Perique69

Ditto.

No problem. Doing what I can to help.

Of course, I'm studying religion!

Well, thanks. Yes, I take pictures of turtles on Tuesdays and Wednesdays unless the weather is unbearable. I also go bird watching on Thursdays. I like being in nature.

I "hunt" turtles only to take pictures. It's really sad that more or less all of you failed to follow a simple line of argument. I knew you'd get so bent-out-of-shape over a ranking and consequently miss the entire point. I guess that's why you're attempting to study something as bombastic as religion for a living. Now vote down this post and go sulk in a corner while you foam over your favorite professor's latest "research."

I'm turtle hunting again this evening, but will be back later tonight to answer any questions. Welcome, Macrina. We enjoy having new company! Peace.

WLC is incredibly annoying, as well as utterly confused. Sorry to be so harsh, but no one really listens to him except impressionable undergraduates who already believe the gibberish spewing from his football coach-esque mouth.

Be sure to use a "normal" font, too. They don't like crazy fonts and triple spacing, etc.

It sounds like you're upset because you're favorite school isn't on the top dog list. Sorry to disappoint you with the Truth.

UVa? LOL. I said very top, most competitive programs. I even named the schools one-by-one yet you continue to use OTHER schools as your justification. Mind-boggling! I wish you'd take your own advice about playing fast and loose with language. If an undergraduate took "my advice" about scoring at the 98th percentile, it would be based on their total misreading of what I actually said. Re-read my posts. I already said between 90 to 97 is the sweet spot. As far as scoring too high (i.e., 100%), full professors at Emory, Yale and Harvard told me that they routinely reject applicants with perfect test scores because of a "rigidity" concern. Having engaged in conversation with you, I clearly see their point. Still don't believe me though? Who cares? But go ahead and tell me about your "friend" at Idaho State, who was accepted to their Ph.D. in Geology with perfect GRE scores. You haven't once held me accountable for anything. You're the most selective reader I've ever encountered. Your vision is more myopic than a Bob Jones University graduate. P.S. Sorry for the delayed response. I was hunting turtles all day yesterday. Had a late night, too.

Bob Jones has an excellent program in apologetics.

It's a huge blow only in your mind. One school that doesn't even compete with the hosts of schools to which I referenced hardly blows my point. Your point is pointless, in other words. Sure, you provided "evidence" but it's unrelated to my point. So my "exception to rule tactic" criticism stands tall and proud. Like Chicago, PTS and Union, you won't find PhD students at Emory or Yale without M degrees (cue to start feverishly checking for "friends" at these schools without M degrees). You're taking "required" too literally. It's completely naive to think one has a serious shot at admission without an M degree unless the school clearly prefers the BA to PhD route. I just hope some poor, artless soul doesn't follow your advice and apply to these programs without M degrees and with low GRE scores. Next I fear you're gonna tell us about a "friend" who got into Harvard's PhD with only a GED and an average SAT score.

Be happy at NW. Yea, at least you're getting paid!

Very few? Try getting into Duke, Yale, Harvard, Emory, Chicago, Princeton seminary, Union without an M degree. Ain't gonna happen. These are the top dogs (not sure Union is such a top dog anymore but oh well) and they need M degrees. And, yes, I know it is technically possible to gain admission to Harvard with a BA, but only for the "rare, exception" within the 5 to 6% admitted. Regardless, I'm growing weary of your exception to rule tactic. How do 3 students purportedly admitted to Princeton U PhD (not seminary) without M degrees disprove, or even weigh heavily against, my point that most of the very top, most competitive programs require an M degree? Peace and tranquility to you as you reflect upon my response.

No surprise. UNC doesn't require an M degree.

Best of luck! I'm sure you'll do very well and get admitted to your school of choice. Yes, concentrate on the verbal. It's great that you did well in math, so you can relax about that. I agree, too, about stopping the violence! There's some tenacious curmudgeons around here! Yikes!

Says the person who'd argue with a fence post. You're so convinced that you're always right.

Did you not see the word "most" in my second sentence? Harvard is a slight exception. Slight because while they say it's ok to apply without an M degree, it is highly unlikely to be accepted without one because most applicants hold one or two M degrees. Also, on what authority does your "most prestigious institution in the world" sit? It's prestigious, but there's a running, indefinite battle for "most prestigious."

Of course all of those factors are good for reputation. You're flat wrong--flat wrong--that they are "vastly more important" than applicant numbers, however. Your synopsis of my point(s) is a misread to some extent. I couldn't care less who believes me, but the truth about the most competitive TT religion programs is that they take great pride in tallying their total number of applicants and maintaining that number as best they can. It mystifies me that some can't understand why a top school would be troubled by, say, a sudden and significant drop in their number of applicants. If said school normally receives 300 applicants per year but this year they received 150, do you really think they wouldn't pay critical attention to this, particularly when their competitors stayed on mark at 300 or so? If this point still befuddles you, you might consider reading a business strategy for dummies type of book. I know it's incredibly tough for people with lower verbal scores to accept that they won't be admitted to the most competitive programs. I also know that a few here love to reference their "friend" who got into one of the most competitive programs with a low score. I realize it's counter-intuitive, but there is no strong correlation between an excellent GRE score and equally excellent writing samples, SOP, etc. My previous posts emphasize precisely the opposite point that you accuse me of making: adcoms use GRE scores subjectively when it serves them to do so. Read that very carefully. This is the point that will elude 99% of applicants. Again, this is why they do not, and will not, publish or even verbally acknowledge specific cut-off scores. As for your 167 versus 84th percentile example, as a rule adcoms will go with 167 given everything else is equal. Hard pill to swallow, I know. These schools have done a spectacular job at convincing applicants that "everyone has a chance." The key word is "chance." Chance does not mean acceptance, however. Adcoms weed out unqualified applicants for all sorts of reasons. Some reasons are not surprising while some are utterly shocking. But the one reason they use in court is the GRE score. It's the only objective AND defensible response. Herein lies the crux of the matter that escapes virtually everyone unfamiliar with the legal entanglements that top programs occasionally encounter as a result of a disgruntled applicant. I know it's tempting to believe that religion / theology programs operate outside of the "real world." But they don't and they can't. Lastly, the example of people applying right out of undergrad, poor writing and missing materials is, well, silly. Most of these programs require an M degree just for starters. Only a real dunce would overlook a basic requirement and apply anyway. Peace and good tidings. None of my response is meant to be personal. It's just an arrow to the heart of deception. Remember that a turtle shell is utilitarian.

Exactly. And, of course, they probably don't enjoy the labor, but it's preferable to lower rankings.

You're grabbing for straws. Like it or not, programs pay close attention to their total number of applicants compared to competitors' total numbers. It's a quick reference and comparison point that programs readily use. They don't ignore them for the sake of sub-field numbers. What's more troubling though is your way of injecting an unrelated point. Sorry, it doesn't work in this discussion. It is helpful to know sub-field interests and numbers, I agree. But the point doesn't relate to my point. To make another correction to your previous post, applicants usually do, in fact, apply to a program "in general" then they indicate a sub-field. Take Emory for example: all applicants apply to their "Graduate Division of Religion" THEN applicants select two out of nine "courses of study." Applicants are admitted to the Graduate Division of Religion "in general" then to one respective sub-field. According to the school, students belong to the general Graduate Division of Religion, as well as their sub-field.

Ok, it's fine for you to doubt that. Second, it regards competition between schools. The TT, most competitive programs communicate with one another and they know that the others generally receive around 300 per year. Fewer applicants would spell less interest in the program. TT programs want way more applicants than they can accept. It shows fierce demand for their program. I'm surprised that this concept is so difficult to understand. It's a classic business model. Lastly, no. Reread all of my posts. My point is that these schools are cagey about numbers precisely because it allows them to be subjective when they want to be.

It's a tough position to argue from when you say "I don't know … but you're wrong." If you knew the source of my information, you'd hardly say I'm wrong. I didn't say all applications are not read. I said most are discarded very soon within the decision-making process. I also did not say that the decision-making process is a purely numbers game. If you saw my previous post, I said that many programs are cagey about GRE scores for a reason; it gives them leverage to accept who they want without being completely dependent on numbers. Your friend is an exception, not the rule. But your example is exactly the sort of "information" that competitive programs want to propagate. It attracts applicants. Faculty members may not be overjoyed by sorting through 300 applications, but I guarantee that very competitive schools want as many as applicants as possible, and they will do whatever they can to attract applicants. You underestimate the "business" of top religion programs. Reputation and money are at stake. Your view ignores this important point.

Schools want as many applicants as possible to apply. It makes their program look better when they get 300 applicants a year. Of course, the program immediately slices those 300 to 50 within the first hour of decision-making. Most programs aren't "hesitant" to post cutoffs. They simply do not post them. "Otherwise well-qualified" candidates don't get in at the most competitive schools. But these schools want you to think that some do. Only the "most qualified candidates" get in.