sacklunch

Some great points above! BC is more 'conservative' in appearance than the reality, I think. At least in biblical studies, there is very little theology happening inside BC Dept. of Theology. The STM, naturally, is a bit different. Still, I didn't encounter much theology while I was there. I'm not a Christian and having studied in the Jesuit education system beforehand, I was well aware that my faith tradition (or lack thereof) would have little impact on my fitting in the STM. My experience at other Protestant Div settings was much different; at the very least being a non-Christian appeared to have more drastic consequences in biblical studies. Mileage varies, of course, and having no experience with BU, I cannot comment on how 'liberal' its setting is. If, for example, you are interested in studying Christian Ethics but you are not a Christian, BC, I would imagine, would be more difficult to get along in. Speaking of food, BC has a big free lunch thing every week in the STM!

Look at the requirements of each program. They vary a lot from school to school. The upside is you can take classes at any of the Boston schools through the BTI. I was once upon a time at BC and I very much enjoyed my time there. You can take as many classes as you want through BC Dept. of Theology (which is much more academically focused) as part of the degree. So in effect you can almost never set foot in the STM and still get the degree from them. I'm not sure if this has changed, but 5 years or so ago their MTS had a hell of a lot of flexibility (also, up to 50% of your classes could be from BTI courses). It's also important to consider the sort of students you will be working alongside. The interesting thing about places like BC, when compared to their 'Protestant' counterparts, is there are a lot more students pursuing the MTS rather than the MDiv. It's not to say that women cannot get an MDiv from BC, but being the way the Catholic Church is, more students are enrolled in the MTS than the MDiv (when compared to places like Duke or Candler the opposite is true). This changes the classroom dynamic substantially. The kinds of interests, from my experience, tended to be more 'academic'. This is particularly true in biblical studies courses, where, even if the students have theological interests, there simply is not much at stake for them. Many liberal Catholics could care less about the veracity of the NT authors, the canon, and so on. It's old hat for many of them. The result is that biblical studies courses end up being very historical-critical (a plus or a minus depending on your interests) and smaller (a perk!).

I would seriously consider the flexibility of their programs. Duke's MTS is known for being fairly strict in its requirements, while Yale's MARc is known for the opposite. If you are forced to spend 3/4 of your degree fulfilling bloated requirements, you may be at a significant disadvantage when applying for doctoral programs.

PM'ing you.

Yes. I am in a highly selective program PhD program currently (top 5). I'd prefer to not give details publicly; message me if you'd like.

I was in a similar situation and ended up switching a course to Pass/Fail. It was a doctoral seminar during my first M* and I was worried I would get a B (I'm fairly certain I would have, too). In the end I'm glad I took it P/F because it allowed me to not worry myself with how I would be graded and instead could just focus on getting what I needed out of the class. It was not a 'language course' but a doctoral level course that required a lot of reading in ancient primary languages (classics stuff).

I'm not sure how to break this to you....but, given your stated views, you will prolly get along with the majority of divinity students you encounter. HDS may be the exception, but honestly I doubt it. If you didn't think Jesus was/is God, then I would say you are going to run into resistance. At those 'liberal' state schools I think you will find that most people simply do not care. To many of us in RS questions of Jesus' divinity/Biblical authority are no different than Dionysus' divinity/Euripides' authority. You will likely view the latter with the same indifference as we view questions surrounding Jesus. So, in fact, you might have more in common with the RS people than you think!

Perhaps they are not. Though I have heard this kind of thing from divinity students from Emory, BC, HDS, YDS, and with the greatest frequency DDS. My interactions with these divinity students was as an 'outsider' from RS. Perhaps they are more sensitive to these issues (as I am) when confronted with someone from the other side. I don't know a ton about VDS (beyond a visit before my first M*). I do have a hard time believing you are surrounded by atheists and agnostics, at least in Vandy's Divinity School. As someone who studies ancient history I cannot adequately (or at all) comment on what theology is and isn't. The original post was about American religious history, so I see your point about theology (historically) being an 'idea' when removed from from its faith context. However I wonder if the faith context of such periods (exuding movements and events occurring now) can be recovered at all without attention to "the history of ideas." This is your point, I think; so we mostly agree. *edit* thinking back...I think the student comments I have heard about insiders understanding their subject material was mostly from students. I can't speak of academics. Though Stanley Hauerwas comes to mind.

Some good points by marXian. Josh J's comments are what I have often heard from my brief time in/around divinity students (the big ones in the US). It seems as if theological institutions are telling their students that in order to better (truly?) understand a religious tradition you must be an insider or at least have some intimate knowledge of it. The reasons for this view, I think, are reactionary against the big bad wolf-secular academia-raising its eyebrows at the methodologies used at divinity schools (they do play by a different set of academic 'rules'). In justifying the research done at divinity schools (we might ask, for instance, if they really belong in modern public research universities) outsiders--in most instances non-Christians--are seen with the same suspicion that we find in secular academic views of theological research! In effect the divinity schools (and the 'secular schools' too) reinforce the value of their methods by excoriating the 'non-orthodox'. In short, the fact that we play by a different set of academic rules strips our ability to speak with one another. For better or worse this is why 'secular' academics and departments will view your divinity background as highly suspicious.

Nothing specific to Harvard. It's just insanely hard to find a job for someone in that field (e.g. Assyriologists)

What I have always heard is the NELC PhD will take a lot longer. That and you may not be getting a job anytime soon with the NELC PhD.

You are mostly right. It's not that 'we' think that div training cannot and does not prepare students academically. Div schools certainly do. 'We' (I in this case) am simply saying that given that 1) most div programs require their MTS/MAR to take courses not at all related to their academic interests (it is meant as a sort of generalist degree at many schools) and that 2) div schools, (many) quite explicitly, are serving two masters, namely, academia and 'orthodoxy', your time may be better spent in a RS M*. To be clear I am not saying that these are opposed or even unrelated (to some). But RS programs may view them this way. And thus in serving two masters, according to RS and related fields, you miss spending time with the more 'masterful' of the two--academia. Also to your point about the majority of RS scholars having their degrees M* degrees from div schools. Meh. It depends on the subfield. If they are in some subfield dealing with ancient-things, then yeah you may be right. For reference: http://indiana.edu/~relstud/people/faculty Out of the full-time faculty I see two that have M* degrees from divinity schools--out of 22 faculty. The rest either do not list it or have never been in one. No time to check beyond this.

American religious history is still a fairly broad field. This could mean, inter alia, that you are interested in tracing the theological development of 20th century American Catholicism or something more ethnographic such as examining quantitative data and drawing larger sociological (and other) implications. Each of these approaches have schools associated with them, ranging widely across institutions throughout the world. Some departments may think it advantageous that you studied in a theological context (however 'orthodox'), while others will simply LOL, thinking you a biased fool with an immovable agenda or, at the very least, a point of view that will bleed into your 'objective' research. This is, of course, a ridiculous binary I have described; but it exists. Admission committees do not have the time nor the care to wonder about your nuanced theological affiliation and however it may or may not feed into your proposed studies. For what it's worth, I have two close friends doing their PhD in sociology, both doing research relevant to RS (American Religion). They and others I know less have affirmed what I am saying here. To draw a similarity, It would be as if you came out of a graduate school training Marxists. Cry all you want: 'I am not a Marxist!' No matter if you were at one point or remain. Once they read 'graduated from divinity school X' you may be done for. In any case, if you maintain a theological allegiance you might not want to study in such a setting anyways.

I would say this lines up very well with what I consider to be the top programs in RS. Divinity programs, on the other hand, are a different animal. If the original poster is interested in more 'academic' concerns (assuming based on signature) then I would advise her/him to steer clear of Div programs in favor of RS ones. Many MTS programs, for example, have so much 'fluff' (requirements) that you will be limited in your coursework. In addition, you will more than likely be thrown in classrooms with dozens if not hundreds of other students. Necessities like languages will be more difficult to acquire (because of the bloat of many programs), and so on. There are exceptions (HDS). Though I would say given the choice between Florida State and Vandy's MTS, you might get more individual attention at FSU and be allowed to tailor the program to your needs (esp. for doctoral programs). I guess I'm trying to say beware of 'divinity rankings'. They are often theologically motivated (as the above link demonstrates...therein one criterion for rank is a divinity school's 'orthodoxy').

Here's an example: http://chronicle.com/article/Average-Faculty-Salaries-by/126586/ It lists starting (tenure-track) new assistant professor at $52,270 a yr. (I have not checked their data). NPR says 76% of higher ed teaching is done by part-time instructors: http://www.npr.org/2014/02/03/268427156/part-time-professors-demand-higher-pay-will-colleges-listen Their numbers (and methods for the study) come from: http://www.aaup.org/report/heres-news-annual-report-economic-status-profession-2012-13 Another recent interesting read from NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/02/27/388443923/a-glut-of-ph-d-s-means-long-odds-of-getting-jobs?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150227 If you can land a tenure-track job, then, sure, you may be making okay money. Depending on how much school debt you have your quality of life may vary drastically. For the majority, however, things are looking pretty bleak (76%!!). I'm in a PhD program now in the field (top 5 program) and I can say that graduates out of our program are having a hard time finding full time work. A lot of people are doing rounds of post-doc positions until they can find something (2-4 yrs). And that 'something' at the end of the tunnel is more than likely a teaching gig at a small liberal arts school in North Dakota.

People tend to be dismissive of RS and related fields (e.g. Classics) not because they think our subject matter is 'stupid' or a 'waste of time'--quite the opposite, I think, as almost anyone you happen to run into thinks anything related to religion is very interesting--but because our job prospects are so limited. Not only do 'they' think we are limited in finding work (we are), but our prospective pay is very very low when you consider the total time put into our studies. 'We don't do it for money,' we respond. And that's true, we don't. But our position generally comes from a point of privilege not available for many people (or at least not imaginable). It makes people uncomfortable.

Shouldn't be a problem. I did this before my first M*. Just contact the school and ask them.

Syracuse's MA is one of the 'elite' programs in that it 1) has (full) funding and 2) is relatively small, offering its students the advantage of more attention by faculty. I would compare it to something like ND's MTS, and is thus much more competitive than say (MTS/MAR) programs like HDS, YDS (MARg), and so on.

As you said there is no way to really know the quality of the apps overall. Your background seems strong and I imagine it will set you apart from many of the applicants. To my mind, the biggest 'strike' against you will be your age, since I'm assuming you are well into your 30's+ if you have 12 years of work experience. It's not to say this experience isn't useful for your proposed study, in so far as you want to study 'theology'. Though, again, some may conclude that this will make you less open (academically and personally). Your prospective adviser (at a TT school) will likely expect you to produce some good scholarship when you finish and that prospective questioned if the student is older.

I don't think you're trolling. I think I understand what you mean (as much as anyone can on the internet...). Again, how we understand these terms may be leading us to just speak past one another: spirituality (like naturalism) is used widely. It is not uncommon for people to say "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." This may in fact tell you nothing of their belief in god(s). What does it mean, then? In popular discourse it may simply be a way to express that you 'feel something' beyond yourself, something that cannot be reduced/explained by empirical methods. I sympathize with your statement about certain worldviews being relative and thus you do raise a legitimate question. It's something that (secular) philosophers will have to work out for the rest of us, I guess. At the barest level, many humanists are taking that same 'leap of faith' that the theists are. Humanists/we have no absolute rule book; not even empiricism offers us this. We must live in a sort of fiction to escape our relativist positions in order to assert that anything is 'good' or 'bad'. So, yes, I think you are in a way right. We all must face the outcomes of our worldviews and attempt to overcome them (or abandon our initial position). Theists have the problem of suffering; we have the problem of proving why suffering is bad at all.

I'll bite. If we assume (as you have) that the purpose of being trained for one's 'nonreligious practice' is decidedly not 'spiritual'--and as you suggest, 'naturalistic'--then, yeah, it all seems a bit bizarre. This is, in my opinion, a false dichotomy, though one many people buy into, secular folks included. I imagine if you were in a class/setting somewhere like HDS that offers humanist training that, unless such a person happened to be commenting upon a specific theological issue marking them as an 'outsider', you would be none the wiser as to their (a)theological persuasions. This is not the forum to discuss the 'real' meaning of these terms, but in brief I will just say that we might distinguish 'humanism' from 'naturalism.' Many secular people simply use the term humanist to denote their care for humans, the world, and living creatures; but the term has also served to distance its representatives from (seemingly) negative labels that suggest unethical traits such as 'atheism'. Because naturalism is often conflated with a more 'militant' form of atheism (some might think this is the only form of atheism), it has also begun to carry similar associations. My point is that humanists share more (much more, in fact) in common with the other training MDiv students than not. Groups use words in different ways, ones that are deeply tied to the majority group in this country (Christians). That such programs have gained steam alongside of more traditional MDiv programs attests more to our similarities, not our differences, as humans. We are all humanists, I think. We all (?) feel that deep need to improve our communities and the same training offered to more traditional pastors is integral to the health and sustainability of these fragile communities.

You will be a minority almost anywhere you go, I think, including HDS. I, too, identify in similar terms, and for that my time spent at several ('divinity') schools in Boston was well spent, if not somewhat awkward. I've been to Vandy (visiting students), but don't have a ton of experience with the school. As far as 'div' schools go, I imagine HDS and Chicago will be the best places for you. It also depends on what you want out of such a program. If the degree is to prepare you for some sort of counseling/pastoral work then I imagine even a somewhat awkward/combative environment may improve your capacity to work with your prospective clientele and around/with the majority (Christians). But, if you are interested in progressing your 'secular' research/scholarship (many many people apply to MDiv programs simply because a. they offer more funding and b. they offer more time to prepare for doctoral work), I don't think schools like Vandy, Duke, and so on, are the best places to study. From my experience, you will spend too much time inside and outside of class justifying yourself and less time studying. Again, if such interactions would improve your abilities in a hopeful area of work/research, disregard my comments. To be quite honest, many of the well-known div schools are working with a different set of methodological assumptions, ones that appear quite foreign--and even antagonistic--to many graduate students working in related fields such as history. /rant

I remember being worried about this, too. I have a B+ on one of my transcripts (from my first M*). In the end I don't think it hurt me much. If your application is overall good, I doubt it will raise any suspicion of your (in)ability in a 'top' program. This differs from committee to committee, but I think individual grades are less important, at least in the process of reviewing your application. I have heard faculty are unlikely (given the number of applicants) to look at each of the courses you have taken and/or their grades. Your GPA, on the other hand, is likely to be seen at the outset. A B will certainly lower your GPA, but I don't know how damaging, as your grades overall and the scale used influence one's GPA accordingly (e.g. some use 3.67 as an A-, while some use 3.7, and so on). Another point to consider is if you want that person to write you a letter of rec. If so, well, you might not want to ask them.

Yes. They 'interview' one per subfield. The 'interview' is non-competitive and on campus, mostly to woe you into coming. It's basically an informal acceptance.

As is well know, ThM programs are (almost?) entirely unfunded, excluding some scholarships for international students. If you have good funding at your current school then you may be better off finishing out there. There are a lot of opinions on the forum about going from a 'conservative theological school' to a 'top program.' In short: if you are applying to biblical studies/text focused programs (I assume this applies to you because such 'conservative' schools often focus on biblical studies and less so on subfields such as philosophy, systematics, and so on), you still stand a decent shot. On the other hand, for all the success stories you will hear on the forum ("I know someone at X who went to X conservative seminary!"), the majority of students at 'top' programs went to more mainline schools (the usual suspects: HDS, YDS, DDS, CDS, PTS, etc.). My thought is you might be better off to apply to an MTS/MAR/MA program at a recognizable school that is longer than one year. I say this because 1) you will get some sort of funding and 2) you will have more time to get to know your professors at the new school. You can apply the December of your first semester and see what happens. If it doesn't work out you still have another year to take classes/get to know profs and then you can apply again. Admission committees, I don't think, will see this as a bad thing. They understand that ThM programs are unfunded. For what it's worth I have a friend who followed this path (MDiv to MTS to PhD) and it secured him/her a spot in a good program.