Phenomenologist

It certainly may not be "adequate," but what's "adequate" will vary. We're only on casual message boards, so I'm not rallying peer-reviewed articles to do a thesis here. But the U.S. Census Bureau data isn't wholly inadequate for our purposes. We can bicker about an "adequate" amount of support, but it remains the case that generally speaking, women make less than men, all other things being equal. The Census data isn't merely comparing "men" and "women." It's men and women who both (1) work full time, (2) are year-round employed, (3) have college degrees, and (4) are over the age of twenty-five. So, the data is at least narrowing it down. But again, people can debate over what's "adequate" all day, so I'll just drop my point with you here .

It's certainly true that "it's complicated," and complex. And I don't want to be reductive and say it's exclusively and solely based on gender differences. I simply wanted to point out that it is no "myth" that women make much less than men across the board, all things being equal.

In the year 2000, an average full-time, year-round employed male college graduate over the age of twenty-five earne $72,665, and his female counterpart earned $49,835. In 2007, he earned $70,401, and his female counterpart earned $50,398. (U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables--People.) (This is simply copied from my sociology textbook.) Difference in pay is not simply "the result of different choices" people make. Statistically across the board, women make less than men for the same jobs. Another interesting stat: women who wear makeup are paid more than women who do not. And I'm sure you think racial minorities simply need to "pick themselves up by their boostraps," right?

How so? It's pretty elementary sociology.

No problem, I understand what you mean now . Sounds like you have great plans to practice medicine, I hope that works out! You'll have a great interdisciplinary background. Thought babies, LOL -- that's a new one . Thanks, I enjoy Kuhn as well (as is obvious). But I like postmodern hermeneutics generally. And postcolonial!

I come from a philosophy major, where we know better than to think that science is any more "objective" than the humanities that are supposedly "merely subjective." As Nietzsche said, "There are no facts, only interpretations." You may be interested in reading philosopher-of-science, Thomas Kuhn. He popularized the term "paradigm shift," and demonstrates that despite science's pretensions to say otherwise, it's no more "objective" than other discourses. Even in the sciences, we're discussing "ideas and concepts." We view the world through a paradigm, which shapes and informs our observation of "the facts." But after a while, we shift to a new paradigm, where all of "the facts" change. It's really fascinating stuff, you should check read that brief summary at that link.

You have "nothing against it," but you describe it as "make-things-up-as-you-go"? I don't think they would describe it that way. The idiom is true: "History is written by the victors." And by extension, "Theology is written by the privileged." So these projects are simply a recovery of lost theological voices: women, ethnic minorities, the poor, etc. It's hardly "make-things-up-as-you-go."

In our day, when women who have an identical education as men receive only 75% of the pay, why would any educated person in higher-academia (especially at these institutions) *NOT* be a feminist?

Thanks a bunch! And you're right -- admitted student visit days would be crucial to helping you decide. I actually only recently received word from Yale, so I am still doing my research =). But PM me in a bit and I may have more insight! That being said, there seem to be a few Yale vets on here, which may be able to offer insight .

We have similar interests--ecumenism, social justice, philosophical theology! I think this quote here is crucial. If you're willing to follow their advice and take out extra loans for the extra cost of attendance to one school or the other, you've essentially decided to make money no object -- finances should not weigh as much into the equation. Thus, your list will look different: BC will have only three pro's and three con's, but Yale will have three pro's and zero con's. I know what you mean about not wanting to double-up on programs with similar confessional identities. I did my undergrad at a Reformed/evangelical school, so I was hoping to stray from that area for my next step. It'd be cool to go to a Catholic program for my PhD, and then have an even more well-rounded CV . But if you decide to take the loans either way and not let money get in the way, it changes the decision.

+1 Actually, my advice is a combo of the two above. If the two programs are both good, then go with the cheaper one -- no doubt about it. And besides, it's Notre Dame for goodness' sakes, one of the best schools ever. On the other hand, if it's only $10,000 in debt to do a program that you know you'll be SIGNIFICANTLY happier with and is your absolute dream program or something, I'd say that's a no-brainer as well (key word: "significantly"). You can pay that off in the future, but you can never go back and get your time/experience back to do what you would'a/could'a/should'a.

Interesting -- for some reason, Tahuds, I had you as more of a "biblical studies" guy than a "theology/ethics" guy. Some posts of yours I read in the past or something. Cool!

Sounds like pretty good reasons to visit early =).

Great tips from eskidd. Also eskidd, congrats on the Marquette PhD with funding! I would love to do my PhD there, and I hear funding is harder to come by there -- congrats!

If you're planning on going to the school for sure anyway, I'd say save your money and go to the orientation event when you arrive in the Fall. It'll be a similar event, but with people who actually are attending with you, rather than a huge pool of only "maybes." And then you can save cash, to boot. Isn't that the draw of the "admit days," as a kind of fun orientation, see around campus, etc.? I'd say just go to the orientation proper when you arrive.

If you want to move on to PhD studies, how much more will Yale help than GTU? If only marginally, maybe GTU would be better. But if you really want to get into a PhD (and the market is pretty killer right now--both to get into a PhD, and also to get a job afterward), then you may want to go to Yale. I haven't researched the job market for theology/biblical studies PhD's trying to get a job. But I'm a philosophy major and hang out in a philosophy department, and when I was looking into PhD programs in philosophy, the job market was absolutely awful. Even people with PhD's from Notre Dame (a top philosophy school) struggle to land jobs, and have to pick up and move their families from one 1-year-position to another, trying to get a proper tenure-track job. There are so many PhD's out there looking for jobs that institutions can have their choice to pick the best-of-the-best applicants from the best-of-the-best programs. So, just something to think about!

Thanks, I knew it had to mean something like that from the context I always see it used in -- similar to the Toronto theology consortium.

What's "the BTI"?

That's an extremely tough decision, wow. Personally, I would go with Chicago Div. In today's academic climate, it'll be crucial to get a job afterward. It'll still be a great program for catching your interests, even if it's not the "ultimate fit." Chicago also opens many doors akin to Harvard, albeit not as much so (but up there!!). What the heck is this "GDR" I keep hearing talked about? Yeah, those schools didn't require the GRE (praise the LORD!). I haven't had proper math in like a decade, so I wasn't looking forward to competing against these younger scholars fresh out of liberal arts curriculums with strong math scores. Didn't take any tests at all! The Yale offer was a stunning surprise, thanks a bunch!

This is perfect. It's most applicable at the PhD level, but it begins now. That is what I did in my statement. Also a good tip: use specific examples to highlight a broader point. Instead of saying "I have a strong work ethic," you might instead talk about your life balancing academia with ministerial roles and parenting and volunteering, and how it all helped to give you a "strong work ethic." Or instead of saying "my research interests are XYZ, you might discuss a class or experience you've had where your research interests became very pronounced to you and galvanized, etc.

Duke and Notre Dame are like my two original TOP schools, so that is terrific for you!! Congratulations on such outstanding school offers. (I may still apply to ND for PhD!)

You and I seem to have much in common. I'm a conservative evangelical (by the standards on these boards), but conservative evangelicals would consider me decidedly "liberal." I also love the Anglo-Catholic-Orthodox tradition. Great GPA, and your GRE seems just fine to me. It's obviously not as high as some of these other whipper-snappers around here, but it seems pretty good for theology programs. I do think that languages look good on a resume, but I only had Latin to note on mine. I think the best advice is this: A good GPA and/or GRE is enough to *not get you cut* from the admissions process, but NOT enough to *get you in*. The things that get you *in* are your personal statement, your writing sample, and letters of recommendation. Stats are just the helpful guides to make easy decisions, like "Don't consider any applications below 1200 GRE" or something. But after that, it's all statement of purpose, etc. What bolsters a statement of purpose? Soup kitchens, teaching abroad, etc. Show a diversity of experience, leadership skills, and very importantly, clarity of purpose and direction. What constitutes a good writing sample? I think all the tenets of a good paper: clear thesis, good argumentative structure, research to support your argument, solid conclusion to tie it together. And good letters of recommendation come from strong work and good relationships with profs. Also important: Tailor your application to the school's program. I nailed one of Yale's scholarships, and I really think I was a perfect fit for their program. But I tactfully made explicit all the ways that I am a perfect fit for it: I cited texts from Yale profs I've drawn upon, how my research in the past has overlapped with the program's curriculum, etc. And then I noted all my work in soup kitchens and overseas, too. I'd advise applying to Notre Dame again if you strengthen your application significantly. Most applications ask: "Have you applied here in the past?" If yes, they will surely (I'm guessing) look at their records, and wonder why they rejected you last time. "There's no point in reinventing the wheel," they may say -- we've evaluated this person before, what were the weaknesses last time? If you've filled those gaps, they will consider it more strongly. This advice is a mix of advice I received, formulas that worked for me, and complete conjecture on my part. Hope it helps!

Congratulations!! What an outstanding program, I was kind of hoping to apply there as well, but didn't want to take the GRE . 11 PM is certainly peculiar!! Congrats again =).

Yes, I will take Yale or Duke's offer over Princeton's.

My undergrad is unfortunately down-the-middle, very much akin to Duke. Not "liberal," but not "conservative" -- simply right down the middle. So, conservatives perceive it as left-ish (similar to Duke).