sacklunch

You raise an important point I hadn't mentioned. Yes, you're right that many faculty in the US at Christian/evangelical schools have British PhDs (or European). The reason, as xypathos already alluded to above, is that since those PhDs are dissertations only they allow students to ignore much "critical" scholarship and maintain their traditional beliefs without (much) challenge. From the perspective of (many) conservative Christians (a term I hesitate to use), this "fast-track" PhD is ideal because it allows the student to ignore those "polluting" perspectives of secular academics, while giving them the air of learning. This is pure nonsense from my perspective (worthless to many of course). The point is that these fast-track degrees only open doors at those Christian/evangelical schools. At basically any other school your application will be swiftly throw in the trash.

I'll be blunt: I don't see how it's possible to not "engage with critical scholarship at all." What exactly are you going to write about, then? Or perhaps we have different understandings of "critical"? Are you a US citizen? If so, you're going to have trouble finding any academic job in this country with a short PhD. A three-year PhD in this country is perceived as little more than a masters. And yes, as an Asian female you will fair better than most applicants. That said, current stats show that less than 10% of humanities PhD in the US now will secure any tenure-track job. I imagine that minority applicants have better luck, but probably not more than say 20%? FWIW, I'm a postdoc at a top program in the USA and I know several minority applicants in similar roles as mine who had zero luck this last application cycle (no interviews even). No matter what path you choose, chances are you will not get a tenure-track job. That is the cold hard truth. Since you seem to be active in your religious community, you can always fall back on that. But as you know you don't need a PhD for such jobs.

If you're from the USA and plan to say here don't even waste your time with the Austrian program. Seriously, you will have a heck of a time getting a job (ANY job). It's hard enough for Oxford/Cambridge grads to get a job in the USA. There are good reasons (ask if you don't know them). UChicago is one of the best. Mostly ignore the UChicago lore about time and difficulty (largely depends on subfield). The reality is that you will probably not get a good academic job after you graduate, regardless of whether you go to UChicago or any of the other big names. Note I said good job. You might be able to sneak into a decent teaching job (teaching 3 or 4 courses per term), but most of the big names are not structured to prepare you for the few jobs that actually exist. Whatever you decide, make sure you devote a healthy amount of time/courses to acquiring skills outside of academia that will get you a job (stats, programming, etc.). The traditional path will not get a you a (good) job outside of academia and the faculty at these schools won't be thinking much about the realty facing 90% of graduates. Plan accordingly.

To be completely honest, I think there will be fewer applicants because folks seem to have realized that a doctorate in religion/theology does not, nowadays, secure any good job (I have a PhD from a top program in the field FWIW). Job prospects have always been bad, of course, in fields like ours, but the opportunities currently are horrid. I would say you have no better than a 10% of getting a tenure track. And that's if you're willing to move anywhere. Faculty are still training 95% (or more?) of doctoral students for those 10% (or less) jobs. There is empty talk of preparing students for alt-ac careers. I can't blame the faculty entirely; they simply do not know how to help you (us) for the current job market. I've said it on here before, but I would encourage any of you, if you have any doubt and ESPECIALLY if you're taking on debt, to explore other career options. I know lots of people with PhDs from top programs who are making (far) less than what their stipend paid. Good luck friends.

I've heard this as well from faculty. Though I actually think there will be a lot fewer applicants. So perhaps things will equal out.

Agreed. Though considering how rare permanent jobs are these days, I'm not sure it matters.

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, leaving you with at most 1.5 years of relevant coursework (in NT/EC I mean). Languages will of course be your biggest hurdle for R1 programs in these subfields. Your competition is going to have BAs in Religion, Classics, et sim. + M* degrees (some more than one) from R1s. While in theory your background in engineering is super rare in NT/EC, there really isn't much benefit, from the standpoint of 99% scholars in these subfields, of having an engineering degree -- besides some vague/cliché notion that you will be a very 'logical thinker'. The problem, really, is that none of the faculty in these fields have science backgrounds; most were trained in the glory days when there was no talk of interdisciplinarity. Many of course talk about promoting diversity etc. and to a large extent they are doing just that, but it's the kind of diversity that rarely extends to disciplines like engineering. I might suggest looking at more interdisciplinary doctoral programs at R1s. Perhaps you have some interest in applying your background to the study of (later) antiquity? Such perspectives are indeed needed and valued (even if not to depts. of religion).

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 heard, schools like GC are known for pushing languages hard on their students and thus R1 departments (esp. faculty in biblical studies) like them. On the other hand, as I have also learned from first hand experience, language courses at Protestant seminaries seem to underprepare students learning languages when compared to students who took the same courses at secular or Catholic seminaries. The reason, I think, is pretty simple: at the Protestant schools, there is usually a decent theological component to every course, including languages, while that component is either missing (secular schools) or minimal (Catholic) in non-Prot. language classes. In practice that means spending less time memorizing/studying verbs, syntax, etc. Not only that but secular programs almost always have better trained students in Greek and Latin, since the focus is not so hilariously narrow (i.e. studying NT Greek). So I suppose if you get a chance/have the option, always take the non-seminary language course. Learning those languages and learning them well will be the biggest challenge of getting into an R1 (note I am speaking about NT and related fields and that I am speaking as an ancient historian). Happy evening!

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: the job market is horrid. Even if you graduate from an R1, let alone an R2-3, you are not likely to get a full-time, tenure-track job, PERIOD. I would normally dissuade you from this path outright, but since money is not an issue I say why the heck not. Just know that you probably won't have the option of staying in academia, at least in the traditional sense. You're also interested in the most overpopulated fields. I know at least a dozen PhD holders from R1s in those fields without jobs and I know many more who are limping by in adjunct hell. And I know some who finally, after a few years limping by, threw in the towel and changed careers entirely. I would encourage you to explore other interests or if possible study religion/theology in the context of something that will actually get you a job nowadays (blended with programming, e.g.). I remember being at your stage about 15 years ago. I remember the feeling, the excitement, the romanticism; it's intoxicating. I miss that. In some ways this field, the academic study of religion, is exactly how I imagined it; but mostly it's quite different. Coursework is selfish, the ins and outs, the day to day of academia is selfless, but oddly to succeed also usually means sabotaging your personal life. Good luck, friend!

Reported. Please take your spam elsewhere <3.

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're better off doing a) a religious studies MA (e.g. Duke) or b) a more general liberal arts MA/AM that will allow you to take whatever classes you want (e.g. Chicago). Unfortunately such programs are rarely well-funded.

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 and thus carries little if any weight if you leave academia (once they learn it has no formal relationship with Princeton U, employers outside of theological circles will lump you in with any other random no-name seminary PhD).

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/experience (I think I did this? It's been too long): e.g. Syriac (5 years), Greek (8 years), etc. Listing specific courses is generally a bad idea since your transcripts will do that work (and you don't want to discourage folks from reading your CV/application).

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.

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 applicant. Most of the masters and doctoral students at T5 schools didn't go to a top school. Why? Because majors at top schools have been leaning STEM+ more and more over the past few decades. This will work in your favor throughout academia, should you go that path. Having that T5 UG on your CV will help get you one of the 5 tenure-track jobs available per year in this country!

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). In short, the kinds of jobs you want may well not exist when you're finishing up--assuming you even get into a funded doctoral program.

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).

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).

Yes, well, the problem here is transferability, especially for those of us who work with societies and languages long dead.

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? How can disciplines that focus on, say, bronze age history revamp themselves to be competitive in the non-ac market?

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 profitable to anyone outside of the student herself/himself. In other words, I don't think doctoral students in R1 humanities departments can exist in this private-sector model you speak of.

In my opinion, this is the time to overhaul PhD programs in the field. Even before the pandemic few of us were getting tenure-track jobs. Nowadays--and I suspect this won't change much in the next five years, if ever completely revert to pre-pandemic times--basically no one is getting a job. telkanuru is right on both accounts. Top programs are not dealing with reality, at least the reality facing nearly all PhD grads, no matter program ranking. These programs exist in institutions with excess. And I can't really blame those departments. If I was faculty at UVA I would be happy to continue on the way things have been for decades, regardless of whether tenure-track jobs have trickled to nearly zero. I would also be happy, as all R1 departments are right now, to train my doctoral students for jobs that don't exist and to continue enforcing the idea that a PhD in religion/et sim. is only meant--only really matters--if it prepares you for those jobs that no longer exist.

I also have a few "master" notes/bibliography documents: e.g. I have a master secondary sources bibliography for my dissertation (word document) and also use Endnote online, which is split up into different research groups. I other documents for ancient sources: e.g. what editions I follow, citation methods (for authors like Galen this is essential), etc. Other documents record phenomena of potential interest down the road (I work in papyrology, so e.g. I have a document recording sigla of interest in papyri I encounter). I must say in response to jujubea that I am not envious of all that physical paper-collecting! I tried something similar for a few years and ended up with more than was feasible to manage. Not only that, but I made more mistakes--juggling multiple books side by side, attempting to keep them flat with multiple weights(!). I much prefer scanning everything, reading and annotating on my ipad with ipencil (which automatically saves and takes the place of the pdf on my computer) and then doing my juggling electronically. I have 4 monitors, so that helps as well, but I find myself making less mistakes and checking references far faster. Plus, you can OCR documents/books after scanned and then search text for keywords, which is a great benefit for those many books without (good) indices. cheers

I wish I could help, but it's not my field. You are going to have trouble finding good answers on this forum; most folks are interested in Christianity, unfortunately.

Yes, they increase your chances. But much of that depends on your subfield. If you work in the premodern world, a good amount of language training is simply required.