sacklunch

As you said, this varies wildly from department to department. Though generally it seems that not having passed language exams will prevent one from moving to the next step: e.g. you must pass (usually) two modern language exams before you can take your comps/prelims; and you must pass your comps/prelims before you can pass your dissertation proposal, and so on. This means (at least) a) you will likely take more than 5 years to finish and b) you may run out of funding before you finish. Though again, you should check with your department (these things are likely listed in something called "guidelines" on your department's website).

I'm in a related field (Jewish Studies), which tends to emphasize certain language skills as a prerequisite more than say history of Christianity. If it's at all related, which from my experience it is, I will say you are unlikely to get into good doctoral programs straight from college. In this country, that move is rare, at least in religion/religious studies/near eastern studies. I suggest that you check into the backgrounds of current doctoral students at schools of interest. This will give you a pretty good indication of what you need to be competitive. If all/most of the students have advanced mastery of (classical) Arabic and you don't, then you will likely need a masters (or two for some). If all/most of the students have one or more masters, then you will likely need to follow a similar path. And so on. There are always exceptions, however. Many interdisciplinary programs will care less about specific skills coming in (e.g. Arabic mastery), but that may put you at a disadvantage, in the sense that such programs may not be a great fit. As for "fit", yes it's important (as everyone always says); most of us didn't know what the hell we wanted to study in college. Most of us figured it out or had some notion of a path while doing a (or several) masters.

It really depends on the subfield. I can say that hardly any of the faculty in my subfield (broadly "ancient history") have a PhD from an "history department." Most come from religion/religious studies, classics/classical studies, or ancient (near eastern) studies. But you move even close to "medieval history" and a PhD in history seems to be common, if not the expectation. I wouldn't focus too much on subfields that are not your own. The info below your name says you're in American Religious History, which I know basically nothing about as a discipline (post this in the history subforum, too?). My advice, for what it's worth, is to a) ask your advisers these questions (but don't take their answers as fact--many of them are the exception in this rapidly changing academic world) and b) read a lot of CVs from faculty in your subfield.

Fair point. Though I would caution you against assuming the color/context of this forum's users. I have no doubt that racist language has been and continues to be used in the Divinity school. I'm merely suggesting that such habits are not common course there and that if such language should arise there I have little hesitation in saying that the vast majority of Divinity students would quickly (and happily) denounce said language/person. I would be curious to hear about such racist behavior at other divinity schools in this country and abroad.

Until now I wasn't aware of this NPR article. I'm skeptical of how common such an experience is at the Div school. I have never heard of (even a rumor) that students use(d) racial slurs in classrooms. Perhaps I'm simply out of the loop; but generally we as the TAs/preceptors hear the juicy stuff, certainly more than the professors (we have a strange relationship with the Div students, which is much less formal than the professor/student relationship). In fact, my experience has been sort of the opposite. I have taught/led discussions with, at this point, hundreds of Div students and I can honestly say I have never heard any student shame/insult another student because of their race or gender (actually I don't think I have heard any of them shame/insult another student on any issue). Also, all Div TAs/preceptors are required to attend a day long training each year, which addresses specifically gender and racial bias (in addition there are workshops on these issues during the year if one is so inclined) and some of the Div professors require that we ask students on the first day of class to clarify their racial/gender context so we (and the other students in the class) can be sensitive to any potential issues. So at least one of the demands on the second article is already met. I have heard that some of the recent faculty loses are related to such "liberalizing" in the Div school (as in the faculty wanted a more conservative environment), though I have no doubt that some of the loses stem from the environment not being liberal enough! (I, for one, would welcome a much more liberal environment).

Fair enough. But it really depends on a student's particular interests. There are students who never intend on taking these professors' classes; and there are, of course, students with zero theological interest, but must pass through the heavenly gates of divinity school to be competitive in today's doctoral admissions. But you're right that the loss of any faculty member is unfortunate. The rising disinterest regarding the humanities at R1 schools means that many faculty are not being replaced or several positions are consolidated into one.

There has been some tension, at least in the Div school. But I don't know how much of it reaches the students. Perhaps I'm shielded from such things because I'm not in the Div school? In any case, I haven't heard anyone mention it more than in passing. Perhaps an actual Div student will chime in here.

I'm in the PhD program (Religion). I have never been a Div student (nor am I Christian), but because I study ancient Christianity I have taught in the Div school numerous times (as a preceptor/TA). From my perspective, which is admittedly very liberal, the Div school is fairly conservative. There are, of course, quite a few progressive/liberal/whatever-you-wanna-call-em students, but they still usually fit into a certain kind of box. That box is, unsurprisingly, Protestant; it is rare for them to disregard the biblical text (while in liberal Catholic seminaries this isn't so surprising). The Div school is centrally located on campus, really at its heart, so it's a nice place to spend a few years. The culture at the Div school is wildly different from the rest of campus, including Religion/Religious Studies. Like all top schools, Duke's undergraduates are overwhelming studying STEM/+. There are more graduate students at Duke than undergrads, so this helps even things out. Again, from an outsiders perspective, the Div school is viewed by the other humanities graduate students as a relic of the past, something that should not exist at a top school, but only does because of old, southern traditions (this is not the case for most of the PhD students in Religion that Div students would interact with; the vast majority of Religion PhD students studying Christianity have divinity degrees or are practicing Christians). That said, the Div school is huge and the students rarely seem to leave the Div bubble. As for the "House," you should contact the Episcopal House and just reach out to current students.

I'm not sure how many departments have this specific option. The dozen or so seminars essentially count for one class (thus everyone needs two pedagogy courses). They involve Duke faculty or invited faculty working in religion/religious studies (and sometimes divinity). They are informal and last about an hour (and we always have food/coffee brought in from local places). You don't have to go to these seminars; you could also just take two of the pedagogy courses, all of which are meant specifically for this certificate (as you would expect almost everyone doing the certificate is in the humanities or social sciences). Some of the religion specific seminars have been useful, but I've found most of them to be irrelevant for non-elite careers. Often these seminars will discuss how one can succeed in the job market, but here too the content is moot for most of us. Time and again a faculty member will come in and go on about how s/he got hired at a TT school and the steps you can take to secure a similar path. But we never hear from faculty that work at "normal" places. I want to hear from the "failures" because, well, that path is certain for most of us. I've heard the pedagogy courses are a waste of time because they are 1) too theoretical and 2) too vague/generalized. They don't seem to help much with actual teaching (e.g. preparing for lectures, grading, teaching a class outside your area). Interestingly enough, the faculty seem to think the certificate is fantastic or at least they don't think it needs to be improved much. In any case, I haven't found faculty to be very helpful outside of guiding one's research. This seems to be especially problematic at TT schools. At least in my experience, the faculty here are divorced from the realities facing academics at most institutions, including teaching. They simply don't know how to help us because many of them were hired in the glory days of academy (when the jobs flowed like wine and administrators were few) or they are genius standouts that went directly from a TT doctoral program to a TT tenure track job.

Hey there, I'm at Duke (Religion PhD): 1) we are required to TA (in religious studies), precept (in the divinity school; very similar to a TA but with a bit of teaching), or serve as an RA between years 1-4. Not long ago we were required to do one of these for the 5th year, but due to no one graduating on time they now pay us for TAing the 5th year without having to do anything (a great perk!). As for teaching your own class, we have the following opportunities: a) in religious studies for undergraduates (not everyone gets this chance, it's usually dependent on your subfield and available faculty); b ) the divinity school uses us to teach intro language courses (Greek and Hebrew; though again these can be hard to get depending on how many want to teach); c) moneys available through Duke's graduate school to design and teach a course (from what I understand this is relatively easy to get? I haven't tried.). If it helps, I taught an intro undergraduate course last term in religious studies. To my surprise, I was left to do everything on my own and no one checked in on me. There was no checking my syllabus and my final grades went unchallenged (I understand the department sees them). 2) as for prep, we have a certificate for college teaching run through the graduate school. It's common for doctoral students to do the certificate (I am doing it), but basically everyone says it's a waste of time. The requirements for religion doctoral students are a) go to a dozen or so seminars on teaching as it relates to the field of religious studies and b ) take a short course one semester on pedagogy (there are various options; some of them have you design an online course, syllabus, etc.).

Generally I agree with you all. I'm not entirely sure how much of a risk you run. If you are in a good program, it should be (I hope) obvious that you don't want to poo poo on someone's monograph. Regardless of whether that's true, the time spent writing a review would be best funneled into your dissertation and/or an article in a peer-reviewed journal.

Fair enough! But you certainly would admit that a dictionary entry is a far cry from a full blown article. Dictionary entries are only slightly (if at all) above the book review. But yes, I agree with you that these sort of entry-level publications are a good way to get your feet wet without alarming faculty.

Mostly, yes. Don't take this as gospel. You will hear very different advice from very different kinds of doctoral students at very different institutions. What works for someone will hardly matter for another: for example, having 3 ancient languages will hardly help you in getting into a systematics program if you don't have any German. You only have so much time here. The terrible part of most MDivs is they leave you very few electives, which means you will not be competitive for certain subfields without taking courses each summer or a second M* (this is why many of us in ancient history have 2-3 M*). The MDiv, for better or worse, serves two masters (church/academy); depending on your subfield, this church/academy focus can hurt or help you. Take all advice (including mine) with skepticism, especially 1) other M* students that haven't yet "proven" their advice really works and 2) old (i.e. out of touch) faculty. Find the doctoral programs you're most interested in and research their phd students; find out what they studied, what languages and degrees they have, etc. For the most part don't waste your time sucking up to faculty via email/conference; it's unlikely they will remember you and my experience is they play coy without giving prospective students much detail on how to increase your chances of acceptance. cheers.

I disagree with this. Such advice is usually given by (hopeful) graduate students and not faculty. I have never heard a faculty member say it's good to publish early; usually it's the opposite. The only time you should even consider publishing at this stage is in a seriously well-respected journal. Still, it's unlikely one will have the necessary training before the PhD to secure such a publication.

Some good points. But, again, we simply cannot say how much it matters for getting into a high ranking M* or PhD given the available evidence. All the evidence offers is that there are very low numbers of high ranking UG applicants to graduate degrees in religion, meaning that applicants from unknown UG schools are the majority. But you're right in that because the majority are from unknowns, it won't necessarily decrease one's chances for getting into a high ranking M* and perhaps even PhD. Assuming this disparity in UG backgrounds, it may be significant that a relatively high number of PhD students whom I know at TT programs come from known UG schools, some ivies, but many from top 50-ish. I mean that the percentage of current PhD students from top 50-ish UG at TT schools is higher than the percentage of these type of students applying (e.g. let's say 25% of phd students in Stanford's religion program come from top 50 UG, while at the level of applications this percentage is more like 10%). This is, of course, not to say that this higher percentage simply reflects UG prestige. Anyways! I agree with most of the comments here. My hesitation is that UG prestige doesn't matter or that it has only a very small impact. For the OP, much of this is moot; I happily concede that prestige makes less and less of a difference the lower you climb the rankings. <3

Again, against the others, we should not forget the differences between successful M* (divinity) and doctoral applicants (religious studies). More to the point, though: successfully going from an unknown undergraduate to ivy-divinity or even ivy-PhD religious studies doesn't say much about the weight of undergraduate prestige. My main point of evidence here, mentioned above, is the number of applicants from unknown schools to both M* and PhD are much higher than TT schools. For example, take a look here: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/opinion/the-humanities-in-crisis-not-at-most-schools.html The point is that undergraduates at ivy/TT schools are increasingly moving away from the humanities, while interest in the humanities has remained more or less the same at smaller/unknown schools over the past few decades, though high ranking public schools also appear to remain constant (Berkeley). The result is, I gather, fewer TT-BA-holders are applying to graduate degrees in the humanities, while there are more applicants to humanities graduate degrees from unknown schools. Yes, I understand that the OP is not talking about applying as a transfer to Yale (not even possible). I'm merely pointing out that we cannot adequately measure whether or not UG prestige matters given the applicant pool. My guess is that, yes, it mattered before to some academics and now perhaps a bit more. /rant2

If you want to get into a "regular" (i.e. secular) academic PhD you will (likely) need an M* from a secular school/program. Kuriakos is spot on, however painful it is to hear. One scholar will not make much of a difference to hiring committees and journal editors; most of them will have no clue who Bingham is and have no choice but to judge you by the school attached to your name. If you go this route you will certainly never leave the conservative bubble; if you do it will be from clawing your way out, inch by inch.

I'll play the other side. I disagree with at least some of the comments above; it matters a great deal where you went to UG for some academics. It's true that religion as a discipline is less traditional in this regard than, say, classics; the comments above rightly point out part of the reason is because basically everyone needs at least one M* to get into any doctoral program and religion (read divinity) M* are much easier to get into than other non-divinity M* from TT schools. This does not mean, however, that UG ranking doesn't help. How does it help? First, it gives you an edge when applying to doctoral programs because you stand out among the ocean of applicants from small liberal art schools or big state schools. But more importantly, it impacts, or at least it seems to impact from my limited experience, one's placement after the PhD. Two caveats here: I'm talking about TT doctoral programs and TT faculty positions (let's say universities within the top 50 of "popular rankings"). I have heard from faculty at my program (TT) that undergraduate prestige matters for doctoral admissions and especially for hiring faculty. This is, of course, all anecdotal; I have no earthly clue if this same sort of thing occurs at other schools and I welcome anyone to engage me on this. But I'm guessing it does. What has been particularly interesting, to me at least, is hearing scholars note a prospective student's/faculty's undergraduate background even when said person has an UG degree in a completely unrelated field (the two persons that come to mind: prospective faculty, one with an AB from Princeton, the other Harvard, both in STEM fields). Again, these are the extremes. If said persons went to say, UMich or Rice (high ranking schools outside of the usual elite suspects), I doubt the weight would carry the same. On the other hand, going from an unknown state school (the OP's) to a known, but low ranking state school may not be worth the trouble (more importantly, the money!). I say stay where you're at unless the money is doable. But you might look into transferring into a much higher ranked school (public or private), if possible. This is impossible for many students due to personal/financial reasons. But we don't know your situation. In any case, you don't know until you apply; apply to transfer to high ranking schools of interest and see what happens (though some do not allow undergraduate transfers). I know one person at my university who did something similar for undergrad (transferred from an unknown state school to Berkeley). /rant

As I'm sure you are already aware, HDS, like all the top US divinity schools, has relatively high acceptance rates for the MDiv (+/- 50% for MDiv). My guess is that secular/atheist/agnostic applicants are somewhat rare, which may make it even easier for you. Though since HDS is one of the few (only?) US divinity school that explicitly accepts secularists, your odds may be similar to other groups (relatively good odds considering, omg, it's Harvard). Even if you were a more traditional applicant (e.g. a protestant interested in scripture) you would still have a good chance given your academic background. In your application, you should emphasize why HDS is the best fit, since there are really no other options for someone like you. My advice on when to apply: apply while in your last year and see what happens. You may be surprised. If you don't get in, the next round will be much easier and your application stronger. cheers

You will encounter this competitive streak among some M* students everywhere. While far from a truism, many students are admitted to PhD programs at the same school they did their M* at. I do think you're right that much of one's M* is not focused on specific kinds of courses. But it would be going too far to say that M* coursework makes little difference for getting into doctoral programs of interest. It's true, I think, that having a PhD from an R1 does help you land TT jobs (or hell, a job period!); but such institutional weight is not the same for R1 M* alums, largely because R1 M* in religion/divinity have very low admission standards compared with other fields (even the "best" MDiv programs regularly accept 50%+; cf. the > 5-10% for all R1 PhD programs). I'm not saying that if HDS has no coursework in your area of interest then you should go to Chicago and pay all that money (I think you should go to HDS, for what it's worth). I am saying that you should check into HDS policy about what you can and can't take as an MTS student so you can make the best use of your time there. Your subfield will have certain expectations of all successful doctoral applications. Your MTS should attempt to meet at least some of these expectations. For many of us, one of those expectations is language study; your application will simply be thrown to the side if you apply to, say, a program in medieval church history and you haven't studied (a lot of) Latin, and so on. What are these expectations for your subfield? That's why you're here. But there are better ways. Most of the users here are applying to grad programs (esp. M*), but have not yet "proven" themselves and thus their comments on what these expectations are vary greatly. One of the best ways you can learn about what is expected in your subfield is talking to doctoral students at programs of interest. Email them and simply ask; they are usually more than willing to tell you what you need to be doing in your M* (don't waste your time at this point emailing faculty). cheers

This may have changed, but in the past the BTI schools (HDS, BC, BU, etc.) allowed students to take up to 50% of their classes at the other member schools. Thus you could, if this policy still stands, take half of your classes at BC or BU, while still receiving the HDS MTS.

You need to check into what HDS will and will not let you take should you go there (from what I understand Chicago's MA lets you take basically whatever courses you want). If they let you opt out of a lot or most of the general fluff coursework (i.e. they give you advanced placement) then there is very little reason to go to Chicago and pay tens of thousands. If money is not an option, then, yes go to Chicago.

Forget Oxford. Yes, it's anecdotal, but consider the small number of Americans working in country who have doctorates from abroad. The reason is usually funding. Again, it is anecdotal, but most people at R1 schools (grad students and faculty) consider European doctorates only an option for those who are 1) not "good enough" to get into an American program and/or 2) are very conservative (theologically, obviously). The admission rates are very high at places like Oxbridge for Americans; they know we can and will take out loans for the name. Yes, it feels nice to receive that shiny letter from Oxford; yes, they think you're a cash cow. If you return to the States, you will have a difficult time getting a job, unless you want to work at a conservative seminary/university. As for Baylor or Marquette, I would take Marquette, but for my own reasons. Tell us a bit more about yourself, your interests, and where you want to be in ten years.

I don't think it makes much of a difference. The edge would go to someone who went to a top 10 or 20 for undergraduate who also has a TT PhD. When you publish or give a talk you will often be introduced with your PhD granting institution, but usually one has to look at a CV to determine much more than that (though those who went to an ivy, especially for undergraduate, are encouraged to list their undergraduate institution on their department's homepage and/or their own personal website, etc.). This is all anecdotal evidence, however, and I could be wrong. I have spent many hours, cumulatively over the years, reading professional bios and CV's. Others should chime in to verify/qualify.

Good points. As you said, Brandeis is well regarded in HB; but, as you also mentioned, schools like Emory or JHU are very well regarded inside and outside this narrow field. Recent research suggests, as you are likely aware, that the overall prestige of a school makes a big difference in getting a job (perhaps sometimes regardless of whether said school has a good program in one's field). I will say that when I was at a very similar crossroads I went with the big name school/department. In some ways my decision was easy, since the big school/department also had the biggest stipend (with the best weather, cost of living, and so on). But, at the time, I felt like I was 'selling out' because my fit seemed (felt) better elsewhere. In the end, I'm glad I didn't go with my gut; I am very happy at my current school/department. Good luck!