theonionman

Haha who told you "no"? You absolutely can (and should!) apply for the research grant for dissertation purposes. That's what I'm doing, and I'm by no means alone among my cohort. I'm a little out of the ordinary because I already did a Fulbright research grant, right after undergrad, but that was 1) some years ago and 2) in a different (though nearby) country. That said, I know of cases where people have received multiple research grants to go to the same country, so it really just depends. The only thing to keep in mind about dissertation research is that there's a separate Fulbright grant, the Fulbright-Hays, specifically for that purpose. Unfortunately it's something of a red-headed stepchild as far as Congress is concerned, and requires its own separate appropriations process every year, which basically means that there's only about a six-week window between the announcement and the due date. And depending on the year it may not happen at all! Furthermore, even if it does happen, and you manage to get your application in on time, the timing is extremely strange; you're never going to hear whether you got the Fulbright-Hays until after you would have had to make a decision on any regular Fulbright you may have been offered, meaning the Hays is only relevant for people who 1) were rejected or 2) didn't get an application in. The truly crazy part? Notwithstanding all of the above, the Fulbright-Hays dissertation research grant is the most prestigious student-level Fulbright grant.

As a former Fulbright research grant awardee and current PhD student (still waiting to hear back about my application for a 2nd Fulbright research grant...), I just want to echo what kafcat said above. ETA is fun but does literally nothing for your CV. I honestly don't completely understand why people with an interest in academic careers even apply for the ETA; neither admissions nor hiring committees care about it.

I think the real problem is a combination of special snowflake syndrome and undergraduates thinking of grad school as a way to avoid having to deal with the real world. Of course, the reality is that not everyone is a special snowflake when it comes to talent in a given field (athletic, academic, or otherwise), and that academia can in many ways be even more brutal than the so-called "real world" outside the ivory tower. So I agree entirely with AbrasaxEos: the only cost you should be paying for a Ph.D. is the opportunity cost. If you aren't getting paid for doctoral study--meaning, a full tuition waiver PLUS a stipend that will at a minimum realistically cover your living expenses--then either your program isn't well-respected enough or they don't think well enough of you for the exercise to be worth your while. The upside of this approach is twofold. First, if it all goes belly-up and you can't find a teaching job, well then at least you aren't in debt. Second, it's not as if there aren't any teaching jobs out there; it's just that the jobs which do exist will invariably go to the students who got paid to complete their Ph.D's. In other words, it's a snowball effect. As one of my advisors put it, the way you get fellowships is by already having fellowships. So it's less "Don't get a Ph.D." than "Only get a Ph.D. if a) you're getting paid for it and b ) you have direct hands-on experience with what academic life really entails."

Sorry, yes, my posts above should read CSR ("committee") rather than GSR ("group").

GSAS is one, large, unit of Harvard University. NELC is one of the doctoral programs offered within GSAS. But it is an "Area Studies"-type program, not a "Religious Studies"-type program. Functionally, this means a greater focus on texts, languages, and history as opposed to critical theory. HDS is another, not quite as large, unit of Harvard University. As a Divinity School it offers a very different framework for graduate studies than an Arts & Sciences college. The most basic and fundamental problem with GSR is that it is neither within GSAS nor within HDS. It is in a kind of institutional limbo. The faculty are drawn from both GSAS and HDS, but they can't agree on anything. So there is very little coherence to the program, no methodological unity, fierce competition for internal resources, etc. I know some people who are successfully navigating these difficulties, though the one I'm closest to transferred from UVA and spends most of his time in Brazil. I also know people (well, a person) who ran screaming to UCSB despite his cushy fellowship at Harvard.

...Enter the dysfunction I was talking about above. I can't comment on HDS vs. GSR. What I can say is that I weighed GSR and ended up deciding to apply to GSAS (in South Asian Studies) instead. Yes, even though I'd nominally be working with many of the same people. I am fluent in both classical and contemporary Tibetan, with 5+ years spent studying in a traditional Tibetan monastic college, taking classes directly in Tibetan without a translator. GSR told me my language skills and scholastic training were "not directly relevant" for a doctoral program in Buddhist Studies. GSAS sees the value of, you know, real world language skills and experience in studying a religious tradition. Your mileage may vary with GSR vs. NELC. Bottom line, if you're interested in both, you should absolutely apply to both, and yes you should write different letters of intent for each. They are completely different programs. (Yes, even though they nominally have many of the same professors... again, enter the dysfunction I was talking about above). Despite what I said, if you are dying to go to Harvard and must have "Religious Studies" on your PhD, GSR is probably the better bet.

In fact I think you're right, GSR doesn't have a terminal MA. And if the OP is talking about HDS, then what I said most certainly does not apply.

To be clear, the problems I heard about concern the PhD program. I'm not sure about the MA program. Also, my area is Buddhism; that said, the institutional problems I've heard about extend beyond Buddhist Studies-land. It comes down to the GSR being unable to decide whether it is (methodologically) Area Studies or Religious Studies. In any case, I certainly hope you're afforded the choice! Good luck!

Hi, the brief answer is: avoid like the plague. Longer answer: the program in Religious Studies at Harvard is not actually a "department" per se, but a "group." Basically, it is an umbrella organization comprised of roughly half Div School professors and roughly half GSAS professors. But the factions don't get along--at all--with the end result that students have been caught in the middle of a vicious academic territory fight, with terrible results for their scholarship. Literally everyone I've spoken to at top PhD programs (in the UC system, at Chicago, and elsewhere) has warned me to stay far away from Harvard's GSR until they get their act together. The words "toxic environment" were used more than once.