Phenomenologist

If it hasn't been suggested yet, I would contact a couple of programs you might be interested in, and just explain your situation. Tell them the kind of research you want to do and see what they advice. I've been in two religious studies programs (my masters and PhD) who have religious folk or previously-very religious folk on their faculty. You don't get to be a religious studies professor without understanding the complexity of American religion, so I think you'll find them more understanding than you'd expect. Maybe seek out a professor or two who have both MDivs and MAs or PhDs
Good luck!

Well, not necessarily. They do have scholarships that cover full tuition.
 
The thing is that, while schools like Duke and Chicago guarantee tuition coverage as a part of their admission conditions, Fuller doesn't. So full funding isn't guaranteed there. Def no stipend.

The Notre Dame ECS is an excellent program that sounds perfect for you, and it's fully funded (last I checked), but it's also pretty competitive. But's it can't hurt to apply (https://classics.nd.edu/graduate-students/ma-in-early-christian-studies/). Plus, you are interested in PhD, there's a perfect program for your interests as well:
https://theology.nd.edu/graduate-programs/ph-d/areas-of-concentration/christianity-and-judaism-in-antiquity/

So I've spent some time digging around and don't have a clue right now. My interests are in second temple Judaism/Early Christianity, but the problem is I discovered that interests quite late in my undergraduate career, so I have absolutely no knowledge on any of the languages. But I've taken about five or more courses on that topic. Still, I feel like it would simply be a waste of time to apply for phd right now. 
I am starting one language course in my final year; developing a writing sample through independent research with my professor.
Can anyone recommend a MA program that offers funding that can at least cover up the tuition? I would greatly appreciate your help. I know the program at Norte Dame offers full funding, but how competitive can that program be? 

I've moved this onto a google doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XXBLNLDz-JsGBHD0YGyHPr7lG-dE5t-nNhJDUH5feoQ/edit?usp=sharing
You can apply to some of the best departments in certain fields w/o taking the GRE. 
I've compiled this list just via casual google search — there have to be a LOT more out there. (Is there really no running list of NO-GRE PhD programs?)
[And, apologies for posting here as a faculty member — I just don't know who cares about this more that grad students!]

Building a list. More and more departments are moving away from this horrible, expensive, soul-crushing, pointless exam. This is what I have so far. Please let me know of other programs. Also: should this become a google-doc? A website? (Started this on gradadmissions subreddit.)
African American Studies/Africana Studies: Cornell; Northwestern; U Mass Amherst
American Studies: Harvard; NYU; University of Michigan (American Culture); University of New Mexico
Art History/Visual Studies: University of Arizona; University of New Mexico
Chicanx and Latinx Studies: University of New Mexico
Comparative Literature, Literatures not in English, Literature: University of Michigan (Asian Languages and Culture); Stanford (Modern Thought & Literature); University of Pittsburgh (Hispanic Languages and Literature)
Cultural Studies/Media Studies: MIT (Media Arts and Sciences); University of Washington, Bothell (Cultural Studies MA)
Ethnic Studies: UC Berkeley
English: Harvard; Oregon State University (MA, req for PhD); Stanford; UC Riverside; U Mass Amherst; University of New Mexico; Washington State University; Wayne State (MA, req. for PhD)
Cinema Studies/Film: Ohio University (MA), University of Toronto*
History: Emory; Northwestern; University of New Mexico
Latin American Studies: NYU (Latin American and Caribbean Studies: optional, req.for joint journalism PhD); U Conn
Linguistics: MIT; UCLA; U Mass Amherst; University of Michigan
Middle Eastern Studies: CUNY Graduate Center (MA, optional)
Musicology: Brandeis ("highly recommended" but not req.), Cornell (?), UCLA (recommended but not req.)
Native American, American Indian, Indigenous Studies: University of Arizona
Performance Studies: NYU; UCLA (Culture and Performance within World Arts and Culture/Dance)
Philosophy: UBC*; University of Michigan; University of Pennsylvania; UW Madison
Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies: Emory; Oregon State University (optional); UW Madison (MA)
 
*Canadian programs tend not to require GRE. For now, I'm listing Canadian programs esp. in fields where there aren't a lot of other options.
note: Please confirm before applying to these schools. This list of disciplinary categories is provisional, I am revising and updating as I get more info. Some fields listed here traverse humanities and social sciences (e.g. gender studies). Sticking mainly to PhD programs, but throwing in MAs as I come across them, esp. if it looks like they might be funded.

Unfortunately I started out as an MDIV at my current school and switched to an MA. Then I pursued the Mth degree....the MDIV is something I need to do for my denomination in order to preach, which is something I wanted to do...but not exactly right now. I wanted to use my academic momentum to do a PHD while my life wasn't insane (no kids, at the moment) --- but I guess I'm called to do something different. Most of my classes will transfer and who knows, maybe I can be "bumped up" or offered a position in a PHD program if I somehow "wow" the faculty with my leet skills in an MDIV program =/

Unlikely, but there's always a glimmer of hope.

+1

That is fine, but the evidence you provided did not adequately support your point.

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 .

No, I copied it out of an Oxford University Press (2010) book: "Understanding Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality: A Conceptual Framework," by a Lynn Weber. I'm not familiar with her, it's just a book that was assigned. Not a "sociology 101" book by any means, though.

It's just as "naive" to say that it is a "myth." Just as one may reductively say "It's exclusively based on gender," you can just as reductively say "It has nothing whatsoever to do with gender." It's similar to discussions over race, and minority races not getting paid as much as whites. It's very complicated, but it's not wholly unrelated to race.

I already acknowledged with Tahuds my mistake, you may have missed it:




So, no need to freak out .

No, I copied it out of an Oxford University Press (2010) book: "Understanding Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality: A Conceptual Framework," by a Lynn Weber. I'm not familiar with her, it's just a book that was assigned. Not a "sociology 101" book by any means, though.

It's just as "naive" to say that it is a "myth." Just as one may reductively say "It's exclusively based on gender," you can just as reductively say "It has nothing whatsoever to do with gender." It's similar to discussions over race, and minority races not getting paid as much as whites. It's very complicated, but it's not wholly unrelated to race.

I already acknowledged with Tahuds my mistake, you may have missed it:




So, no need to freak out .

because that is a myth.

+1

I'm not sure about Sociology 101 textbooks, but it's really funny how anthropology 101 textbooks are usually so washed out and simplified that one really wonders what the point is in taking an anthro 101 course...

I'm assuming, therefore, that this is probably the same for introduction books in sociology, theology, philosophy, etc. On the other hand, introductory books for chemistry, biology, physics, and biochemistry I've found to be rather excellent. The only problem with science introductory books is that you first learn a simplified model of reality; however, that's really the best way to start in the sciences.

Hm, intresting -- I'm completely ignorant of this information, which would definitely give a different account. So it would definitely require more nuance, absolutely.


That being said, I can't help but roll my eyes at a primitivist reading of my phrase "all things being equal." Of course, I'm painting with broad brush strokes: under no circumstances are all things ever equal . So, I guess throw me a bone -- follow Nicholas Wolterstorff's principle of "charitable readings" . (If I understand you correctly)

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?

You copied that out of a sociology 101 textbook, that's exactly the point. The wage disparity is a fact, the reason for it's existence being "its clearly sexism" like you seem to think, is naive. It is the "wage gap" myth. I'm sure you'd rather believe that, and try to make me out to be a bigot(thanks for that) than actually read the US Department of Labor's explanation which I linked right there for you. The future of the ivy league, God help us



That is the same link that I posted....

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.

Hm, intresting -- I'm completely ignorant of this information, which would definitely give a different account. So it would definitely require more nuance, absolutely.


That being said, I can't help but roll my eyes at a primitivist reading of my phrase "all things being equal." Of course, I'm painting with broad brush strokes: under no circumstances are all things ever equal . So, I guess throw me a bone -- follow Nicholas Wolterstorff's principle of "charitable readings" . (If I understand you correctly)

Hm, intresting -- I'm completely ignorant of this information, which would definitely give a different account. So it would definitely require more nuance, absolutely.


That being said, I can't help but roll my eyes at a primitivist reading of my phrase "all things being equal." Of course, I'm painting with broad brush strokes: under no circumstances are all things ever equal . So, I guess throw me a bone -- follow Nicholas Wolterstorff's principle of "charitable readings" . (If I understand you correctly)

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?

Thanks for that info on schools hiring and such, very helpful. Sounds like you have a great academic background, and those GRE scores are totally fine for our discipline. We have much in common: I also studied in the UK for two years, studying theology, and I served as a youth pastor a few years, and had some corporate background (although I intentionally neglected the latter in my applications). I'm not looking forward to the GRE change, but I postponed it to buy me some more time to prepare. Do you think it will become more difficult with the change?


I don't get the impression that HDS squelches all confessional scholars. If anything, the opposite may be true (but I could be totally wrong here): people are unabashedly feminist, unabashedly gay, etc. If people embrace their confessional backgrounds, then it would make sense that people would be more tolerant and pluralist about other confessional voices: including confessional Christian voices. However, the opposite could be true: perhaps they believe "Christianity" is the enforcer of the status quo, and is inherently problematic. But this would be a tremendous mistake on their part, of course.

If you had to constantly defend your faith all the time, that'd be annoying. I think an atheist would have to do this a lot at an evangelical institution. But at a more liberal institution, there technically should be more of a pluralist bend. But I could see it being the inverse of the atheist at a conservative school: a confessional Christian at a liberal school could have to defend their faith all the time, too.

Maybe start a "Poll" on the boards, to ask about the environment at HDS in that respect. There seem to be a lot of folks on these boards who are going there now or in the Fall, and could maybe offer insight.