sacklunch

I embrace it. The absolute shithole economy has made me a bit more optimistic about the whole prospect, to be honest. If at the end of this long process, I end up working the drive through at Taco Bell (overqualified for management, to be sure), it's still worth it. Learning of all enterprises is alone immortal and divine. - Plutarch

Largely depends on what programs. UChicago (AM, I assume) is the hardest one you applied for, though still not insane (compared to many MA's with much smaller departments). I believe there is still time to apply to more, if you feel the need. As far as not going into debt, I don't think Chicago is known for giving a lot of full rides (esp. for the AM), and Vandy as well (for the MTS; though you might have applied to something like the MA in Jewish Studies?). Just for kicks you could always apply to some of the longer M* programs at Oxford or Cambridge (e.g. MPhil), or even something cheaper (but still great: e.g. Leuven). The Fed. will fund these programs just like any other American school and in many instances it is still quite a bit cheaper even with living costs (I think Leuven is something like 800 US a year for tuition). The European schools generally have much later application dates, so that is always an option (even as late as early summer, I think). Depending on your field, other options are also available (e.g. Hebrew U).

No. You have already submitted the application. I don't think it will *hurt* you, but I can't imagine it helping you either. At this point, let that shit ride.

.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdIpoE2LEps

*insert levity*

phdapp, I assume you are thinking that the 'liberal' schools are so 'liberal' that they are less academically rigorous by giving out first place awards to all their students. We are all so PC that's what we gotta do!! Haha. I wish this was true, but it is far from it. I can almost guarantee a bible related course at HDS will be more difficult than at GC. Hell, I took two classes at GC while I was at BC and they were, quite honestly, too easy. I would never say that the school overall is 'easier' than the others in the BTI (if so, we might class BC behind HDS?!), but that such (as you say) broad strokes are misleading, esp. when considering particular subfields (e.g. an ethics course at BC will be likely more difficult than one at GC, because it's what 'they do').

Your comment merely demonstrates that you have not studied a foreign language in any depth. If you had, you would have encountered innumerable instances where the original offers a different nuance than the translation. Translation, especially with older works, is riddled with presumptions that are entirely dependent on one's 'recreating' of the original context of the work. In almost all cases this is not possible. This is even more problematic with older methods of translation, viz. diachronic vs synchronic methods, and leads to defining/understanding words based on simplistic models such as etymology, and so on. cheers

^This is one of many issues when one reads classical Greek in translation. Greek, more so than German, is inflected and thus is much more pointed in its syntactical distinctions: every clause hangs on another. This creates certain advantages, of course, in its precision, while in other non-inflected languages (e.g. Hebrew), meanings become less 'clear', though on the other hand, this allows (in some instances) for a richer, more broad interpretation. Again, in translation, all of this is lost. I don't care how good one's translation is, when doing graduate research one needs to be able to read their primary sources with a fair level of speed, while of course maintaining the ability to 'hold it all together' (esp. in the case of classical Greek; a problem that I will continually struggle, btw!).

These kinds of things vary so much from department to department. Some departments it's more or less, as you said, one professor may get to select someone in his/her subfield. Other schools it's up to the entire department and may end up being "who do we all hate the least?" Still other instances arise when Prof. X (heh) got a student last year, so Prof. Y gets a student this year (or other political issues that are unknown to applicants). There are simply too many variables and as you have no doubt heard, too many different stories from accepted students to generalize. But, in short, a 'pre-arranged adviser' is nonsense. There are plenty of doctoral students who had no formal contact with their prospective adviser(s) or their department. What is done is done, mate. Sit back and enjoy the ride/nightmare with the rest of us poor bastards.

Cry, drink, sleep, gain some weight. Repeat. I'll prolly try to find a god to start believing in, too.

Someone posted a UNC-CH acceptance (Religious Studies).

Makes sense. Though we might be just as well served adding Classics and History to the mix, eh?

Fixed?

If it's a top-ranked (esp.) private school, they almost always do (e.g. ND, Princeton, WashU, etc.).

I mean this in the most sincere way: the admins need to split 'religion' into two sections, (perhaps) 'divinity/seminary' and 'religious studies.'

The overwhelming majority of Duke MDiv's that I know are planning on ordination or working with a church. While some MDiv's prepare their students more for academic work, I don't think it's as easy at Duke, perhaps because of their very strict requirements for the MDiv. Hell, even their MTS is insanely structured, which may be a good thing depending on one's goals. I wouldn't apply to any of the big names discussed above. If you are indeed conservative, you likely would have a terrible time at any such schools, and if you didn't, I think you would come out of such an MDiv having a wildly different take on the above list. If you can visit any of the above schools that would be the best way to know. Or next best, have a detailed conversation with a current MDiv student or a recent graduate.

I'm afraid shame isn't enough. Look at the students at top PhD programs in EC or reception history. Many of them majored in classics and still more of them have 4 (some 5) years of masters work (many MDiv + ThM/STM). I'm not saying you can't get into a good program without a heavy amount of ancient/modern languages. I'm just saying it's difficult to do so. These things depend greatly from school to school. When I was studying at BC, for example, I did not know one single PhD student in a bible-oriented field that didn't have two masters. There is simply too much competition unless you went to a top 20 for undergrad and still you will find most of the folks that went to an ivy for college ended up doing a masters before beginning their doctoral work! I am merely reporting my own experience, studying at schools with dozens of doctoral students who all, more or less, followed this path. Also, I don't think any program requires a language simply because it is 'fancy.' Even if one were studying Hume I suspect having requirements mandating German and French (at the very least) would be essential, and I might argue that having reading comp. in an ancient language is equally so. Again, it isn't simply about accessing Hume's work, but about understanding the broader philosophical world from which he drew, and that, in many cases, requires competency in the classics. BTW, yes, it is HUGE. For one to feel comfortable reading any language, ancient or modern, requires years of study. There is simply no way one can read through a German article comfortably and with any measure of speed having completed only one semester of a German reading course. On the other hand, I may be slower at learning languages than others (I mean that earnestly)!

I ride Hebrew Bible and early reception/transmission history - a subfield of ancient history that, perhaps, has the most heavy language requirements - and it is indeed rigorous. This is exactly why I am working on my second masters right now (4 years of coursework before starting a PhD, NOT in any way theological). As for our requirements not being a 'HUGE' deal....go ahead and try it out and see how easy it is! But all bullshit aside, yes, on the one hand some of the languages are 'easier' to master because we are 'only' reading them (the great majority, in fact), but on the other hand we cannot simply show up to a language school or immersion program and learn them quickly. You can expect to study them (i.e. sitting down and reading, ad nauseam) for 3-4 years before you can claim anywhere near 'advanced' status. You figure in my subfield, for example, doing 3-4 years (min.) of Greek (classical, koine, patristic), Hebrew (biblical, rabbinic), Aramaic/Syriac, Latin (classical, patristic) as the 'expected' for ancient languages (and usually in my field you might pick up something like Coptic or for me, classical Armenian), plus the mandatory requirement of German and French.....it starts to become a huge commitment. As for the 'old dudes in the past learned it at a young age.' So what? That doesn't stop religious studies and classics from requiring us to learn them all. This is precisely why we (and I include other humanities folks in this, too) almost always have to do a masters (or two) before starting a PhD, along with summer programs (for example I was at Middlebury last summer improving my German). I'm not saying philosophy programs should require you to learn all these languages. That would be absurd. But, if you are studying anything at all in depth in translation, then your research will be heavily stunted. Even more, as I said earlier, being able to access the history of scholarship that undergirds your research is infinitely valuable. Such scholarship undoubtedly is riddled with Greco-Latin philologists-philosophers. cheers

I'm still shocked that some programs would only require one modern language. Even if much of one's research involves reading philosophical works in English, I suspect undergirding that work is a long tradition full of Greco-Latin-German philology that would be highly beneficial for one's own research. Understanding where modern scholarship comes from, IMO, is essential to any research in the humanities. What's more bizarre is I figured philosophy programs would be more 'circumspect' about such issues. Meh.

Yep. You can take the test 10 times and only report one score set if you'd like.

You may be referring to Kyle Smith's The Persian persecution: Martyrdom, politics, and religious identity in late ancient Syriac Christianity. He worked under Liz Clark and Van Rompay (I have worked with the latter). I can't get it right now, since I'm on the road back to Durham. But if you want it, let me know (our library says I can get a pdf). FWIW he's teaching at Toronto now. If you run into any walls you might just email Van Rompay (he is a very generous guy) or even Sebastian Brock. I'm sure either would have some great resources, if need be. cheers

FWIW a Duke DGS told me they were recently considering allowing grad students use google translate as part of language exams. I think it got shot down in the end, but I imagine eventually schools may move toward this trend (as the translation tools improve). Honestly, I'm amazed you guys don't have to do substantial work in German and French, and even in Greek/Latin. Perhaps philosophy has changed, eh? Just seems odd since many of the greats were both philosophers and philologists. At the very least, I'm not sure how one could study someone like Heidegger at the graduate level and not be reading him in the original (and this becomes further problematic since he uses a lot of Greco-Latin philology himself).

Again, note the vast difference between the guys at UVA and Fordham vs the folks who study ancient Eastern Christianities. Most of the big name schools are going to have at least someone who does the Greek side of ancient eastern things, though much less so on the 'Semitic' end. As is always the case, your interests will change quite a bit wherever you go next. Find a place (as you said) that has a broad range of faculty within your interests, not just one guy. Also, one thing I would suggest. I did my MTS at a large, well-known Catholic seminary, and now that I am doing an MA in a much smaller program, I cannot stress enough the benefits of studying in the latter. The smaller programs are usually more competitive, but if you can get a spot in a good MA program you will likely have much more personal access to the faculty. Since you seem to already have a really good foundation in the ancient languages (a situation many are not fortunate to be in when they begin their graduate work), you should be able to dive in to more advanced work not long after you begin. Don't settle for a cookie-cutter masters program that will force you to check a number of boxes in things you have no interest. Off the top of my head, I would def. apply to Notre Dame's MTS, their ECS, and Yale Div's MARc.

Don't do it.

I have had this issue over the course of applying (two cycles of apps for both my masters) and it was never a problem. Their online systems are set up to allow recs to come in basically until your application is removed from their end. Def. see to it that your recs know of the due date, but if it's a week or even three weeks late I wouldn't be terribly concerned (esp. if you let the department know of issues). In short, if you are a competitive applicant, having a letter delayed a week is not a concern for anyone. Most of the reviewers will not even know of your file until late January, at the earliest, anyways.