Perique69

As a rule, verbal needs to be at least 90th percentile to be competitive for top-tier programs. These schools are predictably cagey when asked about GRE scores. They imply that it's possible to be admitted with low scores. But they neglect to say that it is extremely unlikely to be admitted this way. The main reason most programs will not reveal specific numbers or cut-off scores, however, is because it allows them to use the GRE as the primary way of rejecting applicants. Believe it or not, some programs even reject applicants with perfect scores because such scores suggest too much "rigidity" in belief and intellectual ability. The "safe zone" is 90 to 97 percentile, meaning these scores won't necessarily result in admission, but they at least keep you in the running. Scores outside of this range, in most cases, result in rejection from the most competitive programs (i.e., Emory and Yale from your list).

If you're applying to top-tier PhD programs, they generally do not like long gaps between degrees. It isn't impossible to be accepted, but any gap over 3 or so years becomes an admission's obstacle in most cases. A ThM or STM usually doesn't make a difference either. These programs prefer to accept young guns fresh out of stellar MA or MTS programs. That said, I can't speak for lower tier programs.

I was accepted to Durham's PhD and a couple others a few years ago without making any funding explanations. After being accepted, I waited on each school to let me know whether they would offer funding. No funding was offered. Afterward, they wanted to know how I would fund my education and living expenses. I declined b/c of their lack of funding.

All great points. To clarify my previous response, I'll give an example. A prominent Chair of historical studies from a very top-tier American PhD program told me this: competitive American programs consider their 2 year PhD coursework to be a "quantum leap" above any and all master-level course work. In other words, there is no way that master-level coursework supplants or even compares to PhD level seminars. A UK PhD wholly skips the first three critical years of American PhD programs; that is, the student misses two years of rigorous coursework and a full year of comprehensive exams that prepares one for the dissertation stage. Therefore, an American with a three year UK PhD graduates with a significant handicap according to most competitive American programs. This wasn't always the case, however. That's why there's a professor or two with a UK or EU degree at most American programs. But note their age. They tend to be close to retirement.

Frankly, it's easy to be accepted to most UK programs. Aside from poor or no funding, the other drawback is competing for jobs. I realize a 3 year program can be more appealing than the usual 5 to 8 (or more!) year top-tier American programs. But unless you somehow have a secure teaching job lined up post-graduation, it'll be incredibly tough to convince most American schools that a 3 year (research only) UK degree is more attractive than graduates from top and 2nd tier American programs. Also, unless you're independently wealthy, it's a horrible financial choice to take on significant debt for any PhD in religion/theology. My advice: only go where your full tuition is covered and you're paid a competitive stipend for at least 5 years.

I suggest that there is no realistic score that will "get you in." Aside from being a multi-million dollar industry for testing companies, the GRE is required precisely because it creates a simple and (legally) safe way for schools to accept and reject students. That's why you'll rarely get a clear from anyone about the "right" score. Schools use the GRE to manipulate entering cohorts to their liking. If a program wants to accept a student with low GRE scores, they'll downplay the significance of the GRE. On the other hand, if the same school does not want to accept a student with high scores, they'll say, "Well, your GRE wasn't quite high enough." If you have perfect scores, and they don't want to accept you, they'll say something like "Your scores raised some concerning questions with the admissions committee," etc. The point is that there is a clear reason why all the very competitive programs get really cagey when they're asked about the GRE. They start walking and talking on banana peels. Also, if you ever want to have some fun with an admissions committee, ask them about the GRE scores of their own professors with European and Canadian doctorates, especially if such a professor asks you about your GRE score. None of them took the GRE. You'll get blank stares and uncomfortable glances, because they're not sure how to respond to the hypocrisy of requiring potential students to earn a certain score on a standardized exam that some of their own professors never took. When they don't really respond to your question, sum up your point by saying something like, "So, your program hires professors who did not take the GRE, much less score higher than the 90th percentile, yet your program also requires that potential students must earn a certain score to be seriously considered for admission?"

Both salaries are pitiful, but I assume everyone knows that already. No one ever does it "for the money," right? Speaking to averages, it's usually a slight downgrade in pay to teach in seminaries.

It means you are on the waiting list, but I wouldn't count on being notified officially that you're on this list. The cagey GDR made their top 18 offers on Feb 14. They interviewed 40 candidates for 18 slots. So the waiting game could last until April 15, depending on what the top 18 decide. Most of them will accept if history is predictable.

My ThM thesis advisor couldn't stand anything but primary sources. So I relied very lightly on just 2 or 3 secondary sources. He wanted my thesis to reflect my thoughts on the primary sources, not my thoughts on the secondary sources.

Emory accepted their top 18 already. They're probably waiting to hear from these candidates then they'll finish all rejections. Either way, it's pretty safe to conclude that if you haven't been accepted already, you won't be. Historically, one or two manage to get in off the wait list, but the wait-listers may not know until mid April.

Emory definitely calls candidates for their interview weekend regardless of any previous campus visits. I think people have been admitted without attending the interview weekend, but it's usually related to wait list luck.

It all depends on where you went for these degrees and where you're applying. For example, a 3.5 (or even 3.9) from a 2nd or 3rd tier program probably won't impress a tier 1 committee. Generally, committees put more weight on related master's degrees than undergraduate.

I'd ask for a candid answer about GRE scores unless you already have very high scores. Some programs are notoriously cagey about this; they often state there is no cut off when there actually is a cut off score. Job placement record is important, too. I'd ask about job outlook for that specific program and what recent graduates are doing.

Try this blog operated by an American at Durham. There might be some helpful info about funding: http://dunelm.wordpress.com

The ThM is a good way to test the waters. One draw back is that most ThM's are not funded. To know for sure, I'd talk to the doctoral program to see what they think about your background. You'd probably get in for the ThM (because you're paying for it). Getting into a very competitive doctoral program is a different story. They usually accept around 5% of their applicants. If the program says you'd be a competitive applicant, then go for it. On the practical side, a ThM plus aThD or PhD equals at least 6 years or more of full time, rigorous study.

It's fairly easy to gain admission to EU doctoral programs, even Oxford and Cambridge. The catch is funding. In most cases, American students must pay their own way. If you want funding, it's typically a matter of searching high and low through sources other than the schools. I went through this about 5 years ago; was admitted to several programs but declined all of them because of a severe lack of funding on their part.

Getting admitted to these schools is far more than a numbers game. You certainly do not need a 4.0 to be admitted to any of them. I know people who have been admitted with 3.5 GPA's and GRE's as low as the 75th percentile, and some were rejected with 4.0's and perfect GRE's. Like another said, it's the total package that you bring. There's a stubborn myth sloshing around this forum that one absolutely needs this or that GPA and GRE score in order to be admitted. These schools don't want robots with perfect scores on everything. In fact, some of the schools you mention have been known to be suspicious of 4.0's and perfect GRE scores, because it (sometimes) reveals a kind of intellectual rigidity that does not do so well in graduate studies in religion, theology, etc.

YDS doesn't waive all ministry requirements, but it's still possible to slant the degree toward an "academic" focus with the goal of a PhD rather than ministry. It would be helpful to know the OP's PhD interest before suggesting degrees though. HDS does have more wiggle room. Chicago and Emory do also. Emory has 12 "concentrations" specifically for the MDiv program. It seems that several schools have moved or are moving in this direction for the MDiv.

The MDiv can be just as "academic" as an MAR if you want it to be. An advantage to the MDiv would be an additional year of study / preparation for the PhD. It really isn't a ministry degree anymore unless, of course, that's your focus. Some programs do have certain ministry-related requirements for the MDiv, but most of them can be waived. Something to consider also is that the MDiv is more employable than an MAR should PhD studies not work out. There's no shortage of PhD applicants with the MDiv and ThM or STM. So, MAR / MTS folk sometimes compete against applicants with twice as much preparation.

For competitive programs, the GRE is crucial. Low scores will definitely keep you out. Your ThD may or may not help you get in; it depends on whether the school you attended is recognized and respected by the programs to which you'll apply. I'd ask the programs you're interested in about your ThD and whether it'll satisfy their admission requirements. Yale, Harvard and so forth might suggest that you get a master's degree from an equally competitive school then apply for the PhD. German and French are the two most common languages needed for PhD work. An intermediate reading knowledge is what is tested. Sometimes it's allowed to substitute one language for German or French, but not both. Admission to the most competitive programs includes full tuition plus a yearly stipend around $18k for 5 years. For less competitive programs, funding declines and becomes the student's responsibility.

It's more the case that PhD applicants in religion have multiple master's degrees rather than none. Many get the MTS (2 years) while others have MDiv (3 years) or MDiv plus ThM (4 years). I can't imagine applying to a competitive program without a single master's degree. Although Harvard says it's possible to be accepted with a BA, you'd need an unusually spectacular BA to beat the majority of applicants with master's degrees: " For the Ph.D., while a master's degree is not a requirement, it is a distinct advantage in the application process, and in fact, most students admitted to the Ph.D. program have already earned master's degrees. The background gained from one or two years of study beyond the undergraduate level allows a student to enter a doctoral program prepared to do the advanced work required for a Ph.D. It is important to add, however, that students with an undergraduate record of high quality and extensive academic preparation relevant to their proposed plan of study may be admitted with only a B.A." At other competitive programs, no one gets in without a master's (or two).

Apply to Notre Dame's MTS. All get full funding there. But Notre Dame only accepts about 20 MTS students per year. This is in stark contrast to the hoards of massive debt-accruing students attending other theology schools. Few MA/MDiv level programs offer much funding aside from a handful of select applicants. Such programs, on the other hand, are quick to accept credulous students willing to "pay to play." Theology / divinity schools depend on students paying dearly to get a degree. Without such willing-to-pay students, the schools would dry up. To me, no MTS is worth anywhere near $80k, because it won't produce a job that will help you comfortably pay off the debt. If it's worth it to take on that debt in hopes of getting into a fully-funded PhD, know the risks and the gamble. Such PhD programs typically accept less than 5% of their applicants. Here's a fairly helpful article about the meaning of $80k in student loans: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201208/student-debt-moral-issue

I second Steven Collins at Chicago. He's great.

They don't require them to supply that information on the official application. They still ask for it, however. More importantly, they don't accept PhD applicants without interviewing them. For example, Emory's "interview weekend" is a rather intimate two day gathering, where they "get to know" applicants in person. In some cases where an applicant can't travel for an interview, an in-depth phone interview occurs. Also, more often than not, applicants reveal such information in their statement of purpose and/or the interview particularly when they believe such disclosure will be advantageous. Do you really believe that these schools are willing to spend five plus years and tens of thousands of dollars on PhD students without knowing more about them than just the information on the "official" application? "Fit" also means, to these schools, personality and relational ability among other interpersonal and social factors. "Fit" is by no means limited merely to academic interests. It's your assumption (and wish) that "fit" has nothing to do with identity. Your point that there's white male faculty at each of these schools is meaningless to this discussion. Out of curiosity though, how do you know that many of the male faculty are heterosexual? Does your advice apply equally, for example, to a homosexual Unitarian white male and a heterosexual Southern Baptist white male? Both applicants are interested in feminism's influence on "theological thinking" in the 1980's. Both of them want to attend Harvard and work with Professors Diana Eck and Leila Ahmed.

Well, kudos for citing something other than Duke's website. To be fair, the website you cited is somewhat reliable; however, it does not disclose sexual preference or religious affiliation. Remember I'm not referring merely to "white males" but white-heterosexual-Christian-males specifically within PhD religion programs at these schools. Harvard and Chicago (and possibly Emory) include stats on master-level and PhD students within religion as well as school-wide stats. So it isn't clear that these numbers strictly represent PhD in religion. Regardless, this point is moot because, like I said, none of these statistics tell us sexual preference and religious affiliation. What were you saying about twisting information to confirm your own biases?