Perique69

I certainly have not used anecdote and rumor. Again, these are examples of your denial. Sure you didn't present the Harvard numbers, but you also did not hesitate to use them inappropriately to further your agenda.

You have an unending penchant to presume and embellish in order to press your myopic agenda. For example, you've metamorphosed my initial statement so much that I have to conclude that you're no longer talking to me. Additionally, one mistake that you continue to make is believing that numbers undeniably substantiate a claim. Another error is that you keep referring to numbers wholly unrelated to the subject (i.e., Duke, and now, Harvard's MDiv stats). If the four schools in question hand-delivered you the strongest possible evidence, you would create a way (i.e., mentally) to deny it. You really let your cards show with your last two sentences (above). Frankly, I'm fearful that paranoia is getting the best of you. Perhaps some meditative prayer and yoga would help.

Do you use Taco Bell's nutrition chart to calculate the calories in your Big Mac?

Student body stats isn't top-secret or even confidential information. It can be disclosed without naming names, etc. I invite you to look deeper and wider than clicking on Duke's website. You cite merely one "official and public" source for your argument that it is "ignorant and misleading" to tell w-m-h-x that they are at a disadvantage when applying to PhD programs at Harvard, Chicago, Union NYC, and Emory. Interestingly, your lone source comes from none of these schools. Yet you somehow conclude that Duke's stats transfer to these schools as well. So Duke's information about their own students provides us with a reliable source for making conclusions about student bodies at four other schools? I must say that I am incredulous. Another point is that these specific schools (although Emory to a lesser degree) aren't even interested in representing w-m-h-x. Your "well-represented" point is rather credulous if you believe that these four schools are still devoted to representing w-m-h-x. Again, I assume you believe that they are because, of all sources, Duke told you so. It appears that you're offended or put off when anyone claims that white, heterosexual, Xtian males are at a disadvantage. It just can't be, you say! FYI, I didn't query these schools for my own interests. So, there was no misinterpreting.

First, you've cited a school that I did not mention--one that is decidedly not as interested in accepting minorities. I think you're trying to stretch my point to include all or most programs when I've clearly stated that I'm referring to a very few select and highly competitive programs. Duke is not one of them, although I'm aware that Duke is very competitive. Regardless, each of the schools I mentioned have directly told me that they are not as interested in accepting w-m-h-x. They're unapologetic about it, as they should be. It is simply their preference, and for good reason. Never once did I imply or state that a minority accepted to Harvard, Chicago, Union or Emory did not have to be on top of their game. So, I don't know why you'd point out that they need to be. Moreover, it is telling that you assume that "every mediocre, white, male applicant was accepted to elite programs" 10, 20, 30 years ago. If you think it is ignorant and misleading to tell a w-m-h-x that he's at a disadvantage if he applies to the specific schools I mentioned, I can safely conclude that you live under a rock.

Your gender, race, religion will help you get in. No need to worry unless you're white, male, heterosexual and Xtian.

Like others have said, don't worry about your undergraduate stats, they're fine. If you want a serious shot at a tier 1 PhD program, it's safer to attend such a school for an MDiv, MTS, etc. Sure, some get in from non-Tier 1 programs, but it's less likely. Remember, you have to convince your future PhD advisor and admissions committee at, say, Duke, Chicago, or Emory, that your La Sierra MDiv makes you a better candidate than their plethora of Harvard applicants. Maybe you can convince them, but it would be more challenging to do so. Also, I'll say from experience that it is more or less impossible to be admitted to tier 1 programs with a verbal GRE lower than the 85th percentile. This is true despite what they claim about there being no cut-off GRE score and that it's "merely" one part of the application, etc. Don't bank on compensating for a low GRE score with a 4.0 GPA and glowing letters either. The GRE won't matter much or at all for applying to most master's programs because there's less (or no) funding at stake. But when the most competitive (i.e., best funded) PhD programs pick 5 to 20 applicants out of 300 or more each year, they look very hard at GRE scores regardless of GPA, letters of rec., statement of purpose, etc.

First, I assume you realize that your salary potential will drop exponentially by moving from economics/math to theology. An MDiv would be a better option because of your lack of humanities background and Franciscan interests. Focus on languages for now. That will look better than a few more humanities courses.

Usually there's not much (or any) funding for ThM programs unless, for example, you're an international student visiting for one year because your church paid for it, etc. If you're asking if a ThM is worth doing as a way to help you gain admission to a PhD program, it depends on what school you want to attend, what you'll study, and who you'll work with. As a rule of thumb for top-tier programs, ThM degrees can be icing on the cake for an applicant with a superior MDiv and very strong GRE scores. On the other hand, for top-tier programs, a ThM usually won't help an applicant with insufficient GRE's and/or GPA's.

As far as I can tell, Emory is more competitive than the schools you listed except for Harvard. Although some select Emory over Harvard because of their focus, etc. There's only 2 or 3 schools that can compete with Emory's funding for PhD students.

GRE's are crucial in addition to everything else.

If you want to get into a top-tier program, you'll need very high GRE scores despite any claims against "cut off" scores. 10 master's degree with very high GPA's but a poor GRE will rule you out. So, I'd make sure you have excellent GRE scores before deciding on another master's.

In the "real" world, any master's degree in theology is pretty limited unless you're ordained. If you don't go for a PhD, an MDiv can have some advantage over an MTS if you try to get into any sort of non-profit or "helping" career. FYI: theology degrees frequently make those "top 10 worst degree" lists on yahoo, cnn, etc. in regards to income potential.

.

Just a note: Many U.S. programs want a 20 page writing sample versus a thesis because ad. committees can tell whether you know how to write based on 15-20 pages. Here's my two cents on UK versus US programs: it happens but it is extremely difficult for American students to get funding for UK programs. It's rather easy to gain admission to virtually any UK program, but funding is a different story. The top-tier US schools tend to favor graduates of the same programs. I was told by my advisor that an American graduate of a UK program might--and it was a very skeptical "might"--get hired at a top-tier US program, but progressing through the ranks is very unlikely. That's the case now. It wasn't so much 20 or 30 years ago, which is why you'll find some American UK graduates with a long history of teaching at some top-tier US schools. On the other hand, some of the more confessional schools that stay within their circle have plenty of Americans with UK degrees.

test

"I say this because I am a bit paranoid that if I should attend a certain institution where professors have a certain bend I will emerge from my education there having lost my faith entirely, and that the opposite would be true, meaning a strongly edified faith, if I should attend another university. this is scary." I have an MDiv / ThM from Emory. I'd argue that, ultimately, you will determine the outcome of your "faith." Where you study will influence how your faith develops, or stays the same. At Emory, there is little to no talk about profs' personal beliefs in the classroom. I personally don't care what a prof "bleieves in" as long as they don't conflate their "beliefs" with what they teach. I'd want a refund if my theological studies didn't radically transform my beliefs.

I have an MDiv (2002) ThM (2008) from Emory. In the classroom, there's not much if any talk about profs' personal beliefs. "Personal faiths" are irrelevant to me in terms of studying Xtian theology, etc. I don't care what the professor "believes in" as long as they don't conflate their own "faith" with what they teach. You might say I totally "lost my faith" studying theology. Translation: what I thought was "my faith" was little more than borrowed rational beliefs that didn't penetrate the surface of anything worthwhile. Many disagree, but I think studying theology should transform rather than reinforce one's "understanding." Some schools offer more "transformation opportunities" than others. So choose accordingly.