MarthUser

Healthwise:
One that I've heard from my professor is to find time to read something for leisure that you would enjoy like a novel, especially in between assignments. Another advice I've heard is to really take advantage of the summers as an opportunity to take a vacation and travel. Given the job market, a lot of PhD students feel the need to fill their schedules with resume-building activities. While this certainly helps them in the long-run, it's often at the expense of their personal health and relationships. I've heard some instances where over-activity has led to burnout and eventually frustration with their programs.
Job Marketwise:
So as an aspiring American Religious History scholar, I've also been taking classes in history departments/American Studies departments and one trend that's coming from that field is mastering the art of public speaking and presentation. If you have time, maybe check out toastmasters or attend local TedTalks/public speaking engagements to get a feel for proper public speaking. If other departments are exploring these fields (and my potential advisor and I have also discussed the importance of building this skill), then it would be good to adopt this skillset not just for teaching, but for conference presentations as well, which have historically been hit or miss with people still reading off of their papers (a criticism garnered from both historians and religious scholars I've met).
Another one might be to find a creative outlet for the things you're learning. Some helpful ones include creating your own YouTube channel and create content material for the general public or writing your own blog. Part of finding creative outlets for the skills we pickup in our respective programs is that it will help us think in an entrepreneurial manner about our degrees. I'm anticipating a horrible job market but I'm constantly brainstorming ideas for alternative means of generating value for the general public that I could monetize.

Given the metrics you've shared (GRE and GPA), I would say you're a very competitive candidate.
That being said, being competitive does not mean you're a strong candidate for a particular department. As others have already echoed, it all comes down to more subjective factors like "departmental fit" and your research interests. What might help is if you use the SOP as a way to tell your story, incorporating the challenges you've faced along the way (accounting for your undergraduate and graduate shortcomings) with the evolution of your interests over the years, leading up to what you hope to bring to the program you're applying for and the research interventions you will make as a member of that department. As I've heard it said in the business world, show the progress you've made in your weaknesses and it becomes a strength. 
I share this as someone whose undergraduate GPA wasn't stellar (I was a Finance major in undergrad and wasn't all to interested in it as a subject) and whose GRE scores weren't impressive by any means (averaged around 160 on both), yet was accepted into a top-tier program. 

As someone who has worked in both fields, I can say that the state of Economic history within economics is not doing particularly well, especially after the quantitative turn. That being said, recent turns in cultural economics may be of particular interest to historians outside of economic history. As far as the ability to work together, I think there are some particularly good examples (Namoi Lamoreaux in particular comes to mind and Emily Erickson is an interesting example in historical sociology), but it depends on one's willingness to work within rational choice theory.  

I can only speak from my own field American Religious History. Top history programs rarely (if ever) admit students coming in with a religious studies Masters program. In my own experience, I had two Master's degrees in the study of religion and when I applied to History departments, they almost always recommended I go through their Master's program first and then reapply to their PhD program. However, some history programs in religiously-affiliated schools like Notre Dame and Baylor University are more open to students coming in with an MA in religious studies. 
Methodologically, scholars in my subfield and historians take similar approaches to their research. Some slight nuances might appear in the particular theories informing their work. While historians might feel comfortable using the term religion, scholars of religion might feel the need to elaborate on their theoretical approach, perhaps sometimes even avoiding the term altogether.
One good example might be the Branch Davidians. Historians might not think a "cult" like Branch Davidians falls into the presently-understood category of religion. If it was to be studied, historians might include it in a history of violent government military interventions in civilian activities. However, scholars of religion might find the Branch Davidians' "religion" as worthy strong example of a movement that troubles the boundaries of the category "religion." Religious studies folks are invested in the history of religion as a category constantly constructed, reinvented, re-imagined, and imposed by society and institutions (in the case of the Branch Davidians, government-intervention distinguishes between "appropriate" religion and "cults". This troubling of terms by exploring the periphery, which relies on works by philosophers like Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, is something historians might not be as concerned with. 

I can only speak from my own field American Religious History. Top history programs rarely (if ever) admit students coming in with a religious studies Masters program. In my own experience, I had two Master's degrees in the study of religion and when I applied to History departments, they almost always recommended I go through their Master's program first and then reapply to their PhD program. However, some history programs in religiously-affiliated schools like Notre Dame and Baylor University are more open to students coming in with an MA in religious studies. 
Methodologically, scholars in my subfield and historians take similar approaches to their research. Some slight nuances might appear in the particular theories informing their work. While historians might feel comfortable using the term religion, scholars of religion might feel the need to elaborate on their theoretical approach, perhaps sometimes even avoiding the term altogether.
One good example might be the Branch Davidians. Historians might not think a "cult" like Branch Davidians falls into the presently-understood category of religion. If it was to be studied, historians might include it in a history of violent government military interventions in civilian activities. However, scholars of religion might find the Branch Davidians' "religion" as worthy strong example of a movement that troubles the boundaries of the category "religion." Religious studies folks are invested in the history of religion as a category constantly constructed, reinvented, re-imagined, and imposed by society and institutions (in the case of the Branch Davidians, government-intervention distinguishes between "appropriate" religion and "cults". This troubling of terms by exploring the periphery, which relies on works by philosophers like Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, is something historians might not be as concerned with. 

I'm curious to hear if people have the same experience I've been encountering more and more. It seems that religious studies PhDs are seen as the lesser PhD in a lot of fields. In my sub-field (History of Religion in the United States), most of the scholars and professors have PhDs from history departments, NOT religious studies departments. A lot of scholars do religion within history departments, and can transition easily into religion departments. Furthermore, a lot of the texts we read are written not by folks with religious studies PhDs, but with history PhDs. In the larger scheme, you see a lot of people with history PhDs in religion departments, but next to no religious studies PhDs in history departments. 
Likewise, I've heard some people doing ethics/theology in religious studies departments who have to compete with folks from Philosophy departments. I've also heard the same is true for religious studies PhDs focusing on eastern religions, having to compete with Asian Studies folks for positions. So, my question below:
1. Do you find it the case that religious studies PhDs have a hard time getting into other departments while people with PhDs from other departments have an easier way of getting jobs in religious studies departments? Or are there instances where this might not be the case?
2. What are the practical advantages of studying religion in a religious studies department over studying religion in a philosophy/history/other social sciences department?

I know of some people who have finished their generals but not yet finished their language exams. It varies by department/school, but for some programs I'm familiar with, it would seem that the language requirements might simply be a formality with a seemingly strict deadline that's only loosely enforced. Perhaps check with your advisors to see how strictly they hold you to the language-requirement deadline. 

BU's program will certainly help increase odds at a PhD program, more so if you take advantage of BTI resources.
BU's funding is hit or miss, some of which I think is dependent upon you being affiliated with the UMC. From what I've been told by faculty is that non-UMC shouldn't really expect anything more than 70-80% tuition and no stipend. Some get more and 70-80% is still really nice but rent also sucks! I have a friend at BU now and they said they couldn't find a studio apartment within two miles of BU less than $1500.

I'd echo sacklunch by saying that this is really subfield dependent and that having an ongoing conversation with your advisor(s) is really important.
I'll say it is generally true that religious studies departments are more friendly to people who have a PhD in a different field, but the reverse is rarely true. Philosophy and history departments are especially "title protective" in this regard--they really only hire people with PhDs in their field. It's also true though that those departments tend to care very little about religion qua religion (whatever that really means). Ironically, perhaps, these disciplines tend to simply assume they know what religion is when and if it is engaged, which is usually not an assumption made in religious studies. To me, that's the primary difference. Broadly speaking, religious studies scholars are interested in the construction of religion as a category (to varying degrees, to be sure), whereas other disciplines tend not to interrogate the concept in this way.
I have a colleague in the history department at NU who started in my cohort in religious studies and transferred after his first year to history. He also does American Religious History. He kept his advisor (Bob Orsi) but was spared having to engage the theoretical aspects of religious studies in coursework and exams. He probably sits somewhere between history and RS disciplinarily. Orsi is a good example actually of an American religious historian with a PhD in history who fits much better in a religious studies department and has spent most of his career in RS departments rather than history. Not all history PhDs could exist in a religious studies department, even if they study "religion" primarily. They'd have to be conversant with the history of the field (both RS and ARH in the context of RS) and at least familiar with some of the theoretical stakes in RS. Many of the more well-known American religious historians, as I'm sure you know, have PhDs in religious studies, not history. John Modern, Katie Lofton, Curtis Evans, John Corrigan, Jason Bivins, Sylvester Johnson (his is actually in theology), etc. All PhDs in religious studies.
So to answer your second question, it's hard to say there's a real practical advantage. Practicality and a humanities PhD don't exactly go hand in hand, which is to say that a PhD in religious studies may improve your ability to be hired in an RS department, but that's not really saying much since the job market is so bad across the board. Whether your PhD is in history, religious studies, philosophy, etc., your chances of getting a tenure track job are pretty much all equally bad. From a disciplinary/scholarship perspective, an RS department should (at least ostensibly) familiarize you with the kinds of general theoretical conversations I mention above--you're not likely to get that at all in a history department.

It really depends on the subfield. I can say that hardly any of the faculty in my subfield (broadly "ancient history") have a PhD from an "history department." Most come from religion/religious studies, classics/classical studies, or ancient (near eastern) studies. But you move even close to "medieval history" and a PhD in history seems to be common, if not the expectation. I wouldn't focus too much on subfields that are not your own. The info below your name says you're in American Religious History, which I know basically nothing about as a discipline (post this in the history subforum, too?). My advice, for what it's worth, is to a) ask your advisers these questions (but don't take their answers as fact--many of them are the exception in this rapidly changing academic world) and b) read a lot of CVs from faculty in your subfield.

As someone who is doing American Religious History PhD right now (at Princeton University) and went with an MDiv below is some advice:
Use your electives to take more church history courses and if there aren't any, try to do independent research with any church historians at PTS. Most graduates who go onto PhDs in American Religious History do an MA in Church History or bring some other historical studies emphasis in their application. A traditional MDiv would not necessarily handicap you, but you're in a bit of a disadvantage since professors are looking for applicants who can demonstrate strong historical research skills which an MDiv doesn't necessarily prepare you for. On that note, expect/plan to do a ThM/STM on top of your MDiv to strengthen/better demonstrate research skills. 
On the note about research, if you get the option to either take an exam or write a research paper in your classes, opt for the latter.
Look at the Witherspoon Institute which has summer programs for scholars. Some American Religious History folks attend and they have some fellowships that could help you with historical research.
Attend conferences like the ASCH (American Society of Church History), AHA (American Historical Society), and AAR (American Academy of Religion). Familiarize yourself with the questions scholars are asking in the field and who some of the key people you'd want to work with. Note that you can still attend without being a member, or you can be a member, read the journals, and not attend. 
Since you're at PTS, you can cross-register with classes in the Religion Department. Take advantage of this, particularly with the Religion in the Americas professors since they can help you think about your research interests. See if you can meet with folks in the History Department who are also doing something around American Religious History (like Kevin Kruse). 
While it would be good to get published, I wouldn't say it's necessary. Hope this helps!
 

Congratulations! Some pointers below, but I'll PM you last year's schedule:
1. Make sure to bring formal business attire, even though you will probably be touring campus on foot for some parts of the day.
2. You will probably be interviewing all-day. All of my interviews were held with multiple professors in the room, so do some research in advance on all of their specific research/sub-fields.
3. There's usually a dinner at the end of the day for each sub-field. This is a chance for you to get to know other graduate students and see how you might get along with the people in your subfield. Make sure to do some background on the other grad students as well and prepare some questions in advance to ask them about the program. 
Best of luck!

I think given your qualifications, you should be able to get into a program.
However, when it comes to getting into specific programs you're shooting for, I found (in my own experience) that it has less to do with credentials and more to do with "fit." This is anecdotal, but from my own experience and in speaking to another friend at a smaller PhD religion department, students are often taken in by an advisor because the proposed research interest sounded interesting to that advisor at that particular moment they were reading the application. Sometimes it depends on the mood of that POI that particular day, whether they are feeling generous towards the stack of applications to go through that day or if they read something earlier that day that shifted their interests. Or the POI might suddenly decide to teach something they've been interested in that semester and decided that in line with the course they are offering, takes on a student in that particular course, whether or not the POI is known for tackling that particular topic. On the one hand, it sounds capricious, but I share this to say that in general, qualifications can get you into programs but in specific circumstances, it's mostly out of our control.

I think given your qualifications, you should be able to get into a program.
However, when it comes to getting into specific programs you're shooting for, I found (in my own experience) that it has less to do with credentials and more to do with "fit." This is anecdotal, but from my own experience and in speaking to another friend at a smaller PhD religion department, students are often taken in by an advisor because the proposed research interest sounded interesting to that advisor at that particular moment they were reading the application. Sometimes it depends on the mood of that POI that particular day, whether they are feeling generous towards the stack of applications to go through that day or if they read something earlier that day that shifted their interests. Or the POI might suddenly decide to teach something they've been interested in that semester and decided that in line with the course they are offering, takes on a student in that particular course, whether or not the POI is known for tackling that particular topic. On the one hand, it sounds capricious, but I share this to say that in general, qualifications can get you into programs but in specific circumstances, it's mostly out of our control.

I think given your qualifications, you should be able to get into a program.
However, when it comes to getting into specific programs you're shooting for, I found (in my own experience) that it has less to do with credentials and more to do with "fit." This is anecdotal, but from my own experience and in speaking to another friend at a smaller PhD religion department, students are often taken in by an advisor because the proposed research interest sounded interesting to that advisor at that particular moment they were reading the application. Sometimes it depends on the mood of that POI that particular day, whether they are feeling generous towards the stack of applications to go through that day or if they read something earlier that day that shifted their interests. Or the POI might suddenly decide to teach something they've been interested in that semester and decided that in line with the course they are offering, takes on a student in that particular course, whether or not the POI is known for tackling that particular topic. On the one hand, it sounds capricious, but I share this to say that in general, qualifications can get you into programs but in specific circumstances, it's mostly out of our control.

Some things that have helped me/things on my wishlist to help me:
A second computer monitor (I do a lot of primary source research, so it helps me to have dual-screens, my laptop for notes and a monitor to project what I'm looking at)
Cheap bookshelves from IKEA (I already have two, and will probably need two-three more before I finish this year...)
Amazon Prime Account --> gets you books within two days. 
Noise-cancelling headphones. You'd be surprised how non-quiet libraries/study halls can be. 

Some things that have helped me/things on my wishlist to help me:
A second computer monitor (I do a lot of primary source research, so it helps me to have dual-screens, my laptop for notes and a monitor to project what I'm looking at)
Cheap bookshelves from IKEA (I already have two, and will probably need two-three more before I finish this year...)
Amazon Prime Account --> gets you books within two days. 
Noise-cancelling headphones. You'd be surprised how non-quiet libraries/study halls can be. 

I was at Fuller 2009-12, and I can safely say that virtually no one gets 50-75% aid. My "scholarship" was about $600 a quarter, which does not even cover the cost of one unit. The vast majority of people take out significant student loans to pay for Fuller, and Fuller is really expensive.
@JDD your intuition that Fuller is not as academically rigorous as other places, e.g. Yale, is right. It's even more true I think since Mark Labberton became the president, i.e. the programs are much more ministry-focused. But it's certainly possible to get into a good program from Fuller if you connect with the right professors, take PhD seminars, etc. You don't need your seminary to give you the academic training necessary to teach--that's what your PhD program is for. You need it to give you the training to get into that program, and Fuller can do that. But it's certainly the case that places like YDS, HDS, etc. can do it better. If I could do things over again, I definitely would have applied to places like YDS and HDS. I didn't because I didn't know what I was doing when I applied.

Would echo this, albeit in a different key perhaps. I see a lot of people challenging certain genealogies that have become dominant in ethics/theology (i.e. the narratives of MacIntyre, Milbank, and Charles Taylor) through studies of figures/areas left out of these narratives. For instance, theres been more work on virtue theory in the 17th and 18th centuries, challenging the sort of declension narrative the above named authors can tell. 

I'm borrowing this from the History forum, but I was wondering if current and aspiring PhD students in religious studies would be willing to share noticeable trends in the focus of studies in their respective sub-fields. I'm asking partially for my own curiosity as to what other fields are doing within religion departments. I'm also asking on behalf of Master's level students who might be interested in pursuing PhDs in religious studies and are looking for some sort of direction on what might be good to study in their respective sub-fields
In my sub-field of American Religious History, I've observed the following topics and trends:
1. Historicizing secularism by exploring different dimensions of religious doubt and religious pluralism in American historical context.
2. Challenging conceptions of religious authority at different points of american history by delving into preacher-congregation dynamics or exploring shifting scriptural authority.
3. Relationship between race, gender, sexuality, and religion continue to demand attention in american religious history.
4. Exploring non-Protestant religions in the American context is vogue, especially in studies of religion's role in cultural exchange, assimilation, and empire.
Feel free to supplement, revise, or add to each other's lists as well. And if you have any particular programs/professors/books in those fields, feel free to add them as well. 

Yes, 4 for sure is really hot right now. To add to 3 and combine a bit with 4, I'd say that the category of "whiteness" is something that is just beginning to be theorized in religious studies particularly in relation to home mission, colonialism, empire, etc.
More broadly in RS, affect is still relatively prominent and looks to remain so for the foreseeable future I think (e.g. Donovan Schaeffer's Religious Affects)
The role of "genealogy" in religious studies theory & method is also, I think, coming into question. There was a fantastic panel at the AAR last year on genealogy that was intended to ask what is in need of a genealogy but in many ways, particularly during the Q&A the whole project of genealogy in RS was called into question.
Though there is a very, very small minority of people in my subfield (phil of religion/theology in the context of "secular" religious studies), those who are have been interested in the kinds of spaces that are generated by the genealogical dismantling of the category "religion." For example, you have "critical religion" folks (Craig Martin, Russell McCutcheon, etc.) who contend that the natural sciences "fill the void" so to speak once the concept "religion" is shown to be not a real "thing" out in the world. This conclusion, of course, raises interesting problems wrt genealogy, since Nietzsche or Foucault would have never accepted such a conclusion. So people in my subfield are interested in showing how engagement with theology or any metaphysical claims in general for that matter (often referred to as "crypto-theology") doesn't entail a commitment to the discipline's problematic past (e.g. Eliade and "phenomenology of religion"). Recent examples: Kevin Schillbrack's Philosophy and the Study of Religions: A Manifesto and Thomas A. Lewis' Why Philosophy Matters for the Study of Religion--And Vice Versa. There have also been some really great editorials in this vein over the last two years in the journal Critical Research on Religion, the editors of which are advocates for a position called "critical theory of religion" which is a critique of "critical religion."

I'm borrowing this from the History forum, but I was wondering if current and aspiring PhD students in religious studies would be willing to share noticeable trends in the focus of studies in their respective sub-fields. I'm asking partially for my own curiosity as to what other fields are doing within religion departments. I'm also asking on behalf of Master's level students who might be interested in pursuing PhDs in religious studies and are looking for some sort of direction on what might be good to study in their respective sub-fields
In my sub-field of American Religious History, I've observed the following topics and trends:
1. Historicizing secularism by exploring different dimensions of religious doubt and religious pluralism in American historical context.
2. Challenging conceptions of religious authority at different points of american history by delving into preacher-congregation dynamics or exploring shifting scriptural authority.
3. Relationship between race, gender, sexuality, and religion continue to demand attention in american religious history.
4. Exploring non-Protestant religions in the American context is vogue, especially in studies of religion's role in cultural exchange, assimilation, and empire.
Feel free to supplement, revise, or add to each other's lists as well. And if you have any particular programs/professors/books in those fields, feel free to add them as well. 

As someone looking to get into this field, I would say it depends on the time period and your topic.
If you're looking for some key religious historians in this field, I would suggest looking into Baylor's History Department (Thomas Kidd and Barry Hankins) and Vanderbilt's Religion Department (James Byrd) since they are scholars whose topics tend to be closer to Hatch, Stout, Marsden, and Noll. PM me if you have any further questions as well since the American Religious History field is rapidly changing and certain departments are shifting faculty focus every year.

As someone looking to get into this field, I would say it depends on the time period and your topic.
If you're looking for some key religious historians in this field, I would suggest looking into Baylor's History Department (Thomas Kidd and Barry Hankins) and Vanderbilt's Religion Department (James Byrd) since they are scholars whose topics tend to be closer to Hatch, Stout, Marsden, and Noll. PM me if you have any further questions as well since the American Religious History field is rapidly changing and certain departments are shifting faculty focus every year.

My general rule of thumb is that if your POI reached out to you congratulating you and inviting you to check the school out/offer to speak/skype with you about the program, then it's common courtesy to send them an email thanking them for taking the time to reach out to you and to kindly reject them. From my experience, they've appreciated an update from their admitted students given that they invested time and energy into marketing their program to you. If you want a general template, I use the following. I also insert some details if I had any other contact with the professor like actually meeting them in person, if they offered me any advice, etc... to make it more personable and to show you really appreciate their investment in you.

Dear Professor _______,
Thank you so much for reaching out to me. I also want to thank you for extending an offer of admission offer to ________. However, after a long period of deliberation, I regret to inform you that I have accepted an offer of admission to another PhD program (or Master's program). In any event, I want to express my extreme gratitude for the opportunity to attend ________ and your offer to assist me through this process.   Thanks, ____________ If the no one from the school has really reached out to you, then feel free to just reject it online via their site.