kosmo

My parents were relatively anti-higher education. They belong to a religious sect that discourages college and beyond for various reasons, so they encourage their young to just go to vocational programs and/or try to get a job straight from high school. So my father, especially, was disappointed when I decided to go to college (especially when I didn't study engineering). He was downright baffled when I decided to get a PhD, and actively tried to convince me to drop out, arguing that I was wasting my time in school when I could've been working and making money.
That didn't stop him from bragging about me to anyone who would listen, though. *eyeroll*

There is no single answer that fits all situations because really, it will depend on each professor's preference and your interaction/relationship/familiarity with each professor. 
I can say though, that in most North American schools in my field, the norm is for students (undergraduate and graduate) to refer to professors by their first name. Sometimes, a professor will ask their undergraduate students in the classes they teach to refer to them by "Prof. Smith". It is extremely rare, in my field, for anyone who is doing research work with a professor (whether it's an undergrad student, graduate student, or research scientist) to call the professor by anything other than first name.
However, when you're meeting professors for the first time, it is hard to know what they would want. It's always better to err on the side of caution and formality. Some strategies you can employ are:
1. Address them as Prof. X and see what they say. They might tell you to call them by first name instead, but even if they don't this doesn't mean that they insist on a Prof X address.
2. Even if you know who they are already, when you meet them for the first time, introduce yourself as "Firstname Lastname" (or whatever you preferred to be called) and listen to how they introduce themselves. 
3. If you are in email contact, see how they sign their emails. If it is Prof. X then it's a strong sign that you should stick with formality. However, if it's their first initial or their first name, it is an indication that first name is okay, but not really a certain thing either.
Overall, I don't believe there is one clear method where if they use a certain form of address in one way that it means you should use that form of address. Instead, you will have to just interact with them and judge/gauge it from how they communicate with you (verbally and non-verbally). You should be able to get a sense of what they like from getting to know them. This is tougher when you are from a country where the etiquette is different, but you can also ask American students in your department for help on what each professor prefers.

I can relate to this - I've got two aunts (my mom's sisters) who're close to our family, but who are extremely unsupportive when it comes to my pursuing higher education. They think I'm in it for my personal 'fame and glory', when I could've just settled down and found a 'normal job' and take up the family's financial burden. I already help pay my family's mortgage, so I don't know where they're coming from. They keep telling my mom what a horrible daughter I am. 
It hurts, yes, especially when this is a major goal in our lives - one that at least gives us some meaning. Echoing the posters above, I guess in the end we just have to accept that not everyone will applaud our approve our life choices, and even those close to us, who know us reasonably well, can make mistakes sometimes. But that can't and won't stop us from doing what we truly believe is worthwhile! 

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Non-US/UK school from Asia
Major(s)/Minor(s): Double majors in History and Politics
Undergrad GPA: 3.67 (we have a different system, this would be equivalent to top 5% of grad class) 
Type of Grad: Research Masters (MPhil), also from non-US/UK school
Grad GPA: No GPA
GRE: 170V/162Q
Any Special Courses: n/a
Letters of Recommendation: 1 well known US Philosophy prof, 2 Political theory profs from home institution
Research Experience: 6 months as paid Senior Research Assistant; Summer internship at think tank 
Teaching Experience: 2 years as paid Teaching Assistant 
Subfield/Research Interests: Political theory
Other: 2 international conferences 

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): 7 acceptances - 2 are Top-3 politics dept ($$), 1 is a top-40 politics dept ($$);  4 other philosophy depts ranging from PGR top 16 to 50 
Waitlists: 0
Rejections: Loads, mostly philosophy departments 
Pending: 0 
Going to: A top-3 politics dept in the US
 
LESSONS LEARNED:
​- If you're from outside the English speaking world, like me, it's to your utmost advantage to have at least one US or UK prof writing a letter for you. Name recognition and reputation really matters. There are a number of ways that you can network with these profs - for me, my letter writer sat on my exam committee for my MPhil degree, and by a stroke of luck he also came to my home institution for a conference, so we had a chance to get to know each other and keep in touch. He knew my work, and this helped a lot. 
- I knew that it would be difficult to get into philosophy departments with a politics background, but since political theory is no longer big in most politics dept (save the top 3), I gave it a go anyway. And my initial suspicions were confirmed: I almost got entirely shut out of the top 50 philosophy schools. Luckily, because of a reminder from one of my profs, I decided to apply to 4 politics dept in the last minute. I got in 2 of them, both of which are top 3. If you're like me and interested in political philosophy/theory but don't have a strong and solid background in philosophy, you should probably apply more to politics than philosophy; the latter places a high premium on having the right background. 
- Always try for 'reach schools'. Always. When I did my application I felt like I was throwing money into the sea, because believe me, I had NEVER imagined that I'd get into top schools (my goal was just to get into ANY PhD program). It's a combination of luck and hard work (with much more emphasis on luck, I'd say), and sometimes you do go further than you ever dreamed you would. So always apply beyond what you think you can get. 
- Have a back up plan in mind: what is something that you could do for the coming year, and ideally something that you would find at least somewhat attractive, if you couldn't make it this cycle? For me, it was getting a teaching cert for teaching high school - not ideal, but at least I could have lived with it. Having this in mind really helped ease the pressure for me, which became especially terrible when I got my first rejection. 
 

SOP:
A brief rundown of what I did: 
​- introduce myself and emphasise my strong background in politics and theory
​- briefly introduce my MPhil research work, which led to a short discussion about my research interests
​- expand on my interests and mention what specific questions I'm interested i tackling
- briefly mention my "real world" experience (think tanks, NGO volunteering, etc) that led me to become interested in these questions
- conclude with a tailored paragraph on the reasons I'm interested in so-and-so school, mention profs whose work inspired me
 
​Something that I highly advise AGAINST is the idea of mentioning your weaknesses/any anomalies in your file in your SOP. For me, I had a crappy grade for one particular 100% exam based course that I took while on a study abroad program. It shouldn't have mattered a lot, if one looks at the rest of my transcript, but I obsessed over it so much that I decided to include a short paragraph (for some schools, not all) that explained why I screwed up that exam. I was shut out of all those schools for which I wrote such an SOP. My hunch is that, they will look at your grades, of course, but there's no need to draw unnecessary attention to something and make a big deal out of it, when the adcomm probably wouldn't have in the first place. 
 

one, your age doesn't matter. and two, you probably don't. At least, don't tell adcoms that you do.
 
Get your verbal GRE up.

This is why I'm excited for grad school. I love reading, writing, grading, and studying. For me, school is fun, while going to parties is extremely boring. You have only reaffirmed my commitment to go to grad school!

One final thing I forgot to mention about placement: most religious studies programs that are worth their salt publish placement data. I would be wary, however, of thinking that 'seminary' is antithetical to 'academia.' Many seminaries (and divinity schools) are quite academic in nature. That is to say, while the primary purpose of some seminaries is vocational, at many seminaries you also have people doing work that is also 'research-oriented.' So, that  a person finds a job at a seminary doesn't mean that they are out of the academy. It is very likely that they are still writing and publishing academic work in addition to their teaching requirements (which are not vocational, if their background is not in vocational work), going to conferences and things, and in most recognizable senses, a part of the academy.

As others have said, it depends on what your friend is looking for. She is right to be worried about philosophical rigor in religion/theology programs. But at any of the religious studies and theology programs I'll discuss below, she will be able to find folks who have rigorous philosophical minds. If s/he is looking for programs in Philosophical Theology -- i.e., (Christian) theology done in a philosophical mode (in distinction with systematic and historical theology, although ultimately all theology involves all three 'modes'), then she is best off looking at Religious Studies and Theology programs. Of those, where to go depends on her particular interests. UChicago is. right now, probably the best place to do a certain kind (apophatic/post-metaphysical and postmodern theology), with Jean-Luc Marion and Kevin Hector (though Hector is not a full professor yet). Marion is particularly good on 20th century continental thought (Heidegger and Husserl). Yale's philosophical theologians (John Hare and John Pittard) are more analytically oriented, but both are quite sharp. Hare is also very good on Kant and Kierkegaard. Notre Dame doesn't have a philosophical theology concentration, but some of their systematicians are very sharp philosophically (like Cyril O'Regan on Hegel) and some of their moral theologians are also very good philosophically (Porter is familiar with analytic moral philosophy in addition to medieval Christian philosophy; McKenny knows Kant and the post-Kantians quite well; Neil Arner, who is not yet a full professor, is also very sharp on contemporary analytic moral philosophy). It must be said, however, that it is increasingly difficult to get jobs in Philosophical Theology or Philosophy of Religion (POR) as such in Religious Studies and Theology departments. It's a weird state of affairs in the market.
 
If your friend is instead interested in Philosophy of Religion practiced in a less confessional mode, then a POR program in Philosophy would be best. As others have mentioned, Notre Dame (Robert Audi and Mike Rea are both very good philosophers, even though Audi's focus is not POR), Purdue I know less about, but seems to be highly reputed. Saint Louis University is also a first-rate POR department; Eleonore Stump has done and continues to do good work, especially on Aquinas). Even though Cornell is not known for POR, the very fact that Scott MacDonald (medieval Christian philosophy) is there makes it worth at least applying to. Finally, Rutgers benefits greatly from the presence of Bob and Marilyn McCord Adams, but others will be more knowledgeable than I on whether they are slated to be at Rutgers for much longer, or whether their stay is more touch-and-go. Given their ages, I would expect the latter, but that's merely conjecture on my part.
 
As for placement, graduates from religious studies programs are in general less likely to be 'pigeon-holed' into seminaries/divinity schools than graduates from theology programs. Of course, you're most likely to avoid a seminary-placement if you graduate from a philosophy program. But since Yale's philosophical theology concentration is a subset of the Religious Studies program, she might be optimistic in applying there.
 
Finally, if her interests in POR are less on responding to problems internal to theologies and more about questions like "what is a religion?" studied in a philosophical mode, then probably the best place for her is actually Brown's PhD program in Religious Studies. It is not confessional at all, and their subprogram in Religion and Critical Thought is one of the best in the program on 'phenomenology of religion' type inquiry. Stephen Bush has a recently published book that's meant to be first-rate. Tal Lewis and Mark Cladis are both doing work on the shape of religion in public life. Brown also has a program that allows PhD students in any program to read for a Master's in an ancillary department. So your friend might also consider applying to that program and trying for a Master's in philosophy to go along with her PhD in Religious Studies.
 
I hope this is helpful.

Oh dear, I am having a serious case of imposter syndrome and I haven't even started my program yet. I know I am not alone though, and that many people experience this. Glad to have found a positive support network on GC. 

I went through this. It was pretty rough. I was positive that they would realize it was a mistake over the summer. Then I was certain that after I started talking research with the professors they would realize they'd made a mistake. I read some really helpful articles including one that basically said this is something you just deal with and not necessarily get over which helped the most oddly enough.
And now here I am at the end of my first year. Everyone loves my research, I've been nominated for department awards, and I won a NSF GRFP. My point is: imposter syndrome is like having a whiny kid whispering in your ear. It's annoying, but it definitely isn't who you are. Grad school is hard work, but I think you will all find that you're definitely supposed to (and deserve to) be there!

I would say that the process did go better than I expected, because I am a worst-case scenario person and expected the worse. I applied to a very large variety of schools but I was worried that I would not be accepted to any, even the "safety" schools. I believe that what kept me out of most programs was, probably even more than my sub-par math gre, my undergrad institution, which is unknown and not prestigious in the slightest regard. My professors to me from the beginning that it would be the biggest hurdle. I do wish I hadn't waisted as much money as I did applying to as many "long shots", but I felt that it was worth the try! I was so thrilled and surpised that I actually got accepted into USF, because of the unranked programs, it was a top choice, and the full funding was more than joyous!! I was frankly even honored to have been waitlisted at certain schools, and chosen for some MA programs at schools at which I applied for a PhD. I went into the process with very realistic expectations so I feel that the outcome was fantastic. 

I was completely shut out after being waitlisted at one school. I thought I had better odds than this, given my letter writers thought I was an ideal candidate and that my writing sample was good. I had above average gre scores and a 4.0 equavelent (I attended an international graduate program) MA GPA. I am assuming my SOI was not that great and maybe some bad luck. Probably will not apply next year, it seems like a large expense (a year of my life, further stress and pain, plus money). I had viewed this application season as getting a job doing what I love. I know the goal of most is a tenure track job, but for me I simply wanted to continue researching in philosophy while also earning enough to live. I can continue to do philosophy while I work, but it'll be much harder.

I can't help but think if my undergraduate pedigree (I had a 3.5 overall and a 3.9 major GPA) were better, then I would not have been shut out. It didn't help that my waitlist rejection didn't come until the end of yesterday. Aftet being in close contact with the DGS for a couple weeks and then people finally made their decisions. I think I would have rather been rejected out right a month ago, so I could have been better applying for jobs and so my hopes wouldn't be raised up so much to be brought down so harshly. Sorry for the negative post, but that's what this thread was for, right? Well best wishes to all who got accepted, those who will try again and those who will move on to something else.

I think these are right. The application process is lonely and obscure, and chances of getting in are low, even for those lucky ones that manage to put together an ideal application. I think most of us here are aware of this, so I think many people merely hoped to get in--genuinely expecting to get in seems excessively optimistic.

I didn't even hope to get into what I called my 'pipe dream, you had to at least try' schools. I was hoping for UCSD--really good fit, and I know multiple faculty members, all of whom encouraged me to apply there.

But I didn't get into UCSD. And I was crushed. I was starting to make plans to do my PhD in my home country. I thought the American option was over.

And then I got into Pitt. Also great fit, and all the faculty members I've spoken to have pointed to my WS as the reason. But I'm from a nowhere school, with sub-par GRE scores, and no GPA (we don't have that). Hoping for Pitt would have been ridiculous.

Most first year graduate students live in dorms (NGC, some OGC), but then move into apartment-style housing (lakeside, lawrence) for the remainder of their program. I don't find NGC that bad, and I'm glad I had a meal plan for the first year as it is quite convenient and it is probably the best way to meet people outside of your department. Sharing a bathroom with 5 other people is annoying ofc but the janitors clean it every day so there's no problem there... Also, you can ask for a two-room single in NGC if you want more space. 

Much better than I'd ever hoped! 

Much better than I'd ever hoped! 

It depends whether he is looking for a philosophy department that works in philosophical theology or wants a degree in philosophy and theology.
 
At Graduate Theological Union (GTU @ Berkley) you can do a double masters in philosophy and theology.
Biola University has a MA in Philosophy and Religion or something like that, which is essentially a philosophy and theology degree (60+units)
 
An article on programs for studying philosophical theology http://forsclavigera.blogspot.com/2010/09/so-you-want-to-go-to-grad-school_07.html

The graduate school at WUSTL has a lot of really good people that work on philosophical theology and the like. 

In my experience, philosophical theology is more often done in religion or theology departments than in philosophy departments, though of course it's common that a professor who specializes in philosophical theology will have a dual appointment in religion and philosophy.
 
Why is that? The truth is that philosophical theology is theology more than it is philosophy, at least on how I view the disciplines. I think the distribution of philosophical theologians among divinity schools and religion departments suggests that others agree with me on this.
 
It's important to understand that most people doing philosophical theology are starting with certain theological assumptions and trying to work those out using philosophical methodology. In my view, the most fundamental questions about the divine are treated as "philosophy of religion." Philosophy of religion is NOT the same as philosophical theology.
 
You don't, for example, see a lot of atheists doing philosophical theology, though you do see a lot of atheists doing philosophy of religion. The easiest way to explain the difference is that philosophical theologians typically start with some basic theological assumptions.
 
For instance, philosophical theologians might try to explain the distinctly Christian (in the historical sense of the word, not in the modern sense!) doctrine of the trinity. Much of what Aquinas and Augustine did is properly called philosophical theology, based on how I see the phrase applied.
 
To be clear, philosophical theologians are doing philosophy. It's just that they're doing philosophy in a different context, and they're not just doing philosophy. Everything I say here ought to be read in light of what I've said in a different thread about how the term "philosopher" is applied within academic philosophy.
 
All this is to say that philosophical theology deserves to be treated not as an area of interest within philosophy but as its own field or perhaps as a subfield of theology or religion. (Theology and religion of course aren't interchangeable terms either.) For this reason, I recommend that someone with an interest in philosophical theology seek a place in a religion or theology program, or perhaps even the graduate school within a divinity school. I would also recommend that this person look for the very few philosophy departments that actually do philosophical theology; find out whether an interest in philosophical theology will be rewarded and encouraged or will be treated as a distraction from the purpose of the degree program.
 
The sort of virtues of a student of philosophy are very similar (if not the same) as those of a student of philosophical theology. There is a similar methodology. There are overlapping questions and debates. There are overlapping thinkers. So it's no surprise that some people think of philosophical theology as a subfield of philosophy. It's a tricky thing, because some legitimate, strong philosophy programs actually do treat philosophical theology as a subfield of philosophy. Saint Louis University and Notre Dame have some philosophers doing philosophical theology. Here's how to explain it: A lot of theologically-minded individuals get excited about philosophy. Sometimes these individuals are attracted (for good reason) to programs where their views -- including their theological views -- will be taken seriously. Some professors are in a similar situation. And the thing is, how a person answers some philosophical questions will affect (or maybe should affect) how that person answers some theological questions. That's part of the reason that philosophical theology is sometimes thought to be a subfield of philosophy.
 
The other sad truth is that some religion and theology departments, in my limited but somewhat informed experience, don't reward the intellectual virtues that are rewarded in philosophy departments. I'm putting this quite mildly. But the effect is this: intellectual theists try to escape these departments by going to philosophy departments, and a department like Saint Louis University's philosophy department gives them the best of both worlds.
 
In summary, I suggest that your friend open herself to the idea of attending a religion or theology program or a graduate program at a divinity school. I recommend against a divinity degree, unless that's her thing, or unless the particular program is a break from the norm. Divinity degree programs, in my experience, too often suffer from what I have very carefully described above. A friend of mine who attended Harvard's divinity program, then an MA in philosophy, tells me that the divinity program was basically terrible (for him, as a person with his interests). That's his view, but based on my experience, it's not surprising.
 
I also suggest that your friend consider the small group of philosophy departments with people doing philosophical theology. The obvious ones are Saint Louis University, Notre Dame, Baylor, Fordham, possibly Boston College, Georgetown, Tulane. I recommend that your friend look at programs that some have labeled "continental" programs. Some people say that these programs are "pluralist." The idea, again, is that students of philosophy who wish to apply philosophical methodology and pursue philosophical questions for the sake of theological answers -- and to be taken seriously while doing these things -- might be better received in these places.
 
Good luck.

I posted this elsewhere but it seems more relevant here, so I'll re-post: 
 
For what it's worth, I declined Vanderbilt through emails with the DGS back in mid-March, but I only received an official (electronic) offer letter from the grad school yesterday, which gave me the option of clicking 'attending' or 'not attending' (I clicked the 'not attending button'). It doesn't seem to me that Departments can dig into the wait list before this process actually took place, even though they've known since mid-March that I wasn't going to accept. After all, I was given the option to click 'attending', and if I really did that, they would be in a mess if they had already sent out an acceptance to another person. 
 
What I'm trying to say is, maybe some wait list movement is still around the corner; perhaps some departments were waiting for the admin process at the grad school to get cleared up. Best of luck to everyone!!

I posted this elsewhere but it seems more relevant here, so I'll re-post: 
 
For what it's worth, I declined Vanderbilt through emails with the DGS back in mid-March, but I only received an official (electronic) offer letter from the grad school yesterday, which gave me the option of clicking 'attending' or 'not attending' (I clicked the 'not attending button'). It doesn't seem to me that Departments can dig into the wait list before this process actually took place, even though they've known since mid-March that I wasn't going to accept. After all, I was given the option to click 'attending', and if I really did that, they would be in a mess if they had already sent out an acceptance to another person. 
 
What I'm trying to say is, maybe some wait list movement is still around the corner; perhaps some departments were waiting for the admin process at the grad school to get cleared up. Best of luck to everyone!!

For what it's worth, I declined Vanderbilt through emails with the DGS back in mid-March, but I only received an official (electronic) offer letter from the grad school yesterday, which gave me the option of clicking 'attending' or 'not attending' (I clicked the 'not attending button'). It doesn't seem to me that Departments can dig into the wait list before this process actually took place, even though they've known since mid-March that I wasn't going to accept. After all, I was given the option to click 'attending', and if I really did that, they would be in a mess if they had already sent out an acceptance to another person. 
 
What I'm trying to say is, maybe some wait list movement is still around the corner. Best of luck to everyone!!

So I've been pretty absent lately, but since I'm on a campus visit I just want to say: when you've gotten into programs that you're seriously considering, VISIT. I think visits have in some ways radically altered my decision. Plus it's a ton of fun meeting new people genuinely interested in your work. But yeah, mostly visits will provide much needed clarity.

I know I'm being purposely vague. I think I've decided on a program, but I'm chatting with my MA adviser before I finalize anything. All I'm gonna say for now is that visiting had a huge impact on me.

Also, when you've decided against a program...tell them. Don't be the douche that has the department pay for your visit (which is more than a plane ticket...it's a few days in a hotel, food, transportation and a whole shitload of time spent) when you know for sure you won't be attending. Maybe I'm a naive person, but I was shocked when I heard people actually do this.

Thank you! Still waiting for funding news though 
 
They said they were going to notify everyone early next week. Good luck!

Same! I'm getting really impatient. Hopefully we'll hear soon.