GREman

Hey! so I wrote the post last night in a REALLY bad place, so first of all, apologies to those who found it condescending. I guess what I was trying to say, but said it in a really bad way, was that I'm not some stupid, unqualified hack (which is honestly how this makes me feel most of the time, and how I'm afraid people will think of me, or already do think of me). Before I started this program, I was a more or less happy, healthy, sane individual, with a lot of love and friendship and support. Like many of you, I honestly believed that this was my passion, and that my dedication to my field would mean something once I entered a PhD program. What I think I said really badly, but still truly believe, is that you do not have to be a martyr to this career choice. This is not the only thing in the world you can do. If you have not yet started, really walk into this with open eyes: it is the dirtiest game I, or anyone I know, has ever played. Perhaps we are the unlucky ones--hence the title of the post. Listen, I'm looking at a group of people who was where I was last year. And if anyone had told me last year how bad things would be now, I hope I would have believed them, and looked for other opportunities. Maybe all of you on this thread are truly cut out for the loneliness, precariousness, pretensions, and vicious competition that this life requires. You have my full admiration. I was very idealistic, and now I had a tough learning experience, and I think last night I wanted to share some of the lessons of the last year. Again, apologies if I did it in a clumsy way.

If one is at a school and they do not offer a course you need there is an option for independent study course. I am wondering if there is any or much value to this. Can anyone speak to its usefulness or lack thereof in aiming for PhD admittance? On the one hand it will show that you are an independent person who is willing to be a self starter. on the other hand is it that big a deal or does it simply come down to the other major points. I just am questioning if the adcom is going to go over your transcripts looking at each class. Or does it pretty much come down like always or many times to writing sample and SOP.

I think a large problem that I've come across on this site (and others) has been an obsession with pointing out one's GPAs and GREs when, in reality, the process is so much more complicated than that (as MarXian) has stated). What I've learned from this go-around in the PhD process is that when it comes to the more elite institutions, what matters most is whether or not your research fits in with your potential adviser(s) and if, in general, you are a good fit to the program. The only way one can go about this is to just email around as much as you can; what's the point in spending money on an app where you know that the prof isn't that interested in your research? 

All the schools I'm applying to are schools who have shown an exceptional interest in my research and whom I've spoken to either on the phone or through Skype (at their insistence). Not one asked me what my GPA was or what my GRE scores were, because at this level, it is more about your potential to succeed in their program and your ability to represent said program well after graduation. Of course, the GRE/GPA does help in evaluating that, but a greater weight is placed on your research, what your previous professors have said about your abilities, who those professors are, your foreign language skills, and any other things that can be attributed to your potential success in their program.  

I'm speaking, of course, only about top, top tier institutions that are inundated with hundreds and hundreds of applications every cycle. Those of you lurkers out there who are put off by people posting their GPAs and GREs: don't compare yourself to them. Think about what makes you unique as an applicant and what you can bring to that university that no one else can. Try to stand out among the herd. It's important to understand that there is no exact formula for a successful PhD application. Rock it. 

Good points about 1 vs. 2 year M* degrees. It does seem like the best option would be to apply for PhD programs as well as a handful of MA/MTS programs.

I applied with nearly identical stats three years ago (161 V, 156 Q, 5.0 AW, and M* degrees in English and theology, 3.89, 3.7 GPA respectively). I went 2 for 10. One of my rejections was from Marquette (I wanted to work with D. Stephen Long in theology/philosophy.) It's hard to speculate, but I think my rejections from the TT programs I applied to had primarily to do with my GRE scores, and with the other schools... who knows? My advisor where I am now told me she was impressed by my writing in both my sample and my SOP, and that's primarily what got me in. The adcom also saw some affinity between my work and two others they wanted to admit to the Jewish Studies track who were working in Jewish philosophy/theology.
 
The difficult part about this process is that there is a much larger subjective element than any applicant would want. Your admittance is partially dependent upon the politics of the department, how many students each track can take in a given year, whether or not your POI can take on another student, how much your POI is willing to fight for the students he/she really wants, etc. Or you could be a fantastic candidate applying against someone else doing something very similar who grabs the adcom's interest just a little bit more. Even if you both blow away the adcom and the adcom really wants to admit you both, depending on the institution, funding constraints could force them to cut one from the final group. Unfortunately, those are aspects you can't control at all. 
 
An anecdote to illustrate what I'm talking about: I contacted Mark Taylor (at Columbia) when I was trying to narrow down schools to apply to and he told me straight up I shouldn't apply. He wasn't being mean. He thought my work sounded interesting and promising, my background had a unique aspect (because I had an English MA), but he just received so, so many applications directed toward working with him that the chances of doing what I wanted to do with him were basically zero because he had to choose among a pool of ridiculously qualified applicants. He passes on dozens of amazing applicants every year, and there is nothing he can really do about that. And I'm sure that out of the ones he does want to advocate for, maybe some years only one or two of those are admitted. Or maybe none. So I didn't apply. Btw, regarding your Columbia/Brown question, I'm inclined to say Columbia, but it really depends on the area to which you're applying.
 
The point is all you can do is put together the absolute best application that you can, which I know is frustratingly vague. We really want to have more control over these things, but unfortunately there's no perfect formula. People with amazing stats and a great SOP get shut out of admissions every year (though one's chances are certainly better with those things, to be sure.) 
 
As I've said before on this board, graduate school is simply a never ending parade of arbitrary rejections. You get some wins in there, but you experience far more rejection. I'm applying for major funding for the first time this year for the 2015-16 school year. It's honestly felt like Ph.D applications all over again in that I feel like my future hinges on the decisions that are going to be made. And I'll have to wait 5-6 months (much longer than a grad school app response!) before I know my fate. If I win an award, I get to go to Germany for the next academic year to start my dissertation and I get a to put a huge award on my CV (Fulbright or DAAD research grant). With the job market the way it is, every little thing helps. The thing is that these processes can be just as arbitrary and subjective as the Ph.D app process (maybe sometimes more so.) Unlike with my Ph.D apps, I have no idea who will read my grant applications. These reading committees are made up of academics from just about every field. I've written my proposals for non-experts, but maybe someone still won't get it--or maybe someone in RS will read it, and he/she will strongly disagree with what I'm trying to do with my project!
 
All of this to say that all the things we apply for as academics have some frustratingly high level of subjectivity and randomness like this built into them, beginning with Ph.D apps.

Pretty much what marxian said ^^^. 
 
Anecdotal evidence from 20 years ago can be devastating. Either way, it would be interesting to see admission rates for phd applications then to now (I'm fairly certain no stats exist for that age).
 
I also want to say that while HDS may be less tolerant in some ways of your 'conservative' views, I'm not sure if such settings would be 'better or worse' than somewhere like SLU or any other Jesuit university (as you say). What I have found in my time with the Jesuits (somewhat extensive, I think), and I think by extension I might generalize a bit of Catholic schools, is that your own views on the biblical text will not be as devastating to their theology. It is simply not 'on the radar' for many scholars in such settings. Moreover, the Jesuits schools, just as many Catholic universities, are comprised (excluding the priests) of many secular academics. This brings me to another point: if and when you arrive at any of these institutions, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or secular, your views will not pit you against the mob as if in some epic. In truth, you will mark yourself, perhaps early on or slowly, as someone who is not able to engage in the common scholarly discourse. In fact, you likely won't even be laughed at. You will simply bewilder your peers and professors. And then they will go about their business, forgetting that you once stood firm in your suggestion in class that the biblical text(s) has no contradictions. 
 
cheers

The problem though with this kind of anecdotal evidence is that these profs probably attended at a time when admissions to PhD programs simply wasn't as competitive as it is today. There are just way more qualified applicants today than there were 30, 20, or probably even 10 years ago. Even for second tier programs, the competition is very stiff even if not as stiff as Duke, Harvard, etc.
 
Also keep in mind that you don't want to pay for your PhD if you can help it (which you would likely have to do at a second or third tier program.) Some on this board would say that you should under absolutely no circumstances pay for your PhD. I would say that if you've already paid a lot for your undergrad and/or M*, then you should definitely not fork out more for a PhD. But since everyone's situation is different, I think the best rule of thumb is that at the very least, paying should be your absolute last resort, meaning you should give it a couple rounds of application seasons before you consider paying.

I agree with sacklunch: apply to both. I don't think a 3.55 MDiv GPA will sink you automatically--but it's definitely on the border.
 
But if you feel like you could move on to a PhD now without the extra degree, then definitely apply and apply to a couple M* programs as a backup plan.

It really depends on your area of interest. Like anything else, you will get mixed opinions. Some secure a spot with 'only' an MTS, others have 5-6 years of M* before starting a PhD. In brief I would say apply to both and see what happens. I would recommend applying applying to other M* instead of the ThM. They are almost always unfunded. Apply far and wide and see what happens. That's what most of us did. 

Having read this thread, I want to attend to your first question while being mindful of your reasons for wanting to apply. Honestly, I don't think you can go through an MTS, especially at places that require core or introductory courses, without necessitating a fairly dramatic change in your views to be very productive in classroom discussions and papers. It is not that professors will not respect your different perspective, but the experience of the MTS as a whole will be a formidable challenge to your previously held beliefs—more so in some areas than others. In the core courses themselves, lectures will focus on multiple perspectives but will also argue the merits of a particular viewpoint.
 
As a sympathizer with post liberal theology and approaches to Scripture who has been to several institutions that are formative in that area, I would also argue that such approaches to Scripture do not provide a "safe haven" from critical scholarship if that is what you are hoping to get out of it. If you go to a mainline school, you will be exposed to new ideas that will be formative, ideas that will cause seismic shifts in your thinking. I don't think you will enjoy master's work in particular if you are not open to possibly changing even foundational presuppositions. 
 
I do think you can do PhD work a lot more easily as an inerrantist, and that is pretty much the typical route of scholars like the ones newenglandshawn mentioned. I think this sort of pathway has gotten harder due to competition. They often go to a conservative seminary, especially an institution tied to their own denomination, and then only after that go to more popular institutions for their doctoral work. In such a scenario, it is not hard to imagine statements like "I can take everything that was useful to me and put it in one lecture" being made. The, at best, moderate forms of discussion you would enjoy in coursework, conversations with your advisor and fellow students, and at conferences would not have nearly the same powerful effect on your thinking as those core courses in a master's program would. The difference between making such a move at the master's level vs. the doctoral level is you are not exposed to those formative classes, and any sharing of ideas or different perspectives takes place simply through discussions, which I do not think are nearly as formative. A PhD, after all, is designed to build upon introductory degrees like the MDiv or MTS.
 
In these discussions there are at least two theories of the purpose of a theological education at work. Theological education is either a . . .
 
1. Selectivist or Individualist Task in which education takes on individualist and selective overtones. The primary task is the mere assembly of knowledge, and probably out of an ideological world that is constructed upon presuppositions you do not accept. Your goal here is to merely select from what is otherwise a large, unrelated mass of "epistemological material" those elements of their ideas that are helpful to your project. In this approach, your work is probably better spent with people whose ideological work
 
or a . . .
 
2. Formative or Communal Task in which education takes on communal and participatory overtones. You, with fellow students, are participating in the life of the school and learning about the merits of the "forms of knowledge" offered by the faculty and its students, and you in many ways see yourself resonating with them, in other ways not. No two persons here completely agree, but they still operate around a formative center of beliefs and practices that help bring to life theological projects that are at least somewhat cooperative with those forms of knowledge, build off of them, and bring the conversation into new areas of consideration. In this way you do draw particular ideas from a larger mass of "epistemological material" in this approach as well, but it is still in many ways a project of construction upon the foundation from which that "epistemological material" is built. I think this is what you will experience at institutions that are a good "fit."
 
Honestly, I think you have probably done enough masters work to get into PhD programs. A masters would help insofar as it allows you to gain recommendations from people in that area of the academy whose conversations include potential advisors at institutions where you want to do doctoral work, but it would not be helpful for the purpose of academic work itself if you are afraid of being re-formed or are unwilling to participate on a deeper level in the sorts of formative work that takes place in MTS programs. They are, after all, introductory degrees. Besides this, you will definitely ant to ask yourself how you sure you want to work with the specialists at, say, Harvard or Emory? Are they a good fit at all? Because they can only accept like one or two students a year, and they will not end up selecting you if you find yourself at an uncrossable ideological gap between them.
 
That said, I get the sense that you are perhaps anticipating the likelihood of change and seem more easy-going in this regard. After all, none of us are going to think the same things now as we will in, say, 20 years. You could find yourself in a place of denominational transition, but the solution to that particular problem isn't found by merely attending TT institutions, it is found in attending places where you can both be formed, challenged, and ultimately be a scholar that builds upon a foundation that is conducive both to your work as a PhD student and as a scholar thereafter. Besides this, most Christian theological institutions of higher learning will represent many denominational perspectives well, so you won't be found wanting if you don't go TT.
 
Further, presuming you are a part of the SBC or a smaller conservative Baptist association/convention, you could possibly transition to the CBF or even the NBC, thereby solving most of your potential concerns of denominational fit. Denominational preference is a fickle thing, especially when you don't have any particular interest in being a pastor. I know incredibly intelligent people who have changed denominations three times throughout their masters.
 
For reasons like the ones I mentioned above, I would try to re-orient your thinking about your reasons for applying and what sort of path you want to take indoor academic preparation. Every advisor, professor, and admissions director will tell you unequivocally that it is ultimately about fit—or the sharing of enough common ground to make your educational experience conducive to both your goals and their goals in educating their students. If you can make that work, I do not see why you would be nervous about what will actually be taught to you. If you find yourself nervous and against the stances each institution takes on things like biblical inerrancy or methods in linguistics, translation, etc., then you would be better off operating in institutions that share your interests and approaches more deeply.

Having read this thread, I want to attend to your first question while being mindful of your reasons for wanting to apply. Honestly, I don't think you can go through an MTS, especially at places that require core or introductory courses, without necessitating a fairly dramatic change in your views to be very productive in classroom discussions and papers. It is not that professors will not respect your different perspective, but the experience of the MTS as a whole will be a formidable challenge to your previously held beliefs—more so in some areas than others. In the core courses themselves, lectures will focus on multiple perspectives but will also argue the merits of a particular viewpoint.
 
As a sympathizer with post liberal theology and approaches to Scripture who has been to several institutions that are formative in that area, I would also argue that such approaches to Scripture do not provide a "safe haven" from critical scholarship if that is what you are hoping to get out of it. If you go to a mainline school, you will be exposed to new ideas that will be formative, ideas that will cause seismic shifts in your thinking. I don't think you will enjoy master's work in particular if you are not open to possibly changing even foundational presuppositions. 
 
I do think you can do PhD work a lot more easily as an inerrantist, and that is pretty much the typical route of scholars like the ones newenglandshawn mentioned. I think this sort of pathway has gotten harder due to competition. They often go to a conservative seminary, especially an institution tied to their own denomination, and then only after that go to more popular institutions for their doctoral work. In such a scenario, it is not hard to imagine statements like "I can take everything that was useful to me and put it in one lecture" being made. The, at best, moderate forms of discussion you would enjoy in coursework, conversations with your advisor and fellow students, and at conferences would not have nearly the same powerful effect on your thinking as those core courses in a master's program would. The difference between making such a move at the master's level vs. the doctoral level is you are not exposed to those formative classes, and any sharing of ideas or different perspectives takes place simply through discussions, which I do not think are nearly as formative. A PhD, after all, is designed to build upon introductory degrees like the MDiv or MTS.
 
In these discussions there are at least two theories of the purpose of a theological education at work. Theological education is either a . . .
 
1. Selectivist or Individualist Task in which education takes on individualist and selective overtones. The primary task is the mere assembly of knowledge, and probably out of an ideological world that is constructed upon presuppositions you do not accept. Your goal here is to merely select from what is otherwise a large, unrelated mass of "epistemological material" those elements of their ideas that are helpful to your project. In this approach, your work is probably better spent with people whose ideological work
 
or a . . .
 
2. Formative or Communal Task in which education takes on communal and participatory overtones. You, with fellow students, are participating in the life of the school and learning about the merits of the "forms of knowledge" offered by the faculty and its students, and you in many ways see yourself resonating with them, in other ways not. No two persons here completely agree, but they still operate around a formative center of beliefs and practices that help bring to life theological projects that are at least somewhat cooperative with those forms of knowledge, build off of them, and bring the conversation into new areas of consideration. In this way you do draw particular ideas from a larger mass of "epistemological material" in this approach as well, but it is still in many ways a project of construction upon the foundation from which that "epistemological material" is built. I think this is what you will experience at institutions that are a good "fit."
 
Honestly, I think you have probably done enough masters work to get into PhD programs. A masters would help insofar as it allows you to gain recommendations from people in that area of the academy whose conversations include potential advisors at institutions where you want to do doctoral work, but it would not be helpful for the purpose of academic work itself if you are afraid of being re-formed or are unwilling to participate on a deeper level in the sorts of formative work that takes place in MTS programs. They are, after all, introductory degrees. Besides this, you will definitely ant to ask yourself how you sure you want to work with the specialists at, say, Harvard or Emory? Are they a good fit at all? Because they can only accept like one or two students a year, and they will not end up selecting you if you find yourself at an uncrossable ideological gap between them.
 
That said, I get the sense that you are perhaps anticipating the likelihood of change and seem more easy-going in this regard. After all, none of us are going to think the same things now as we will in, say, 20 years. You could find yourself in a place of denominational transition, but the solution to that particular problem isn't found by merely attending TT institutions, it is found in attending places where you can both be formed, challenged, and ultimately be a scholar that builds upon a foundation that is conducive both to your work as a PhD student and as a scholar thereafter. Besides this, most Christian theological institutions of higher learning will represent many denominational perspectives well, so you won't be found wanting if you don't go TT.
 
Further, presuming you are a part of the SBC or a smaller conservative Baptist association/convention, you could possibly transition to the CBF or even the NBC, thereby solving most of your potential concerns of denominational fit. Denominational preference is a fickle thing, especially when you don't have any particular interest in being a pastor. I know incredibly intelligent people who have changed denominations three times throughout their masters.
 
For reasons like the ones I mentioned above, I would try to re-orient your thinking about your reasons for applying and what sort of path you want to take indoor academic preparation. Every advisor, professor, and admissions director will tell you unequivocally that it is ultimately about fit—or the sharing of enough common ground to make your educational experience conducive to both your goals and their goals in educating their students. If you can make that work, I do not see why you would be nervous about what will actually be taught to you. If you find yourself nervous and against the stances each institution takes on things like biblical inerrancy or methods in linguistics, translation, etc., then you would be better off operating in institutions that share your interests and approaches more deeply.

This is precisely my point above. And while I'm sure this professor was only partially serious (I pray to the gods she was...), such a comment is very telling!

This strikes me as a bit sad and misguided. But we have different ideas of what the function of higher education is, so there's that. 
 
If you are an inerrantist, then, as it was said above, you will not have a good time. Though it's also important to ask what do you consider a top program? I'm also curious: What makes you want to even study at a 'top' school with such views? If you mean the 'usual suspects', you will very likely be surrounded by opposing views, both from your peers and your professors. So, if not to either change or because you love to torture yourself, why go in the first place? And what do you want to do when you're done? If you want to teach at an inerrantist school, you could just as easily stay in the sphere you are already in and 'challenge' yourself in ways that already support your ideology. 

I don't freaking believe this.
 
I just added up all of my grades in my business class and it's an 89.9
 
I'm so pissed. Partly, because a lot of this class is subjective. We had a group project and essays on both of the exams.
 
Do you guys think the professor will round up? She really doesn't seem like a hard a$$. She also seems to like me and we had pretty good rapport. I'm really stressed though.

If you do suspect ADD then seriously get it checked. I have a pretty bad case of ADD and no matter I did in college, I was a B+ student who did not impress teachers at all. I basically made it through on intelligence but then I started my masters and had to get medicine. I seriously went from an average/ bellow average student to straight A+s on everything I do. Taking ADD medicine has completely changed my life.

Possibly one of the best sentences (or asides) I've read [on this forum.] Especially the phrase "bloated bloviations."

When you are applying, you may well feel as though you have quite a pitiful-looking CV, especially if you go and take a look at those of the profs you would like to work with (or possibly the bloated bloviations of graduate students who include every course they ever took, books they've read, and hallway conversations held with big names at SBL/AAR as the exemplars of knowledge falsely so called).  Despite this, if you scroll back through those same CVs of the profs you like and match up the listed achievements with their years of graduation from their various degrees, you'll probably find that back in 1984 when they graduated from HDS or something, their CV would have been quite slim as well.  AdComs know this and mostly expect it.  Your CV is a easy place where they can find your degrees thus far, interests, language preparation, and perhaps a few tidbits like regional or national presentations, etc.  Don't pad it with unnecessary information. If you think it might be directly relevant to your acceptance into the program, then put it in, but if you find yourself asking whether or not it has relevance, just leave it off.  You want your CV to be easy to navigate and to clearly demonstrate the things that will be important for your acceptance, so if they are buried four pages back in a whirlwind of barely relevant class presentations, fiction books reviewed for the student newspaper at your undergraduate institution, and membership records for the local rotary club, I don't think you achieve this.  In terms of templates, go look at a few examples and ask yourself whether or not they clearly allow you to locate information that you might be seeking.  I have seen some execrable examples of CVs where everything is in one long column, barely separated, in the same font, same size, with lines jutting out like a poorly-trimmed hedgerow.  Don't do that.

This is another reason that seeking a PhD in our field (from a North American school) is often a bad idea if you want to have any sort of normal life. If you are married and have kids your family must be willing to move around the country/world for job prospects, oftentimes with poor wages. Whenever my friends in doctoral programs in the sciences complain about 'how long it takes' to finish their degrees I seriously cannot help but laugh. In the hard sciences, and even many in the social sciences, it is not terribly common for students to pursue a master's degree before beginning the PhD. Hell, even many philosophy PhD students do not even have an M* before beginning. Many of us studying some aspect of ancient history have 3-5 years of M* BEFORE beginning the PhD. Hilariously some classicists, too, can transition right into a PhD program. For text and/or ancient related fields in religion the time is usually: 4-5 undergrad, 3-5 M*, 5-7 PhD = 12-17 years. Oh and almost all of us have 5x the debt than the average PhD in the sciences. In short, we are idiots. 

+1

Joseph45:
 
In response to your much earlier question. No, I don't think the Auburn Study takes into consideration percentages of graduates from the programs. The study is based on "real numbers" of faculty in theological schools, and lists the 24 top programs represented. The study itself is concerned with issues like admissions and recruitment policies, funding, training for teaching, time to completion, etc.
 
For those not able or interested in reading the whole document, here are the top 20 "feeder" programs (determined by numbers of alumni faculty members teaching in theological schools and consolidated when institution is listed twice--Duke, Toronto, BU), listed alphabetically (*Program offer full-tuition funding (and in most cases, stipends as well) to all of most of its students):
 
Boston University (Division of Religious Studies & School of Theology)
Catholic University of America
Columbia University*
Dallas Theological Seminary
Drew University*
Duke Divinity School*/Duke University*
Emory University*
Fuller Theological Seminary
The Graduate Theological Union (GTU)
Harvard University,* (Faculty of Arts & Science and Divinity School)
Princeton Theological Seminary*
Toronto School of Theology (TST)/ University of St. Michael’s College
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS)
Union Theological Seminary*
The University of Chicago Divinity School*
The University of Notre Dame,*
Vanderbilt University*
Yale University*

The doctoral program in the Toronto School of Theology is in a state of flux and reorganization. Historically, the way it worked was that one applied simultaneously to the Toronto School of Theology, the college of one's choice (Trinity, Wycliffe. Regis, St Michael's, Emmanuel, or Knox), and to a department of specialization (theology, Bible, history, or pastoral). One also chose a degree: ThD or PhD, which had the exact same requirements. The ThD is awarded by one's college and the University of Toronto. The PhD is awarded by the University of St Michael's College alone (as distinct from the PhD offered by the Centre for the Study of Religion in U of T's School of Graduate Studies). The debate among students has long been: is it preferable to have a ThD that comes from U of T, or a PhD from St Michael's? Each has its advantages; however, most students, especially recently, have chosen the St. Michael's PhD, as the ThD is considered a less desirable degree today than in decades past (when it was actually thought better/higher because it required a more than a BA, as opposed to some PhDs--but those days are past). So, if you see that someone has a PhD from St. Michael's in Toronto, you won't always know which college s/he was actually registered at. Often, one chooses that which most closely allies with her/his own denominational or theological sensibilities (ie, Jesuit for Regis, liberal Protestant for Emmanuel, evangelical or low Anglican for Wycliffe, liberal or high Anglican for Trinity, Presbyterian for Knox, RC for St Mike's; though, this is not universally true by any means).
 
The change is that the ThD is being phased out and a new PhD program has been developed and approved by TST and by U of T. It will again be jointly administered and common across the various colleges, but one will now be able to graduate with a PhD in Theological Studies (broadly understood) from one's college and the University of Toronto. This change has been a long time in coming and the answer of many prayers. Ironically, the requirements of the new degree will be fewer than the old program (fewer courses, fewer languages, fewer comps, but stricter time limits). The new program will start admitting students in Fall 2015, though those admitted to the ThD program this next year will be eligible to transfer in to the new program, too. They expect to admit fewer students than in years past.
 
TST has had one of the largest theological doctoral programs in North America, certainly in terms of numbers of students, also in terms of numbers of faculty, access to library resources, etc. It is one of the top 20 "feeder" programs for theological school faculty positions. But it can't match the financial aid of the other top programs. Some students will receive a full ride, while others won't. I was an American PhD student at TST and had tuition covered by a fellowship for 4 years, plus a bursary (grant) that gave a modest stipend and a TAship every year. My fifth year I was appointed an adjunct faculty instead of a fellowship. All financial aid comes from one's college and is determined by it (rather than by TST as a whole). Canadian students have significantly lower tuition and are encouraged to apply for generous Canadian government scholarship awards.
 
Finally, a word about the relationship of the colleges and TST to U of T. Three of the colleges are historic universities that were originally denominational competitors to the intentionally secular University of Toronto. They are the University of St Michael's College (Basilian Roman Catholic), the University of Trinity College (high church Anglican), and Victoria University (of which Emmanuel College is part--originally Methodist, now United Church of Canada). In the late 19th and early 20th century they each federated with the secular University of Toronto and suspended their right to grant degrees in subjects other than divinity/theology, though they continued to admit undergraduate students in conjunction with the wider University. St Michael's has exercised that autonomous right to grant degrees with the MA and PhD (the other two haven't, but could if they wanted). On the other hand, Wycliffe, Regis, and Knox were all established as theological colleges alone. The various schools came together to form the Toronto School of Theology in the 60s and 70s and established a relationship with the University of Toronto through which most degrees (such as the MDiv and MTS, as well as the ThM, ThD and DMin) are awarded conjointly by one's college and the University of Toronto. TST itself does not award degrees but coordinates programs, most especially at the doctoral level. MDivs and MTS programs are more college-based.   
 
Hope this helps. It doesn't say much about rankings, but gives an idea of how it all works and is evolving. In some lists TST is included as "top tier" in others not (but then some lists only include US programs). I would say that the access to resources and diversity of faculty is certainly top tier. Access to money, not so much. TST doctoral grads are found teaching on the faculties of Boston College, GTU, Marquette, Notre Dame, TST, Loyola Chicago, McMaster, Queen's (Canada), Vancouver School of Theology, Atlantic School of Theology, Bethel University, University of the South, Episcopal Divinity School, Emmanuel College (Boston), lots of other liberal arts colleges and seminaries.