." I then posted it without realizing it, and now there is no way to delete the post (that I know of). Strange.

No, I don't mind at all. The reason I have put off applying until this year is multifaceted and complicated. There is not a single reason. Chiefly, though, life's competing demands have been vying for my attention. I currently pastor, and I have three young kids - including one just born in March. So that's the biggest reason. Just figuring out the right timing. There was also a short while that I was unsure if this was the path I wanted to pursue. But time has been very helpful, because it has definitely confirmed that I really, really want to do this. Then there's other practical stuff that I didn't feel ready about: studying for the GRE (which still could have gone better for me, and I will be taking it again), working on my Hebrew (I will be applying to HB/OT), and the biggie, as I said before, is really, really feeling like I have a strong grasp of the faculty at the schools to which I'll be applying. Time has been very helpful in that regard because I have discovered some really important things about the various faculty just recently that I think will be extremely helpful when I apply. So that's the short story. Hopefully it will all pay off. You asked about pursuing another degree in the meantime: that's just not possible for me right now. The closest program that offers any sort of respectable Master's degree (or any Masters at all, for that matter), is in Boston - four hours away from where I live. There is not a single program in my whole area that I could go to that would supplement my academic record. And I'm not about to uproot my family for a year or two to get a second Master's - especially if I don't get into a PhD after that. So I'm kind of between a rock and a hard place - which makes your prayers all the more helpful! So thank you. I will definitely lift you up in prayer as well. As of now, I'm planning to apply this year and see what happens. If I don't get in (which I'm definitely bracing myself for), we will have to re-evaluate. And who knows - maybe we'll find ourselves in the same program some day as well. I'm planning to also apply to Duke and Princeton Seminary (as well as Harvard and Boston University - with the jury still out on Baylor, Notre Dame, and Emory [though unlikely on those]). By the way, you asked about McMaster Divinity: I have also looked into their program but from what I've been able to gather, they definitely seem to be pretty evangelical in their approach and reputation - as far as I can gather. That, to me, is not a terrible thing, because I would ultimately have no problem going to an evangelical school if I had to (although the finances would be the main issue). It all just depends on what your ultimate goal is for after doctoral studies. Generally speaking, if you are interested in teaching at an evangelical school, you can get by with an evangelical doctorate - although, of course, getting a doctorate from a top tier program would likely give you a leg up on those who don't. The main thing with McMaster - as with any evangelical school - is the funding. There is very little. And, with a family to take care of, I simply cannot afford pay for school or to take out more loans. But I will say this: McMaster is very persistent with their e-mails (I just got another one from them today). I will give them that!

I'm not as qualified to speak to your questions as well as other people on this forum would be, but your background sounds almost exactly like mine, with a few differences. And I was asking the same questions two years ago. I still haven't applied yet though! But I am planning to do so this year. I would just make a few observations though. 1. I definitely think your GRE scores are enough to get your foot in the door, which is I think mostly what GRE scores are intended to do. Beyond that, don't sweat it. 2. From what I understand, the single most important part of the application process is demonstrating that you fit in with any particular department or faculty member - usually demonstrated through your statement of purpose. A person might have the most impressive application, but if they can't demonstrate how their interests align with the department or its faculty, then the application won't get them anywhere. Conversely, if you have some deficiencies in other areas in your application but you can strongly demonstrate that you are a good fit with the program, then I think some of those deficiencies can be overcome. To that end, I would ask you how much you have researched the various faculty at the programs you are interested in. I'm finding that this is a very extensive part of the process, and I'm going the extra mile in researching and trying to formulate a statement of purpose that clearly demonstrates that I would be a perfect fit at the various programs to which I'll be applying. It's not a magic bullet, but it's huge. I hope this helps!

Yeah, I was going to say: I'd give up to half my kingdom to have even regional presentations to put on my CV.

I think you're right! The HDS website also confirms this: "HDS recently changed its doctoral designation from ThD to PhD in Religion. . . . This is a joint degree program offered by the HDS and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, administered by the Committee on the Study of Religion."

No, Levenson told me that he wasn't planning on retiring in the next few years (though he admitted that one never knows what might come). He did say that he is due up for one semester of leave during the 2015-2016 year though. Perhaps you already know this as well, but he also shared with me that the Divinity School has eliminated the ThD. Thus, whereas before you could apply to the NELC department, the GSAS, and HDS, the former two are now the only doctoral programs in Hebrew Bible at Harvard.

Thanks for the heads up on this! I was not planning on mentioning Seow, as his interests don't really align with mine - but, again, thanks for mentioning this. Thanks also for this! That is very encouraging.

So who has applied - either successfully or otherwise - to PTS's PhD program and can provide some application "do's and don'ts"? I will be applying to the Biblical Studies (OT) program, but the reflections need not be limited to that area. It's much appreciated!