Joseph45

I think he's looking at Princeton U (to which I was referring), not PTS.

I think you're right to be concerned. I have a friend in the RELS dept at UNC (although not in Ancient Med), and last time I talked to him he was working two jobs. It's really hard to compete with students at other programs when you're also having to work a part time job. And even if you could get by financially (Chapel Hill area might be a bit expensive, but it wouldn't be hard to find something pretty cheap nearby), it's not only miserable to live penny to penny like that for years, I'm also guessing they don't have great funding for traveling to conferences, etc. In other words, it's going to be harder for you to get CV points if you have to pay for your own travel costs. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I do think this is a big factor that a lot of people in the application stage don't understand. Places like UNC and UT-Austin have great people (at least in our field), but that doesn't really make them a great place to be. I hate to be crass, but money really does make a difference. In summary, those kids at Princeton are doing good work in part because of the financial resources that are backing them and their research. All of this doesn't mean that you shouldn't apply. At the same time, I'm not really sure that I could recommend either of those schools with a good conscience. Great people, not great situations. And this PhD thing is really, really tough, even when you're in a great situation (hence, why I'm procrastinating on the dissertation right now). By the way, have you looked at Brown?

I guess I just see things differently now that I'm in my fifth year. I now think it's just too easy to think things will work out fine, when they often don't. So, for example, with regards to getting a job at Starbucks. Some of these people probably could have, but it gets really tricky. If you just spend six years not only getting a PhD, but being very stressed and working every weekend, etc., it's very tough just to end that by getting a job at Starbucks. Because being successful in this business is a full time job, and you pretty much end any chance of success by dropping out and working at a Starbucks. You're not going to have successful publications and presentations that way. You get farther behind. I guess if you were willing to take the gamble and go the PhD route, you're not going to quit in the first year of not getting a job, but then that first year become two, then three. So I guess I don't see how the same person who goes all in initially then becomes a person who drops out right away. And with regards to publishing jobs or government jobs, whatever, those really aren't that easy to get either. The jobs that make sense for humanities PhDs to take are flooded with applications from humanities phds (and many of them from "top" programs). And just "doing what everybody else does," that's hard too. You'll struggle to get a job because you'll be considered over-qualified. And jobs these days just aren't being handed out. Who's going to give you a decent job just for having a PhD? All of that is to say, entry level work sucks not only because it'll be very hard to get with a PhD, by the time you graduate, you'll probably be at an age and level of responsibility where you'll not be thrilled with the money and the demands of being a cashier at Target. Getting a "regular" professional job that pays in the mid-30's won't be easy either. They don't want to deal with people they'll be threatened by as smarter than them. These things aren't just sitting there for the taking, especially if you're basically been unemployed for a year or two. Maybe what's really separating us, though, is our conception of getting a PhD. I love my advisor and think I'm incredibly well supported. In addition, my program is very well-funded. I'm good enough financially then. But I just view it as really stressful and consuming. I don't get weekends really, for example. Something that didn't bother me years ago, but is getting a little old now. I don't have any promises that I'll actually get a job or recognized for any of my hard work. It is somethign that I love, but it's not like like getting a PhD is just a fun joy ride. And not that you're saying that, but you do seem to view it as pretty much a fun time. That's great for you, and maybe that's the way it is (or will be) for most people here. And if that's true for you, I can't say that you're wrong. I guess just looking at it now, for me, it's a hell of a lot of work and years lost only to end up very unemployable. That's why I don't think people should do it unless they're in a great situation, with a great advisor and in a very top program. The friends I know in top programs are having it hard enough (whether before or after finishing). The friends I have in mid-level programs, none of them are just having fun, looking forward to quitting and working at Starbucks at 32.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree here. I just know too many people in "top tier" (e.g., NT at Duke) programs that can't get a job anywhere (for years), even though they've published and are doing great work. Their problem isn't that they're aiming too high, the job market is just really really tough. I know people too who are at good, but not great, programs, and life is really tough for them. Their work suffers because of all the teching they have to do, or, once they graduate, they can't get a job at all. Their problem isn't that they're not willing to teach at a small college, or go into work outside the academy, but to get any employment. It might sound like a good idea just to do something you love, even if it's not top tier, when you're 25ish, but it's not going to be fun five-ten years later if you end up with a domestic partner (and perhaps kids) who resents you for following a plan that's less realistic buying lottery tickets every day.

I guess I should take it as a compliment to be taken so seriously. But really, why try to impress a boy or girl if she doesn't know about U Chicago?

Thank you Tollege! Great example. You just can't think about which schools are the most competitive. Each subfield is different (and some subfields are probably more competitive across the board than other subfields). Beyond that, it just so much depends on what one wants to do in your chosen subfield. There are really really strong programs that I'd rather poke my eyes out than be in. Not because the people there are a--holes, don't support their students or of geography issues (although those matter a lot too), it's because I find certain approaches in my subfield boring as Hell. And I'm sure they find the approaches I like boring or stupid. I couldn't even recommend or rank the programs in my subfield because of this. One person's top school would be another person's nightmare. Even so, as someone getting pretty close to the job market, it's just not worth doing it if you're not at a school that has an excellent reputation and excellent support. I hate putting it like this, but if you can't name-drop your school, it's probably not worth going to. The job market is just way too brutal. Besides that though, the top programs have the money and the connections to make the living-hell that getting a phd can be much more bearable. It's no fun going through grad school for 5-7 years when you're living in poverty, your library sucks, and you have to work twice as hard to get papers and presentations accepted because of your non-top tier school. It'll also be a lot harder to get the relevant/top outsiders on your committee. It's awful, but when you're trying to present at top panels at AAR/SBL, or get accepted to a conference, it's going to be way easier when you're coming from top dog school than mid-level school. People do look at names. And then, having those conferences and papers on your CV is going to make getting funding or the job easier etc. It's a cycle. The names open doors that open doors that open doors. Get that first door closed, and you're out. The quality of your work won't matter as much, and you'll probably have less funding and resources to produce that quality anyway. I don't want to be Mr. Downer, but I strongly advise against going to a non-top school. And by that I mean, if you couldn't drop the name of your school in conversation to impress that cute girl or a boy, it's not a top school. At the same time though, don't just apply to top schools because they're top schools. Only apply to the ones that really interest you. First, your application will most likely fail if you're just applying to a place because you think they're a top school. Second, it's much less likely that you'll be happy or succesful there if you do get in. There are few things worse than spending 5-7 years reading and thinking about a topic in a way that you think is boring, outdated, or stupid, and then being forced to go on the job market and present yourself in that way.

In my personal opinion, it's just such a complex question to ask. Doctoral programs are so small, with so many different subfields and interests within subfields, along so many different theological stakes, that ranking them usually reveals more about the ranker than the schools. When I was applying, for example, I didn't even send in an application to a couple of the top programs, because I didn't think their current faculty matched my interests. On the other hand, I don't know the numbers, but there are programs that may technically be very competitive, but don't have quite as good of job placement as places with similiar competitiveness (and none of this is taking into account the claims by some that these schools are very invested in inflating their application pools). I'll probably anger people now, but I think Virginia, and to some extent Duke, might be good examples of this. I don't know the numbers, so I may be entirely wrong, but, judging from the comments on this board, they get a lot of attention from what I would consider as conservatives (who want to be taken seriously in the academy). They are the top school for many, but job placement isn't fantastic (i.e., a lot of Virginia profs come from Harvard, but not a bunch of Harvard profs come from Virginia). In other words, technical competitiveness doesn't necessarily reflect the program's strength. Of course, my notions about Virginia, and to a lesser extent Duke, might actually be more useful in what they reveal about my biases than what they may reveal about those schools. Biases, however, actually also play a huge role in job placement. In certain subfields at Virginia and Duke, those people love each other and think their counterparts' work is much more important significant than what's going on at Princeton in that subfield. At my (unnamed) school, the Princeton people are huge deals, while we don't really pay attention to Yale, and especially not Chicago people. So, if you want a certain type of job, Virginia or Duke might be far better than Princeton or Harvard, while other jobs/people would cringe a bit at those programs. Once you really get into the subfield, you start to stereotype each of the other schools professors and students pretty quickly (fairly or not). You can even see a dissertaiton and know which school it came from. Probably more importantly than any of this, however, is that the strenght of subfields can really vary at a school. One school might have a great Medieval Islamic studies program, but a fairly weak religion in America program, for example. Moreover, there might even be strenghts and weaknesses within the subfield. That's why it's pretty unhelpful to think about which departments are strongest, becaues you're studying in a subfield with particular strengths in that subfield more than your studying in a department. Then you also have to watch out for advisors. Maybe so and so is a really big deal, but is s/he around enough to advise and advocate for her/his students? How good are their networks? Your advisor plays a huge role in your ability to succeed as a scholar and get a job. All of that is to say, even if you get into a very competitive program, it doesn't mean you'll be in a good situation come job time. I don't want to freak people out here, but the subfield and your advisor are really what matter. Again, in my humble opinion, the sooner you start thinking about which advisors you'd like to work with, the better. It'll also make your purpose/personal statement much stronger. All that said, you still want to be at a really strong school. Not to pick on schools, but a professor at GTU might be excellent and a perfect match for you, but GTU isn't going to be able to support you, financially or academically, the way Virginia, Duke, Yale, Chicago, etc will.