sacklunch

Some kind of combined ("interdisciplinary") PhD program in classics and religion--but like the good ol' days when such distinctions were nonsense. The program would be either in NYC or Berkeley (NYC now, Berkeley in the 60-70s), with a 60k+ stipend (today's money), and, most importantly, you could get funding, should you want it, for up to 10 years. That's about the time one needs, I think, to lock down a specialty. After the degree, I want a professorship without undergraduate teaching responsibilities. I would work only with graduate students and at a school with a very large--mostly unpublished--papyri collection, which would lead to years of productive research, publications, and hair-pulling, side-by-side.

Re 'confessional statement', many academics in religious studies departments are worried that certain incoming students may have active interests in 'theology'. Their worry doesn't really stem from any personal distaste for theology, though it may, but it's more to do with the kinds of scholarship they do and the kind of training they are able to offer. To recall one anecdote, I remember in my phone interview with UVA's religious studies department (PhD), I was straight up asked by one scholar if I had confessional interests (I do not); the scholar then proceeded to say that such interests are not suitable to their program. This struck me, at the time, as somewhat odd, given that I was then an MA student in a religious studies department! But, in hindsight, I can certainly understand why I was asked that question. Re half applicants not being serious contenders, I would say that varies greatly by subfield. In subfields like theology and biblical studies, this is probably true. But in something like Asian religions, Jewish studies, or even American religions, I doubt it's anywhere near that high.

I have no idea. But honestly, I doubt they have looked at them. They have far more immediate concerns, both scholarly and personal this time of year. I'm sure you're fine. Again, though, Carol is the best person to ask.

I'm in the GPR. Email Carol and just ask about your late letter. I have no idea if they will accept it, but my guess is they will. I think the way it works is, as a first round, the faculty associated with each track receive the applications associated with their track. They make their picks, meet, and then department politics takes over: e.g. one track got two people last year so only one this year, and so on. NT has been notoriously bloated in the GPR and the track's 'special treatment' is fully recognized. They also probably get more applications than any other track (I've never checked the stats on this).

Well, it's a bit more complicated, I think. From the perspective of other (emerging) subfields, they are not really 'lowering' the bar, just changing it. They are, in some way, 'lowering' the bar for the number of years one needs to study x or y before one can be successful at getting into a good doctoral program. But it's a more fundamental shift of how people, scholars, perceive a discipline, and the disagreement usually stems from whether that shift is appropriate or not. To take an 'extreme' example: is it 'appropriate' to accept doctoral students in NT without any ancient language training? Most traditionalists would say no and on the assumption that NT scholarship is this or that, but always with an ancient language text of the NT as the base text of that discipline. But what about someone interested in studying, say, how Americans read the NT (in English) or how Japanese speakers do so, and so on. Many of the traditionalists would say, no, the latter belong in other subfields of religion/religious studies or in other disciplines entirely (English, linguistics, etc.). These kinds of debates happened long ago for many disciplines/departments in the humanities, at least in the US. The reason, I think, why they are so slow going in religion and especially subfields of biblical studies is because of the relative number of students in them compared with other subfields of religion, historic reasons/inheritance of tradition at US schools, and the 'energy' surrounding them (not to even speak of the money!). I count myself as one such 'traditionalist', so I lament this shift in some way. But, regarding the field of biblical studies, it has been bloated for so many decades (centuries...), it is time, I think, to put those resources to other use.

Good to hear it's not all in my head. Even though I probably count as one of those traditionalists (at least for most hiring committees), I welcome these changes.

I will chime in here and just note that successful applicants in NT and related fields over the past 6 years or so (since I've been in a doctoral program, at Duke) seem to have changed quite a bit. There are certain prerequisites that remain essential, mostly languages, but honestly in NT this is less and less of an issue, I think. A smattering of NT Greek (a very small subset of koine, I should note) can be enough, if you have other non-traditional interests that align with faculty interests. For better or worse, as many fields in the humanities become more interdisciplinary (among other trends), the old requirements are giving way to new ones, ones that better align with the interests of young(ish) faculty hires. Now, this shift will certainly help certain people applying to RS departments who have those 'non-traditional' interests; but the Grad cafe is, so far as I can tell, populated by far more 'traditionalists', e.g. certain subfields of biblical studies (philologically oriented ones). This trend, if I am seeing things at all clearly (others at my stage or beyond please chime in to correct me), will also hurt the traditionalists once they graduate and are on the market for a professorship, since universities are hiring less and less scholars doing traditional research (though they are hiring less overall, too!). Hopefully I'm wrong. Anyways, to anyone undergoing doctoral admissions this season, I hope you're hanging in there. It will all be okay, eventually. You are more than your application.

Yes, it's fine to ask them about 'improving chances,' but frame it differently: just ask them what, to their mind, makes a competitive applicant; this way you don't convey any sense that you think to have an advantage just because you are speaking with said person. For what's it's worth, I don't think these kinds of conversations are worth much, besides getting an idea of a) is that person able to take a student the cycle you are applying and b) does said person still study/research the things you think they do (some folks change their research interests radically, and their online/publication data has not yet caught up). Also, talk to said person's current/recent grad students about the program/what makes a competitive applicant (i.e. look at their backgrounds); this is a far better idea of what you will be up against when you apply than whatever guarded advice said adviser is willing to give up to you.

FYI the attached flyer is 'unavailable.' Also, anticipating potential confusing, this is a notice that UNC-CH is now offering a specific Hebrew Bible-track PhD. Correct? At first, I thought this was a fellowship for visiting graduate students or postdocs.

Some good recs above. Funding aside, your best option would be an MA in Classics et sim., given your area of interest. I assume that is out of the question, since most folks in your situation don't have the level of Greek and especially Latin required to enroll in those programs. If you do though, Tufts has a well-respected MA in Classics and I believe it has good-ish funding? BC used to have an MA in Greek (classical), which may allow you to come in without any/much Latin (no clue on funding). An MTS after the MDiv is not so out of the ordinary, as you note, but just make sure the MTS allows you to opt out of most/all of the fluff (e.g. you don't need to be taking required, intro to bible). Languages are of course the biggest hurdle for PhD entry in your field (and thus my rec for a Classics MA); so again, make sure the MTS program will allow you to take (many) language courses. As others said, don't waste your time with the ThM (zero funding and only a year).

I don't think Duke requires a Hebrew exam for NT track; check the GPR handbook or ask someone in your subfield/adviser. You might check the course list or check with Melvin Peters to see if the class 'rapid reading in Biblical Hebrew' is offered sometime in the next year or two. I'm at Duke (GPR PhD), so feel free to PM me, though I'm not in the NT track.

It's possible, though as pathos said, not likely. That said, if anyone has a chance at doing so, it's applicants working in "modern" subfields, i.e. you. The reason it is rare for many of us, is because we have the problem of studying enough languages, which is not much of a problem, in comparison, for those doing research in modern, esp. American (i.e. English-language) history/religion. For better or worse, many applicants for doctoral work in religion have a divinity M* degree, because honestly most of them have 'faith' commitments. For worse, this has resulted in the expectation that all applicants should also have at least one M* degree, divinity or otherwise, because so many applicants have them (even if one wants to pursue a doctoral degree not requiring specialized, language training). This is unfortunate, since I think most divinity degrees, even at the 'top' schools, are essentially post-baccs. My rant aside, I suggest looking into, beyond religion PhDs, history departments et sim. Spend a lot of time looking at the backgrounds of current doctoral students at the schools of interest. What kind of degrees do most of them have? That will be a far better measure than the anecdotes given here.

Re above, while I completely agree, this may be off-putting to the professor. But you should ask current graduate students at said school about this. Again, we should hope that all advisers would care about the mental well-being of their students, but the reality, at least from my experience, is that most academics have never had to think much about it and I suspect that some even think it is completely outside their role as adviser/mentor. If that is a deal breaker for you, then fair enough, many others will happily--or unhappily as the case may be--pretend as if their advisers have no bearing on their mental health. Again, speak to the graduate students. They/we are easy to read.

I can't offer anything terribly specific, but you might check into schools that have joint programs between MDiv and e.g. MSW, like the Duke and UNC Chapel Hill program. I recall them being around four years, but that may open the right kind of doors.

It's important to note that MTS programs are not especially competitive, but ND's MTS is. It's also important to ask what was your major/s? If it's in e.g. a STEM field, then things change considerably. Inflation is a known issue at top schools, especially in the humanities, but I doubt anyone will be pulling out their calculator to adjust your GPA accordingly. For what it's worth, I think it will slightly hurt you, but in the end having that Ivy for undergrad will mean a great deal to many American academics, regardless of what it may or may not say about you and your academic progress/prospect.

You might post in the philosophy section, if you haven't already. The expectations, biases, and so on, of fields varies wildly, and often even within the same subfield between schools. Thus, an MDiv may not be all that odd if you are applying to a doctoral program in 'philosophy' at one school, but at another you will immediately be disregarded. Find graduate students doing the kinds of things you want to study and ask them. Be wary of what anyone tells you who is not a) in a doctoral program currently (or has finished within the last few years) and b) not in a (sub)field you see yourself in.

They may not, honestly, at least in the Divinity School (I very much doubt 'German for reading' is offered there over the summer, but probably is in Yale's Graduate School).

I mostly agree with what is said above. I would question how much Hebrew matters more than other languages. It really depends on the school/department, but my opinion is you are no worse off than not having studied Latin or even Coptic or Syriac, which, in my opinion, are more useful than (classical) Hebrew for NT. Again, where you study and what you hope to study is crucial in answering this question. I can't speak to the preparation expected for your interests, but my hunch is that many of the people whom you have asked these questions cannot really either. Keep in mind that whatever recommendations you may hear, they are very likely heavily influenced by the particular subfield of said people. The best avenue here, I think, is to find graduate students doing the kind of research you want to pursue and simply ask them what their background is and then adjust your academic plan of attack accordingly.

The above comments are spot on. You are overestimating the credentials of the average adjunct. Having a doctorate period will qualify you for such work at many small colleges, especially CC. As for your cake-eating-it-too: tier 1 PhD and pastoral/adjunct prep. No, honestly, I don't think that's realistic--but see marX's rec. above for other options.

It's good that you're addressing these issues now. If you are not willing to pay and your interests are pastoral leaning, then I honestly don't think you have a chance at any of the top UK schools (for a doctorate). I could very well be wrong here, so please someone correct me if you think differently. But, perhaps more to the point, none of the UK programs you have mentioned are meant to prepare you for your primary interest (pastoral work) and actually will not help you much if at all for your secondary interest (teaching). There is plenty of good, funded programs in the US that suit your two interests, but they are not PhDs, but rather DMins, ThDs, and the like. For better or worse, the latter are less often offered at tier 1 schools (and if they are, those degrees can often require very different things of their students), so you may be left applying to those outside.

As said above, there is little point in doing this because a) funding is zero and b) time is inadequate. If you find yourself needing a second M*, you are far better off applying to another MTS/MAR, obviously elsewhere. This is not uncommon and many of us here have done so (myself included).

As pathos said, you are aware of the potential, or perhaps inevitable problems, so I suppose you can apply and see what happens. Your best bet is to find current US students/recent alums in both programs and ask them; beyond actual specifics, you will get closer to the reality than here. Either degree will get you high fives in a local cafe, but, as already said, neither has much hope of getting you a tenure track job at many (most?) research universities (including those well outside the R1) in North America.

These are fair worries; but really if you have studied religion/religious studies/history/classics/et sim. at a good (rigorous) undergraduate school, I think you will find that all US divinity schools are a bit lacking in this regard. Because many of the students have no background in this and related fields, the courses may necessarily feel too "introductory." Mileage varies, of course, and depending on what courses you take (dependent largely on requirements that may/may not let you opt out of certain courses) you may have a very different opinion on the "rigor" of your school vs others in your program. Speaking purely from the gut (so others please correct me if you feel differently), I think many students interested in pastoral ministry do not, generally speaking, share your concern (or at least not as much?), which leads me to think you may be somewhat disappointed with the level of challenge no matter where you go. But I may very well be wrong about this. MarX may have some good insight.

If you are or think you will largely remain in the field of theology (I admit I'm not entirely sure what that means), then PTS being more "seminary-y" could be a good thing; my experience is Duke Divinity is more or less similar to PTS in that regard. Duke's Graduate Program in Religion (PhD) is a different animal entirely; there is room for interest in 'theology', but most of the subfields (my own included) have absolutely zero interest in 'theology'; we consider ourselves historians, classicists, etc., but most of us, as most folks in religious studies PhD programs elsewhere, consider 'theology' something unfit/inappropriate for non-seminary degrees. But, really, my .02 is put most of that out of your mind. Your interests will certainly change wherever you go; and not only that, but the job market is so hilariously bad in all subfields of higher learning in the humanities that there is no real way to prepare yourself. Excluding money et sim., you should just go where you feel comfortable. In the end, the academic route will probably not work out for you, just as it will likely not for myself and most others; but you might as well be happy and enjoy your learning environment while doing so.

That's a tough one. If you can, tell us a bit more about the kind of work you see yourself doing in a doctoral program. You mention patristics/late antiquity, but depending on your particular interests, one's expected preparation can vary quite a bit. You rightly mention your need to focus on languages. This should be a priority, regardless of where you see yourself fitting in late antiquity. One year of Greek isn't enough; you need at least two, but three is what you should aim for. Latin may be something to pick up, even if during the summer as an intensive course. Syriac is not taught regularly at any of those schools, as far as I know, though perhaps maybe at HDS? There are people at all three schools who have studied the language, but I'm not sure if they are/can teach(ing) the language. As an alternative, you could begin to study classical Hebrew or Aramaic (though the latter can often assume training in the former). My suggestion is that, if possible, take any intro/intermediate language class outside of any seminary: e.g. continue your Greek in a department of classics etc. The language courses in most seminaries are quite simply not as rigorous as undergraduate language courses (seminaries usually incorporate modern "theological" components, etc., which are not directly useful for the study of ancient history). Every M* program has rules on what, if any, undergraduate courses you can take, so plan accordingly; this means you may end up taking extra classes (with the language course not counting, but essential for getting into a good doctoral program in this field). If it helps, I studied at BC, took classes at HDS, and am now doing my PhD at an R1 (I work in late antiquity, roughly); feel free to PM me with specific questions. good luck friend