bah

Chicago is really getting a bad rap here, though it's probably not totally undeserved. I spent a couple years there there, so I can say a thing or two about it... The Master's program is, pretty simply, a winning lottery ticket for the Div School (that's how they pay their PhDs and profs). But I'm also not sure Harvard or Yale are much different, even if their Div Schools have more money lying around. More likely to get in? True and not true. Statistically your chances will definitely be higher, and it never, ever hurts for faculties to have a face to put with the name... if they like the face. But if, as Philmajor says, they're down to only 18 spots and they're admitting 55 internals per year (not including MDivs) then, even if most of those 18 spots go to internals (which is doubtful) the margins are still far from a gaurantee. The fact that Chicago's MA program is a lottery ticket also means that they're much more liberal with MA admissions than with PhD admissions, which means that many MA students there aren't going to be stellar and, even if the education is more rigorous (see below), outside applicants will often have more impressive credentials. The Div School has a big financial incentive to sell incoming MA students on this point when, in fact, it's a bit tricky since the least likely students to get into the PhD program are also the least likely to realize what kind of playing field they're on. If you get there with a project in mind and you're ready to raise support for it then it's true that you're more likely to get in. But it's not a get in free card. More rigorous? Again, true and not true. UC is intense. Its intellectual reputation is probably warranted on the whole; I knew a prof or two there who had been lured from an Ivy and said that there simply is no place like it. But I think this is mostly irrelevant for MA students because intellectual intensity and diversity don't necessarily equal good teaching or mentoring at the master's level, and this, like everywhere else, will depend entirely on who you want to work with. And there are great teachers there and others who stink the place up. They also don't go out of their way to make room for beginners. They drop you in the deepend and you either sink or swim. The main draw in terms of intellectual atmosphere for MA students is that it's simply the most interdisciplinary university in the country and, if you have a weird project or wide-ranging interests, you'll be in heaven. But if you're just getting your feet wet there's a good chance you'll go under. As for the integrated faculty, there's something to that. UC really only has departments for administrative purposes because all of its faculty teach all over the university. The main advantage isn't that there aren't warring religious studies and divinity programs so much as that there are few borders at all within the university as a whole.

"First, how many of the MA students are in H of R? " Varies from year to year. In a class of 40 I would guess around 10-15. It's a popular area. "Second, what proportion of them get admitted to the U of C H of R PhD program after finishing the MA?" Impossible to say. Not many now that Chicago has changed its funding structure. HR is known for preferring its own MA students but starting this year Chicago is taking about half the students it used to take and giving them quadruple the funding. "I was offered what seems to be the usual half tuition funding. Is there any chance of getting it increased? " Sadly, probably not. A very small number of incoming MAs receive full tuition scholarships.

I'd agree with the above. The UC faculty doesn't have much interest in Catholic studies as evidenced by the fact that the Catholic chair has been empty since David Tracy retired. The one potential advantage to UC over BC for you would be that it could carry more weight with top PhD programs. But even so, it's far better to really get to know 3-4 profs at a somewhat less glitzy program than to barely get to know 1-2 profs at a famous one as far as rec letters go (not to mention mentoring).

religiousphilosopher: you should be grateful for the dilemma. given your interest in philosophy of religion i would go to yale. but it doesn't matter much in terms of 'best'. kind of a silly question at the master's level. at the doctoral level what will matter is the specific person or people you want to work with. philmajor: i'm sorry to hear you're in that position. the question is, what do you *really* want to do? if you really want to be in academia then you should try reapplying next year, and just spread yourself wider. you can spend the meantime making yourself more marketable by picking up a language, say. there are ways to do this without spending tons of money. don't feel too discouraged: many people get rejected their first round, and often times after having applied to several programs. also, a committee of strangers can't really assess your worth as a scholar, much less as a human being, by glancing at your personal statement. this sucks, i know, but it's not the end of the world. if you're fed up with academia, it might be time to start thinking about the many, many potential things one can do to better humanity and the world that don't involve 7-10 years of degrading doctoral work: inner city school teacher, social worker, public defender, park ranger, etc. etc.

>>Which of these schools is most respected?<< Virtually no difference. >>which one will give me the best experience and education? << Hard to say. Also, much depends on the kind of philosophy you're into. Chicago is the place for continental and eastern religious thought. Yale is probably best for anglo-american philosophy of religion. I don't really know of any philosophers of religion actively working at Harvard right now. Chicago's AM program is huge and people like Marion are hard to access, so I would think Yale is probably the place to go, especially since you can do a 'concentrated' MTS in your area. Ultimately, though, I would suggest you go where the funding is best because each of each programs will be a fine springboard for doctoral work. You might also considering favoring the program where you'd like to stay for doctoral work. It helps to be personally known and all places tend to show at least a little favoritism to their own products. Still, this is far from a guarantee, as some on this board have experienced.

Stud. Theology, Meshugah is just the Jewish word for crazy. As in, what you're considering is a little bonkers. My point is basically that, even if you're not going into massive debt, there's no reason AT ALL to go into debt for grad school. All PhD programs worth their salt *at least* cover tuition. You're basically doing a PhD on the amount of funding that the average master's student gets. I just have trouble seeing why someone wouldn't want to wait a year and get proper funding as opposed to taking one of the worst deals out there. What's so pressing? I'm not sure I see how my original comments weren't on the mark. I think, based on your description of your interests and the general puzzlement that they elicit from seasoned scholars in the field, something ain't right. I didn't mean to be patronizing with the Aquinas-Calvin-Barth comment, I was just kidding around. But my sense is that your interests sound, to someone in religious studies, like they belong in an apologetics program, and that sort of thing is only of interest in evangelical circles. You might not want to take the time to make the connection between analytic philosophy and systematics clearer on this board, sure, but it does seem like your interests aren't clear and/or resonating with faculty members. I'm just trying to suggest that what you're proposing as I understand it is not just a little unorthodox to people in religious studies. It's hard to see what it would even mean. >>Another reason I suspect that your response it a wee bit overblown is that you didn

At the risk of being a bit blunt, that's a little meshugah. You're telling me that you'd rather go into serious longterm debt just to have 1-2 profs who seem to get your interests than apply to programs that will fund you and do a bit of independent work outside your adviser's ken? There's no 'ideal' program. Most programs are fairly flexible and your interests will almost certainly change as you go forward (especially given what your interests are, see below). At the end of the day, you have to do what you think is right. But I wouldn't take that offer if you paid me. Again, to be a bit blunt, only because it might help you, I think you have serious problems with your interests. There's a reason, in other words, that every professor you try to articulate your interests to looks at you like you have two heads, and it's not just that they're not interested in what you're trying to do. For one thing, the idea that we can construct a systematic worldview out of the Bible is hardly new or controversial. In fact, it's a field: systematic theology. Every systematic theologian from Aquinas down to Barth and beyond has been trying to do just this. The second part, the analytic philosophy, is where things get weird. If your interests are going to be appealing at all you'll have to make a case for how analytic philosophy in particular can shed light on systematic theology. This would, to put it mildly, be rather difficult. Systematic theology's task is to articulate and order the meaning of a sacred text and/or tradition and this is highly complicated -- it requires a number of methods from philology to history to analytic argumentation. Of course, analytic philosophy might offer resources for certain aspects of the task but it's hard to see how it especially offers the key to it. In general, you have a problem: analytic philosophy of religion tends to be done in philosophy departments and not in religion departments, and there are fairly good reasons for this. Analytic philosophers worry about logical arguments and pay very little attention to Biblical texts or traditions. People who spend their time reading the Biblical text recognize that what's happening is far more nuanced, complex, and many-sided than a simple logical argument (What can analytic philosophy tell us about the meaning of the Song of Songs?). And so the two worlds don't talk much to one another or find one another terribly relevant. I'm sure there are fruitful ways that one could apply analytic philosophy to theology, but saying how is probably harder than it seems. If I were in your position I would start reading widely in both systematic theology and analytic philosophy of religion. This would allow you to get a sense of how systematics usually proceeds as well as to begin to think seriously about what analytic philosophy has to offer it, if anything. I think reading in systematics would be especially important for you since it will give you a better idea of what it might mean to come up with a coherent Biblical worldview. You can start with the Summa and then move on to Calvin's Institutes and finish up with the 14 volumes of Barth's Dogmatics. Basically, if I were you, I would try to get a lot clearer about my interests and then reapply to programs that are appropriate to them. I realize this is a hard thing to swallow when you've got a bunch of mouths to feed and when you've already been down this road once before. But you might ask yourself if it's worth it to take one more year if it means you might actually be funded. As it stands now, I think you're probably coming off to mainstream religious studies programs as a fundamentalist.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is yes, it's not a good idea to do a PhD half-tuition. You're going to work yourself into heavy debt with no promise of work at the end of the tunnel. Also, it's simply unnecessary. There are many programs out there that are not 'top tier' but which are still excellent and which fund fairly well, e.g. Loyola. I'm not sure precisely what your interests or situation, but the rule of thumb is that you just don't do doctoral work unless you're funded.

Just to throw in my two cents... Much of what has been said here about Chicago is partly true. The AM program is over-populated, alienating, and competitive, and many unwitting students pay $60,000 for a mediocre training and very little guidance on what to do afterward. Professors tend to scout for the students they want and others just fall through the cracks and end up with little to show for their efforts or cash. There are also major problems with faculty absenteeism. Several of them live across the world and fly in to teach classes now and then. A lot of people come to Chicago thinking they're going to cozy up to Marion or Nussbaum and end up cooling off in the back of lecture halls hoping that these people so much as remember their names come the end of the quarter. There's a distinctly merciless quality about the place. You don't go to office hours just to chat. These people are insanely busy and if you want to be mentored you better impress them during your five minutes of face time. I think the quality of the PhDs varies greatly depending upon advisers. Some faculty are distant and not especially inspiring as teachers. Others are widely known as highly involved mentors who regularly churn out some of the best equipped scholars in the field (Lincoln, Schweiker, Doniger, Tanner). It would certainly be possible to fall through the cracks at UC, but it's also one of the most diverse and intriguing intellectual hotspots on the planet, and it's equally possible to get an unmatched training if you have the patience and the tenacity to get people interested in your work. But again, the general criticism that it can be a cold place is without doubt true. Not many people at Chicago qualify as 'happy', there are far too many students who feel neglected, and there's probably too much emphasis on taking classes with famous names and too little emphasis their ability to teach. Some, of course, are very good teachers, but brilliant scholarship does not a pedagogue make. As for spending half your life in grad school, this is basically finished. The new funding initiative (around 19 for 5 years) should ensure that everyone is in and out as quickly as at comparable programs, and it should also take the edge off some of the misery and competition, though not at the master's level.