sacklunch

Given the current realities of the job market and the bleak future for higher education at the moment, I think the main points are 1) you have proper funding while doing the PhD and 2) you are prepared for the (likely, if you are not able to relocate) possibility that you will never be an academic in the traditional sense. For most of us those days are long gone. Even those of us at a T1, if we land a teaching gig, we are having to move across the country, some the world, to find stable employment (viz. TT jobs). Good luck, friend.

The problem the OP may run into is, I think, deeper than merely looking at the evidence. The fields of religious studies, religion, history, and so on, all agree that approaching one's subject matter should attend closely to the evidence. We assume that this is as close as we can get to an 'objective' approach; for better or worse we owe these methods to the approaches of the sciences. We differ from other fields (esp. the 'hard' sciences) by our explicit acknowledgement (often ad nauseam) that our own experiences (our biases often in the limelight) shape the way we interpret the evidence. All of this you no doubt already know. But I think it's important to note that this propensity, even obsession with 'bias transparency' in religious studies scholarship, is seen as a good (note here I use a morally tinged term rather than something like 'positive') only insofar as it adheres to the reigning methodologies of one's field (perhaps even one's department). I'm not attempting to make some statement on whether one should or should not be open in their research/scholarship with, say, how their conservative upbringing informs their work. I'm merely saying that many others in the academy will not only expect others to excise (or hide?) parts of their identity (usually expressions of one's Christian identity) from their public persona (both on and off campus), but will remain convinced that someone from a conservative school, with conservative letters of recommendation, is just that. The rose blossoms on the thorn, they say.

The GPR website has been updated, as of today, if it helps.

I'm not clear on what jujubea means here. Most doctoral programs in RS in this country award an MA, AM, or MPhil as part of the program (usually after two years/coursework is finished one can apply for the M* degree); some even offer several M* as part of the doctoral program (e.g. Yale). There are a few programs that allow M* students to apply internally to continue on to the PhD. This means basically that your application is considered on different criteria than external applicants; though the success rate of this varies considerably from school to school--as does the acceptance rate of said M* programs (being much lower, I would guess).

In short, if you apply to HDS, Chicago, and the other usual suspects, I bet you will get in. As you mentioned, these schools like diversity. But rarely do they get applicants who have practical interest outside of Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam). Also, your GRE scores are quite good (esp. your verbal/quant) and your awa score is pretty good for an international applicant. The problem isn't getting in--your unique application makes that highly likely in my opinion (search the forum for more on this; but ill note in passing the well-known fact that even the top divinity schools in this country waver between 40-60% acceptance rates for the MDiv). The difficulty will be finding coursework/faculty who are teaching courses in your areas of interest. Confucianism is not my field nor do I know much about it to be honest. You would be best served by asking faculty working in the field(s) of Confucianism where you should apply. This forum is dominated by students (and early career scholars) working in subfields of Christianity, especially Christian and Jewish antiquity. Many of the students interested in pursuing an MDiv in this country (and thus on this forum) come from Protestant traditions and not surprisingly they have interests in the ancient scriptures of Jews and/or Christians. At times I wonder why this forum bears the name 'Religion' (an antiquated name, to be sure) and not 'theology'. In any case, I mention this to warn you of the prejudicial advice given here (including my own). Most of us are completely ignorant of the interests, academic and pastoral, of 'eastern' traditions. Good luck, friend.

PTS and HDS seem to have offered the most money over the last ten years (I heard a couple years ago that PTS was starting an MTS/MAR--did that ever happen?). I would put YDS next. Lastly, most place Duke and Chicago.

I disagree. I know a number of people in top 10 programs who scored a 4.5. I wouldn't retake it. I would only send them your first score set (assuming you don't get a perfect on the writing in the second). While it is true that some programs might take your highest scores, I have heard from professors that the fewer sets the better. The more sets you send, the more meaningless high scores become. The verbal is the real gate keeper. It is what professors from across disciplines in the humanities seem to emphasize most. They know that the writing section is somewhat arbitrary; the math, some say, correlates to one's ability in foreign language proficiency. /.02

1) None. 2) I only emailed them to set up a meeting at SBL. I think I met with three professors there. 3) 12 i think (accepted at 5) Don't waste your time on campus visits (unless it's very convenient to do so). As marX said, try to set up meetings at SBL/AAR. Don't stress if the some professors are unavailable. You should go to the receptions of schools of interest. Graduate students should be on your radar. They are often much more willing to talk about the program (esp. at length) and can offer insight into the kind of students said departments accept. The professors you do meet will likely not remember you. They don't have your CV in front of them (nor should you give them one when meeting). If they do remember you when your application comes up a month or two later, it will likely be very vague (e.g. did this applicant seem competent? More importantly, did s/he seem like a pleasant person? If you do meet professors, do not underestimate your likability. I'm not saying you have to be charming. Just don't come across as pretentious, anti-social, painfully awkward, selfish, and so on). Another note on graduate students. I think I actually emailed more graduate students at school's of interest than professors. They have insider information and they are thus much more valuable than most of the cliches you will hear on this forum (my comments included!). They know who is on leave and who is and is not taking students (the schools' websites will be useless). And so on.

Yes, the letters of the degree are (mostly) useless. There are exceptions. I remember in my interview with UVA (Religious Studies, PhD program) the interviewer somewhat awkwardly attempted to vet my own theological background/interests, I presume because I have an MTS (Imagine if I had an MDiv...!)? After asking about my motivations for studying early church history, s/he said something like "well, ya know that here we don't do theology...right?" (I was at that time doing an MA in Jewish Studies!) I had no problem (awkwardly) reassuring them that I have zero interest in theology, nor that I am Christian. On the other hand, I know there are scholars who claim to be theologians at places like UVA. What I take away from this is it really depends on whom you are hoping to work with. With the exception of confessional schools unaffiliated with larger universities, this mixed bag of scholars is something to keep in mind. Even having an MDiv or even the more 'secular' MAR from YDS may 'mark' you as identifying with a particular tradition (in this case, no doubt Christianity); this will be troubling to many academics, especially at institutions which do not train clergy/pastors, even if (like me) your 'theology' degree is a misnomer.

No, I don't think the MDiv is better for language preparation. Assuming money is not an issue (MDivs often have better funding, it seems), the MTS/MAR would in almost every way be a better option. You would be better off doing an MTS and then a shorter MA or even two MTS degrees (I know some who did the latter)--or while in your first year of the second M*, apply to doctoral programs (and then not complete the second M* or defer the doctoral program for a year, if possible). The problem with both the MDiv and MTS/MAR is that in almost every case these degrees are attempting to serve two ends: pastoral and academic. I'm not saying these are in tension. I'm saying that two or three years is not enough time if you are required/expected to take any number of courses split between the two. What's more, many MTS/MAR programs require you to take academic courses which may in fact have nothing to do with your area of interest (e.g. in modern history or interpretation when you are interested in antiquity). Such requirements are simply not the norm in MA programs in religious studies, classics, and so on. I'll also say one thing apropos of the last comment relating to YDS allowing students to take classical languages at the college. While this may be the case at Yale, it is not, to the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, the norm at most schools. Why? Because those introductory, intermediate, and early advanced ancient language classes in classics departments are nearly always undergraduate classes. Thus, they often do not count towards one's M*. I have heard this fact lamented by many divinity students over the past 5-6 years. Still more frustrating, I have heard, is the fact that many ancient language courses in divinity schools are also attempting to serve the two ends mentioned above (pastoral and academic). This quite simply means less time spent on really grasping the philology of the language. At least for Greek, the questionable training of divinity courses (ask any classics graduate student or faculty behind closed doors) does not, however, prevent students from going on to respected doctoral programs. Many PhD students in NT have never had a single class in ancient Greek outside of the NT (but neither have most classics graduate students had any training in NT Gk--the days of NT/EC scholars trained as classicists is long gone, sadly). It's important you know what is and isn't allowed within the M* programs you are applying. /rant

I also did this. Though I first did a well funded MTS (at a well-known school) and then did an expensive MA (also at a well-known school). I'm now in a top-5 PhD program. I'll also note that while I do know a handful of people in top programs with M* degrees from lesser known schools, the vast majority of them went to the usual suspects (including MAs in religious studies).

Where are you with ancient and modern languages? This will make or break one's chances at competitive doctoral programs. If you have little (or haven't yet begun) language training, then I would be even more skeptical of an MDiv/MTS (perhaps even the MAR), unless it's at a place like Gordon Con., which would allow you to play catch up.

We need to know what you are interested in studying. Depending on this, I might, in fact, recommend against either program.

FWIW, I think there is still time to 'get out'. You will likely need to do another M*; but you know this. In fact, there is nothing keeping you where you are. You could apply to several of the 'liberal' and/or secular programs this season. If you did do so and your grades are good (decent, even), I think you would be fairly successful. This is often repeated on the forum, but it's worth saying again: the top divinity schools in this country have relatively high acceptance rates. Compare them with almost any other professional program at these R1 schools, and they are hilariously high: over the years I have read/heard the top MDiv programs-HDS, YDS, Chicago, Duke, and so on-sit somewhere between a 40-60% acceptance rate. And many of these schools offer really good funding (historically, at least, HDS and PTS, while Duke is known for being on the lower end). Regardless of whether you stay at your current program, you might also consider an MA in RS or Religion (or perhaps another MA depending on your field of interest). Most MA programs require few specific courses, which would allow you to 'catch up' on pure academics rather than trudging through more unrelated coursework. But this may all be rather worthless to you without knowing more about your interests. At least for those of us who work in antiquity, having 2 M* is sort of old hat; most of us (me) have two (and a third, sometimes even fourth while doing the doctorate). Take heart, friend.

Unfortunately, I have heard this from (at least) 3 current CUA students. To the OP, you might also check out Princeton (faculty in Religion and Near Eastern Studies), Stanford (e.g. Michael Penn), and U Toronto (e.g. Kyle Smith). The problem I think you will run into is finding any one scholar who does all of these languages in that time period. It is not only rare to find specialists in Syriac, but those few who work with the language rarely have expertise in Arabic, Judeo-Arabic, ancient Persian, and so on. Alas, this is not a problem unique to this subfield; but in any case it does seem particularly acute in this case. If you have some background in these languages, even at the introductory/intermediate level, I imagine you would be quite likely to get into a good doctoral program. Perhaps try to find programs with multiple scholars with whom you can build up those areas of interest. This might be possible in larger cities with multiple graduate programs (Boston, NYC, Chicago, Cambridge, London, and so on).

The largest number of scholars (and graduate students) in the states that I know of is at the Catholic University of America in DC.

Most of the sources mentioned are well-known (many for good reasons). If you're interested in some "Eastern" (e.g. Syriac) perspectives from late antiquity, I suggest Aphrahat, Ephrem, and the Pseudo-Clementines. Each is becoming much more popular in scholarly literature, but they are usually approached by social historians and philologists; thus I would think there is a lot of interesting work to be done. Such traditions are also frequently implicated with stronger ties to Judaism (in all its various flavors), which raises a number of (potentially) interesting questions. There is also the vast rabbinic material, which might offer some interesting parallels (and esp. strong differences); but, to be honest, it's so large and terrifying to the uninitiated that it might obscure more than it helps (in any case, if you do engage this material, be wary of only reading Jacob Neusner).

You should be fine. But if you studied, say koine only, and you are applying to ancient history programs, then no, I would say that isn't enough. But I'm sure this isn't the case (as it rarely is for those in RS).

It has been mentioned here before (I'm certain I have said it, at least), but I have heard a fair number of professors mention in passing that math scores relate to foreign language competency. I'll say up front that I think this is bogus; either way, it's out there and something to be aware of. I don't remember exactly what my math score was before beginning my PhD program, but I don't think it was terribly high (nor very low). At least for the doctoral level, many say 70-75%+ is nothing to worry about. For M* programs, I think the math section is more or less meaningless (yes, even to the admins). So, at least for the OP, I would say don't worry about your math score too much. I also agree with everything said by Joseph above. I would emphasize that the final gate keeper, the graduate school administration, is, I have been told, much of the reason why students with low math scores are booted from doctoral admissions. Faculty know well beforehand what their graduate school will allow and thus regardless of whether one's application is impressive, they will not waste their time with someone who clearly falls below what the graduate school will allow (there are always exceptions, especially for international students). This is bringing back 'fond' memories. I truly hate the GRE. It was the most dreaded part of my application. I'm thankful to say I don't have to ever worry about that damn test again. Good luck <3

Do you want ancient recommendations as well? You mention a couple, but I get the feeling you are looking for modern perspectives.

At most of the top divinity schools in this country, being Muslim will likely help your chances of admission. They like certain kinds of diversity; often this means Muslims, Jews, and other religious minorities in this part of the world. You should also check out different ThM degrees, since I believe some of big divinity schools have full funding for international applicants.

I can confirm what was said above. The stipends at most tier 1 or 2 (top 50) schools are similar across the humanities. Philosophy and RS graduate students make the same money and as far as I know take on many of the same teaching responsibilities throughout their programs. State schools always have the lower stipends and many (most, in fact) do not offer summer funding. It is normal for state schools to offer less than 20k as your yearly stipend; private schools, on the other hand, at least in the top tiers, often offer over 20k and many offer summer funding (or the option to apply for it), resulting in 25k+ stipends. Though, cost of living natural factors into all of this.

^ Agreed. The latter (broad) approach is best at least in North America.

It really depends on 1) how long these 'bad fit' MA programs are, 2) how many courses they will require you to take outside of your interests, and 3) perhaps most importantly, how much language training you (think you) need. If you mostly need the latter (languages) and said programs allow you to spend most of your time studying languages, then, yeah, I don't think it will make much of a difference that you are studying at a place without any faculty member of particular interest. It is very important you are clear on each program's requirements. Some are rather flexible and will allow you take basically any course, language or otherwise, as long as it relates to your interests within religion; others will demand you take a slew of introductory courses (e.g. theory), which may not offer enough of you what you need (e.g. language training). Give us more information and we can help you work through this.

It's different every year. But compared with most of the M* degrees at Harvard, the Divinity School has a very high acceptance rate. I believe for the MDiv, acceptance the rate varies between 40-60%. This means that, quite contrary to what many imagine, it may be easier to get into Harvard for an MDiv than getting into, say, a classics MA at a selective state school. Take heart, friend.