Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


sacklunch last won the day on August 29

sacklunch had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About sacklunch

  • Rank
    Cup o' Joe

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Isle of the Blessed
  • Application Season
    Already Attending

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Your background should make you highly competitive, but honestly I don't know how much it will matter. The academic field of religion is (some say hopelessly) conservative and does not generally value skillsets in the sciences. I know there are exceptions. Perhaps someone else can chime in? In my opinion, I don't think you're going to be very competitive at R1 programs with that MDiv. Heck, even if you were enrolled at an R1 MDiv I don't know how competitive you would be for the simple reason that you have little coursework in the NT/EC. MDiv degrees require too much irrelevant coursework, lea
  2. So long as you're okay with not landing any job in academia I support your decision fully! It's great that you have pastoral interests (if only I believed in god/s), since such training will not be entirely for naught, should my prognostication come true! As for those schools' reputation, I have never even heard of Beeson, so that may mean something; I had to google TEDS, but I am vaguely familiar with Trinity; I have heard of GC over the years and have met numerous people who did an M* there who later did doctoral programs at R1s (I can think of one now with a Harvard ThD). As you may have he
  3. Given those two options, Fuller easily wins, at least in my opinion (secular person with a PhD from Duke Religion), though it doesn't really have a strong reputation. Fuller is one of those schools that people from R1 departments recognize as acceptable, but not great. On the other hand, you may not care much about getting into an R1 doctoral program, in which case Fuller is probably good if not excellent. Having a PhD from one of the 'excellent' schools, I can say that it doesn't seem to matter much if your plan is academia. You already know the job market is horrid, but it's worth repeating:
  4. Reported. Please take your spam elsewhere <3.
  5. I would avoid theology right now like the plague. Perhaps if you have interest in doing some kind of clergy/pastoral work. But if you don't, run away. I can't speak to psychology as an academic discipline (or non-ac career options in that field), but theology, as well as religious studies, is a dying discipline. There are no academic jobs and programs are each year pumping out graduates who are applying for the same jobs. Don't believe me? Look around at the job postings. If you have interest in mixing the two and want some kind of prep, do not do an MTS, unless it's free or mostly free; you'r
  6. You're completing an undergrad degree at an R1 in psychology? And then getting a PhD from an evangelical school? Reconsider your plans, please. I would even encourage you to stay at your R1 school and add another major, should this all not work out. There are practically no jobs in academia, unless you are okay with working as an adjunct (making less than 30k without benefits) after 10 years more of schooling. Even if you get a job, you will certainly pigeonhole yourself given the path you propose. I suppose with PTS you're better off than the evangelical schools, but PTS is still a seminary a
  7. I assume you're worried about this for PhD applications? That is really the only reason I would worry. Once you're in a program and after there is no need to go into detail about coursework/proficiency. The commonly accepted method is to just list the languages, often with something like "reading" or "native" following: e.g. German (reading), French (native), Syriac (reading), Arabic (elementary reading), etc. Your transcripts/application should sort out the specifics, again if we are talking about doctoral apps. If you're applying to a language-heavy program I have seen folks list years/exper
  8. Count classics out. As far as I know, there are zero classics doctoral programs in the USA that are (mostly) online. That and nearly all classics doctoral programs in this country do not study HB, ANE, etc. They will look at your applicant, scratch their head, and move on. There are some exceptions of course (e.g. Wisconsin Madison, University of British Columbia), but none of these interdisciplinary programs are online.
  9. T5 M* programs are not difficult to get into, at least when compared with most other M* programs at those schools in other fields. In other words, you will have an easier time getting into Harvard Divinity M* than you would, say, getting into a Classics M* at University of Arizona. It's a bit odd, but there it is. Regarding going straight into a PhD, you might be able to swing it. Some good programs take fresh-from-UG students (e.g. UNC-CH comes to mind), but most do not. The good part is that you will probably get a full ride to nearly any M* you apply to, well, because you're a rare app
  10. You need to focus on the masters at this point. The rest will come. You will learn, I think, that there is no "unbiased" education in the humanities. As for finding a doctoral program that isn't liberal. They exist, but they are not well regarded outside of theological circles. If you want to be a professor at a (semi-)conservative Christian school, those doctoral programs would set you up well enough. I don't know the job market in that sector at all, but my guess is it's about as bad as the rest of the humanities (maybe slightly better, given the large numbers of seminary students in the USA
  11. If it helps I think the reason it is so good in my situation is I am using Microsoft's OneDrive (premium subscription, which my Uni pays for). My guess is that the OneDrive app would work just as well at syncing between Windows 10 and an android tablet. I also imagine that these days most free cloud services would work just as well (e.g. Google Drive).
  12. Good points here. I have no personal experience with the question, but I would add that redoing all coursework is not such a bad thing, assuming you have funding to do so. Most of us are not getting jobs these days period, regardless of whether you went to an R1, so sticking around to study and getting paid for it isn't a bad thing. In fact it's a good thing, in my opinion. I'm at the tail end of my PhD and I would love for the chance to do another PhD (funded obviously).
  13. Yes, well, the problem here is transferability, especially for those of us who work with societies and languages long dead.
  14. Sounds reasonable enough. I suppose my main problem with the current system is it trains students for jobs that are increasingly disappearing. But the alternative, that is revamping these programs for "alt-ac" careers is going to be difficult if not impossible in my view. In this alt-ac revamp, we cannot be scholars in the traditional sense nor can we primarily be teachers, at least at the college level, because again those jobs are disappearing. So what are we left doing? How can our advisers/mentors train us to do these alt-ac jobs when they have no experience/training outside of academia? H
  15. I may be misunderstanding you, so feel free to correct me if you think I am. But I am speaking specifically about doctoral students, not faculty, in RS (and other fields in the humanities). Basically all doctoral students at R1 schools in our field are "leeching" off of more profitable enterprises within the university. Yes, PhD students help some with TAing, but at least at R1s this is a very small part of what is expected of you. To your point, there are of course ways to measure the performance of doctoral students in RS--exams, e.g.--but most of what we produce/do is not actually profitabl
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.