theophany

You could feasibly go from an MDiv to a PhD in a history as long as you are very careful to turn your degree as heavily toward history as you can, and get a good backing in historiography. At a small Anglican seminary, esp. if you are ordination seeking, that might be a little complicated. I will say, though, if your end goal is to work in a seminary teaching historical theology for the purposes of ministerial formation, pursuing a PhD in a secular history department doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not even that the nature of your work is on an overtly religious topic, it's that it has an overtly religious motivation. If it's historical theology you want to teach, you're going to need to be able to hold up the theology part of the equation, too, because you won't be presenting Coverdale or Hooker as of simple historical interest, but as thinkers whose thought is offered up for consideration of belief, and lives, for emulation. That is quite a different task than a historian. Historical theology is firstly theology that is historical, not firstly history that is theological.

It's normal to get interview weekend things for schools who do that around this time, being that that requires a bit more scheduling. As for other things, it varies so much year to year it's not worth wagering. There may be a long, drawn out, tedious debate over which candidates are accepted by faculty one year, and the next it just be crystal clear. There may be epic snowstorms that shut down university activity one year, and not a dash of snow the next. The chair may come down with the flu one year. I know it's so stressful waiting, but there's no alternative. It might be a good time to take up a meditation practice if you don't already have one.

Your understanding is correct about how HDS bills itself—whether or not that is accurate is something I'm not wholly sure of. I'm in the PhD in a different field, so I don't totally know what the masters student makeup is on that front. Anecdotally, I hear much more about Buddhism than about Hinduism. Looking at course listings for 2015–16, this is what I've found: a religious diversity class including a section on India (Diana Eck), a course on embodiment and aesthetics in Hinduism (Finnian Moore Gerety), a comparative theology course (Frank Clooney), an undergrad/grad lecture on Hindu art and culture (Diana Eck), a seminar on the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (Frank Clooney), and then language courses. Ultimately, there is enough there to make a sensible course of study. That said, Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism, and to a lesser extent Islam make up the bulk of the course offerings.

One thing that HDS is pretty bad about making clear is that it relies on faculty from various departments of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for teaching. So, you should also add Parima Patil (in the Dept of South Asian Studies) to the list, and potentially others from that department. Prof. Eck doesn't teach graduate level courses all that often, so it largely is Clooney and Monius (and Patil). Clooney is interested in the comparative side of things, but Monius is less interested in that project (except as it is relevant in the case of Hinduism and Buddhism in South Asia). I'm not sure what you mean by how applicants are perceived. But, for what it's worth, if you plan on pursuing PhD work (and probably even if you don't), a lot of your masters program will be spent in language study.

One of the issues with Mormon Studies at most schools is that they depend on one faculty person alone—who may or may not be tenured, happy, or on leave. I'd make sure, whatever your considerations, that you make sure there are other faculty in the American religious history group and even in the history department who would make sense to work with. Getting somewhere both with good placement and a stable faculty might be a bit of a hunt. If you're interested in Mormon thought, you should definitely have Terryl Givens at U.Richmond in mind. He's in the English department, which would be somewhat non-traditional. But he's in the middle of two volume set that is basically Mormon systematics (with a historical perspective, since in Mormonism, history is theology). I might send him an email; though, even if Richmond wouldn't be possible, it also throws another bone in the direction of UVa (Charlottesville and Richmond are an hour apart).

You'll see it written about variously on the Religion forum here, but for the sake of "smart investment" you should also think about how the British DPhil/PhD is viewed in North America if you want to try to do the professor thing in North America. I don't have any experience on that front, so this is all hearsay, but various posts on here have expressed caution (especially if you don't already hold a masters degree or two), because the DPhil/PhD is not a taught degree—"all" you have to do is write the dissertation and defend it. That is substantially less than the 2yrs of coursework (on top of the masters), comprehensive exams, and usually 2yrs of teaching for an North American PhD. This raises questions of rigor for lots of people, so I've seen. More people can comment better than I can, but if I were in your boat, the validity of those concerns would be my #1 question.

The only difficulty with taking it now is that it measures where you are now—at least 2 years before you enter a PhD program. That isn't an effective measure for years in the future for a different institution with different requirements. What an adcom is going to care about is that you had a summer of instruction from the Goethe Institute, and that's what there will be space on an application for. But you'll get to list that, which is important. As for taking German for Reading, you shouldn't worry with it at Yale. It will just be repetition of what you're doing now, and more to the point, it would be a major hassle. As best I can remember, the language departments at Yale don't allow auditors in language instruction classes (similar to most places). And I know for certain that German for Reading does not count as credit towards degree, not even as an elective, at YDS. I'll just echo marXian: read Der Spiegel. That's how I've kept up my languages, even just occasionally going through an article or two to jog my mind.

There's not a general German translation exam you can take, as if it were the GRE. Each school is going to have different standards, each one is going to have their own test or series of requirements. Those tests are meant for those particular schools and their particular requirements, so most of the time they don't transfer. If you were to stay at Yale for PhD, an exam taken there would likely carry over, but if you go somewhere else, odds are they're going to want you to take their test—especially if all you had was a summer study. I was a French major as an undergraduate, and still had to take the test to qualify in French. Basically, what you can do now is list on your PhD applications that you had German for whatever amount of time in semesters. Make sure you have a transcript, or a proof of enrollment, or certificate of completion, or whatever, to include. As far as testing goes, I wouldn't advise you to take the Yale test in advance, as if it would help you. They would probably be confused as to why a masters student at YDS was trying to take it. You're just going to have to keep your German up and wait until if/when you're in a PhD program to take the test your school administers.

Oh, I know all about second language acquisition (I'm a linguist by training), and I'm deeply suspicious of writing knowledge-only learning. The issue is that with language qualifying exams, you need to be able to translate Voltaire after a semester or two. I couldn't actually make it through Voltaire on the conversational path until after 4 or 5 semesters. It's a matter of being pragmatic about timeframe. You don't want to waste 3-4 classes during coursework learning your secondary research languages when you need to be spending those in seminars, developing research skills, writing, and preparing for comprehensive exams. If you're going to be reading a lot of German, for instance, then you obviously need to learn it at a deeper level, and then I would suggest the conversational-style classes. But if what you need is to fill a requirement, it may not be the best use of your time. One has to prioritize, esp. if you want to make it out of doctoral work in 5-7yrs rather than 7-10yrs. However, I will say that the way we teach so called conversational-style language in universities also does not accord with second language acquisition research, so I'm not so sure that's necessarily going to fix the problem. This is a difficult question, and I don't have a clear sense of the answer. It's going to differ based upon the field, and also based upon your ease of use of the language. And what you're particular research is on. And if there are good, reliable translations. I would talk to your advisor and/or a professor in the field at your institution. All we're going to be able to offer here is anecdotal evidence, where faculty are the ones actually reading applications and doing the teaching.

It might be helpful here to distinguish between two different kinds of language you need for research. The first is primary language, the original languages of texts that you'll be focusing on. As you're applying for PhD work, you'll need to have made large strides on those—so if you're doing NT, Greek; if you're doing medieval history or theology, Latin; if you're studying modern philosophy of religion, German or French (depending on your school); if you're doing Islam, Arabic; etc. Neither you nor your program is going to want you to have to take up time during your coursework learning the languages you will already need to know. And the more textual your filed, the more important having primary language down. The second, of course, are the secondary/modern literature languages. These are almost invariably French and German, and are generally required of everyone. So much of religious studies scholarship is done in these two languages (in addition to English) that you'll need to be able to read them and not rely on translations that may or may not exist. (There's nothing like getting that perfect resource you need but can't read it.) It's a good idea to have one of these down before you enter; some programs in fact require it. As far as speaking vs. reading knowledge, they're two separate ballgames. Speaking knowledge is about how to get by when you're in a country; reading knowledge is learning how to decode. You might learn how to speak conversational French, but if you need to pick up Durkheim, Foucault, or John Calvin and read it, knowing how to give directions on the Paris Métro isn't going to help you much. Much less if you're given 250 and you have an hour to translate—a lot of native speakers can't do that. Think about language exams as bare minimum check boxes—if you're going to focus on a particular language for research, you're likely going to need far beyond what those tests will cover.

The key is that they have a visiting at all: YDS has been depending on bringing in people over the past few years because they don't have the people. Importantly, visiting faculty won't be eligible for being advisers. Simmons is leaving because he didn't get tenure. And Herdt is academic dean and so only teaches one class a semester, usually a seminar. They've had two failed searches in the past 3 years; a failed search at Yale results in a freeze on the chair for 2 years, which means they can't do a search for them. Tanner wouldn't describe herself as an ethicist really either... The point is: Yale should have 4-5 tenure or tenure-track faculty in ethics. Unless something changes, next year they have only one, who is only teaching a half-load. They'll probably have some more visiting faculty, but this is a significant problem for them right now (and one they know about, of course, and are trying to do things about.)

Tanner is giving the Gifford Lectures—one of the most important lecture series in religion/theology—next May in Edinburgh on the topic of economics and theology, for which she has been doing research for the past several years. If Economy of Grace interested you, then you'll probably very much like where her interest is now. Volf's interests have slightly shifted recently—the newest project the Center for Faith and Culture is working on is about joy. One thing against YDS on ethics at this point is that you should make sure to take a look at the currently faculty listing and notice how many ethics faculty there are...

It took a long, long time to get a rejection letter from Vandy last year, too. Who knows what their deal is.

Wanderlustxx's advice is mine, too, but I'd reverse it. Read their books, or at least the introductions. So much of one's time spent as an academic is writing, so it's in the books that you see what they're actually interested in and how they think about things. Also, run a quick search of their name on the library database ATLA—there you can see any articles they've put out, which gives a somewhat better representation of their total production. So, for instance at Yale, if you look at Herdt's most recent book, you can see that her interest substantially lies in virtue ethics and subject formation, especially from an analytical philosophy perspective. When you email a POI, you generally want to have done your homework so you're not like, "Um, so, like...what are you interested in?" It makes it look like you're not terrible invested, and that you may not have applied knowing why you were applying. (When they may have actually read your application...) Also, go onto each school's course catalogue and see what classes they've taught recently. Seminars are often ways of workshopping ideas professors are working on with advanced students, so those can give clear ideas of their interests, while lecture courses are more likely to show where they're particular strengths are. It will also help you see how much a given professor is teaching.

If it's even tangentially related to what you'd want to study at the PhD level, then no, don't take it pass/fail. Generally, you want to avoid taking classes pass/fail if you want to pursue doctoral work. If you're in an MTS/MAR program, you should basically have none. One will raise a flag; more than that will be a serious problem. The problem is that a Pass grade is usually something from a D+/C- through an A, and an adcom has no way of telling where you fell on that spectrum. Pass reads as "did the minimum," which is not going to help you. Having one B isn't going to kill you, especially if it's not in your field.

Goodness, people. "As bad as other divinity schools, should still nonetheless be stayed clear of for student interested in academic pursuits"? Really? Go look at faculty listings at the top religious studies programs in the country. By far, the majority of them have their masters degrees from divinity schools (mostly HDS, YDS, and UChicago.) That same thing is reflected in the make-up of students in PhD programs at the so-called "top tier" schools. Terminal masters programs from RS departments are not held in higher regard in admissions committees' minds. Let's get real about what this is about: academic snobbery against people in ministerial formation. Yes, good numbers of future ministers are less concerned about long-scale academic pursuit, but that does not mean that they're any less capable of it than the academic track students are. In fact, MTS/MAR students (not to mention PhD students) regularly have their asses handed to them by MDivs. If you're planning on studying religion and you are looking down on people who practice said religions and are training to be ministers them, you might need to start checking some biases before you get too far along in scholarship.

As far as I know, no, there isn't. There are informal lists of "top-tier" schools you can find here and elsewhere, but in many cases it's apples and oranges. Would "best" mean "best" in Bible? Or "best" in training of preachers? Or "best" in theology and ethics? Or "best" in pastoral care? It gets really slippery, really fast, and wouldn't end up telling you much. The National Research Council does rank doctoral programs in religion by various different metrics, which you can find here: http://chronicle.com/article/nrc-religion/124664/. Many of those universities also have divinity schools, but there isn't necessarily a correlation between the two.

Maybe you've had different luck than I or most of my friends have had, but I know of almost no one who hasn't been expected to pay that all upfront.

I think this is a matter of perspective difference. The MDiv is a generalist degree, and is intentionally structured to force you not to concentrate, to spread out, not to limit yourself. The MDiv at HDS is perhaps the most intentionally generalist of anywhere. Being a graduate student is entirely different. For people studying Hebrew Bible (the example you gave), they've had to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, maybe Coptic, maybe Ethiopic. They've had to become well-versed in different strategies of exegesis, with the archaeological record of ancient Israel/Palestine, with the likely culture of the various strands of tradition that composed the text, and on and on. All of this is to able to contribute something new to scholarship, to push through to new stretches of knowledge. To do that requires a whole lot of preparation, a whole lot of knowing what came before, and a whole lot of focus. And at least for many of those students, their faculty don't give them any choice over what courses they take—so anything outside has to be done, well, outside. As for tenured faculty being more well-rounded, well, obviously. The average PhD student in religion is 25 to 35. The tenure process can take a decade longer, becoming a full professor even longer, which is full of teaching, of going to guest lectures, of attending conferences, and so forth. Naturally, they've had more experience since their period of intense specialization. It might look like becoming a one-trick pony from the outside; but from the perspective of a PhD student, MDivs can look like dilettantes who only get superficial understandings of what they take classes on. Again, it depends on what standard you're measuring by.

Individual teaching groups meet to discuss before the doctoral subcommittee meets, before the whole committee meets, before they send them off to the general committee of the GSAS. If your POI was involved in the first stage, it still may be weeks and weeks before it gets to the final stage. There's really, really nothing you can do at this stage—you did everything you could do by December 15. I know how hard the waiting game is, but don't drive yourselves crazy—and GradCafe is especially bad at giving you rope to hang yourselves with.

I, too, am suspicious of this. Especially with all of the closures for snow, many, many faculty meetings have had to be rescheduled. There's a possibility they've made them up on Skype or something, but I would be cautious about surmising a date unless you have it on word from admissions given the unprecedented cancellations this winter.

On the Yale point, make sure you look at the faculty listings. They have had two unsuccessful searches in the past three years, and another professor did not make tenure, so they are going to be down 3 (of 4) ethics faculty for at least another year—and the remaining person is associate dean and only teaches one seminar per semester. They've been pulling in ethics faculty from other schools to teach for the past 3 years. This is all to say, on this topic, that name recognition only goes so far. You need to do your research about who is teaching and what their interests are in.

As others have said, you're not going to find a place in or around Boston in your budget. Housing in Boston is obscene, and there are very few single-family homes around. If you are absolutely convinced you want to buy, you might look at condos, but they're still likely going to be significantly above your budget. Honestly, Boston is not a place you buy property unless you're a landlord or wealthy; most everyone, especially students, rent.

Just for clarification, for the purposes of doctoral work at Harvard going forward, there is only Harvard GSAS. HDS has put the kibosh on the ThD and all future students go through GSAS.

Everyone else has pretty thoroughly responded to your other questions, so I'll take this one. Yes and no is the right answer, but needs some elaboration. If your interest is in practical theology or you're applying to schools with more or less of a confessional/religious ethos, then in some cases having experience as a pastor might help (especially if you're of the same denomination as the school). If you're applying to programs that are secular, then it's probably not going to sway one way or another. If you're applying to a secular program and you talk your ministry in your application or your project seems to ministerial, then it very well may work against you. Because of your talk of languages, I'm assuming you're in Bible, which splits into wings that very much are confessionally-focussed and those that are rather aggressively anti-confessional. Ultimately though, your question "Does it count for anything?" the long and short is no, not in an academic environment.