sacklunch

Well SackLunch, ideally I'd love to go to Marquette and study theology, their theology and society, and teach at some seminary, or even a community college...

As everyone has said, it's illegal for them to discriminate. Will they? Yes. Will you be able to prove it? No. I have heard faculty straight up say they don't like taking old/er students (above around 30). This is at top schools, while I imagine lesser ranked schools, including most state programs, will be much different. Before anyone can really offer any input we need to know: a) what field/subfield you're in, b) which programs/schools are you interested in, and c) what you want to do after the PhD.

Thank you. I have used the search function and cannot find what I'm looking for. I'm interested in anyone's first hand experience about being in the program, the collegiality of the place, support, etc. 

Unless it's a free masters, run away; even it's free, you should probably run away. I followed a similar path (two terminal M* degrees, another on the way to my PhD), though I had a higher average. After I got into and finished a top-ranked PhD. I understand the feeling of failure if you do not continue. I remember that feeling well; it kept me going for years. And now I'm transitioning out of academia because there are no permanent, tenure-track jobs. Well, there are a few, but with hundreds of people applying to one job, the odds are stacked against you. Nearly all the people I know who finished a PhD at a top program in the last few years are making the same transition. For whatever reason, no one at the top M*/PhD programs really discusses the reality post-PhD (I'm a postdoc at an R1 now - I am still in the loop). And no one on this forum does because most are applicants/hopefuls. I suggest you make that inevitable transition now, rather than ten+ years down the road. Good luck

Unless it's a free masters, run away; even it's free, you should probably run away. I followed a similar path (two terminal M* degrees, another on the way to my PhD), though I had a higher average. After I got into and finished a top-ranked PhD. I understand the feeling of failure if you do not continue. I remember that feeling well; it kept me going for years. And now I'm transitioning out of academia because there are no permanent, tenure-track jobs. Well, there are a few, but with hundreds of people applying to one job, the odds are stacked against you. Nearly all the people I know who finished a PhD at a top program in the last few years are making the same transition. For whatever reason, no one at the top M*/PhD programs really discusses the reality post-PhD (I'm a postdoc at an R1 now - I am still in the loop). And no one on this forum does because most are applicants/hopefuls. I suggest you make that inevitable transition now, rather than ten+ years down the road. Good luck

So I know Thomas Worcester personally. He's a racist. Low key, but a racist none the less and doesn't take kindly to the influx of Asian students in Toronto.
So, here's how you handle this:
Hit 'Reply' BUT add Pamela Couture (pamela.couture@utoronto.ca), she's the Executive Director of TST. You're also going to want to CC, and probably individually reach out, to the ARCDO office (antiracism@utoronto.ca) at the University of Toronto (https://antiracism.utoronto.ca/resolution/).
Write what you want in the email but call out Thomas. This isn't the first complaint against him. He'll apologize profusely, likely want to buy you a meal and "mend wounds." If you decide to accept, don't give in. This is what he does.

I want to stress this one. My wife is a tenure-track professor in Education. Her extracurricular work is only sitting on the Curriculum Planning Committee. Otherwise she has a 2/2 load and advises 12 upper-level students that she might see for an hour 3 times a year.
Her salary? 85k
The adjunct pay for the professor teaching the same exact course as her? $3,500
EDIT: Adjunct also has a Ph.D.

Yes and no. Frankly, the reputation of one's adviser has little bearing on one's success securing a tenure-track job. Most scholars don't know (top) scholars outside of their (sub)field and most schools only have specialists in one subfield. So there are few times when an adviser's reputation will matter (e.g. when you apply to a top program, at which point you are applying against hundreds of others). In my opinion, it's far more important that you find an adviser who supports you, respects you, etc. (one would think these would be givens, but, unfortunately they're not). 

@sacklunch makes great points on leveraging your PhD in non-academic jobs. People do it, but your colleagues (and more so bosses!) will always ask, "What the hell are you doing here?!? Wouldn't you like to be teaching?" Say what you will about the job market but unless they're plugged in and fellow academics, many of them will either 1) See you as some kind of weirdo that couldn't get hired at a school and/or 2) Someone to be weary of. You're biding your time and will jump ship as soon as you can. Basically, someone that can't be trusted and someone not to give long-term projects to.
Of my friends that haven't gotten a safe full-time academy job, some went into administration. I have two friends that work in student affairs, one as a college chaplain and the other runs a school's Office of Religious Life but it's a purely administrative job. Some went into teaching at boarding schools which can be fairly lucrative, salaries in the 40-60k+ but it comes with housing and they legitimately have the summers off. One teaches at St. Paul's in NH and makes significantly more than 60k.
I also had two former classmates go work for the foreign service at the State Department! A former M* classmate from VDS also works at the State Department but in their Office of Religion and Global Affairs.
Some went into non-profit work.
Jobs are there but yea, probably none that directly utilize your PhD outside of teaching at an elite boarding/prep school. They have significant curriculum and financial well-being that teachers can teach seminars in their respective areas, something you aren't going to find much of anywhere else.

While I appreciate your opinions (truly!), I think you're wrong on most counts. I think you will change your tune after you have the PhD in hand (if you get in and if you graduate) and especially if/when you're actually applying/working as a scholar in the US system (if you manage to get a job in the field). Some points to consider:
1. To be clear, UK PhDs are not looked down upon as a rule. But generally speaking they are seen as inferior to US departments looking to hire. The reasons are actually pretty simple. The big one is teaching experience. Nearly all UK PhDs have far less (if any) teaching experience with the PhD in hand than US PhDs. If you have little to no teaching experience, you are probably not going to get a job (regardless of whether it's from the UK or US or wherever). 
2. Check the nationality of the faculty holding UK PhDs in the US schools. How many of them are from the US? I'm guessing very few. There are different expectations for non-US applicants. In any case, I can guarantee you that UK PhDs have even less luck getting a tenure-track job in the US than US PhDs (maybe 5%?). 
3. Yes, you're absolutely right that Oxbridge (et sim.) have great scholars and can produce great scholars and it's true that great scholars with UK PhDs hold tenure-track jobs at TT US schools. What you are ignoring is how little this matters once you finish the PhD. Remember, in the US you have roughly 10% (or less) chance of getting any tenure-track job. Most of the few jobs that actually exist could care less if your PhD adviser was someone famous (chances are they won't know who said person is or care). What they care about most, again, is teaching experience. Your list of fancy recommenders makes no difference to nearly everyone hiring.
4. You're simply wrong about the yearly process for US doctoral students. You don't have a year to write the dissertation. Most take 3-4 years - the same amount of time most UK students take, but the US students usually begin in their fourth year. The result is more time learning and honing skills valued by hiring committees in this country, esp. teaching.
5. All of your points make complete sense at your stage (post M*) (folks during/post PhD tend to leave the forum). Your experience of academia is (understandably) narrow and chiefly limited to discovery and research, which is of course part and parcel of the process, but it is only one part of the day-to-day work of most academics in this country (many in fact have no time for research).
6. I hate to harp on this point again, but, whatever path you follow, you are unlikely to get a tenure-track job anywhere in the US regardless of the school. I can tell you that I know zero people who were even interviewed for a tenure-track job this last season. These are people with PhDs from, among others, Duke, Chicago, Harvard, and Yale. Surprisingly, graduates from the elite schools fare worse at getting jobs at lower-ranked schools than graduates from lesser-known programs. I also applied and failed to get an interview (I have my PhD from one of the aforementioned schools and I'm now a postdoc). You will probably have to do something else once you finish (again, if you make it past all the hurdles of entry and graduate). This is the reality. It's no longer about whose the better academic (actually it never really was), but more of a lottery. 

Yes and no. Frankly, the reputation of one's adviser has little bearing on one's success securing a tenure-track job. Most scholars don't know (top) scholars outside of their (sub)field and most schools only have specialists in one subfield. So there are few times when an adviser's reputation will matter (e.g. when you apply to a top program, at which point you are applying against hundreds of others). In my opinion, it's far more important that you find an adviser who supports you, respects you, etc. (one would think these would be givens, but, unfortunately they're not). 

Seconding @sacklunch - you're mistaken on all accounts.
1. The UK PhDs that are well represented/respected come from UK scholars, by and large. They often attended highly elite boarding schools, did their BA at Oxford or Cambridge, and stayed on for a doctorate. They are a cut above your run of the mill scholars. Yes, absolutely, there are acclaimed US scholars that went to the UK for their DPhil. But guess what? The good ones landed highly competitive scholarships and their work reflects their overall ethic.
2. No one is questioning their scholars. We're questioning their institution taking advantage of gullible students.
3. What rankings, specifically, are you referencing? There's not a strong contender for Philosophy Gourmet like there is Religion/Theology.
4. I interviewed at Oxford and was granted acceptance but alas no aid. My POI walked me through the draft, step by step, with feedback until we knew that it would pass their committee. He said, literally, they're expected to do this for every US student.
5. You don't "hide" from critical scholarships. You find a hole in their argument and just blow it out of proportion. That's how their scheme works.
Etc., Etc., Etc.
You're reading our criticism as being negative of UK schools. Their scholarship is, by and large, sound. What we're critiquing is how their administrators handle US applicants and because of that, how they're perceived when they return Stateside looking for a job.
EDIT: Also done with my PhD but I like to stick around and offer advice. That said, I'm an Episcopal priest and knew that I would be headed into church work with minor/medium interest in the academy.

While I appreciate your opinions (truly!), I think you're wrong on most counts. I think you will change your tune after you have the PhD in hand (if you get in and if you graduate) and especially if/when you're actually applying/working as a scholar in the US system (if you manage to get a job in the field). Some points to consider:
1. To be clear, UK PhDs are not looked down upon as a rule. But generally speaking they are seen as inferior to US departments looking to hire. The reasons are actually pretty simple. The big one is teaching experience. Nearly all UK PhDs have far less (if any) teaching experience with the PhD in hand than US PhDs. If you have little to no teaching experience, you are probably not going to get a job (regardless of whether it's from the UK or US or wherever). 
2. Check the nationality of the faculty holding UK PhDs in the US schools. How many of them are from the US? I'm guessing very few. There are different expectations for non-US applicants. In any case, I can guarantee you that UK PhDs have even less luck getting a tenure-track job in the US than US PhDs (maybe 5%?). 
3. Yes, you're absolutely right that Oxbridge (et sim.) have great scholars and can produce great scholars and it's true that great scholars with UK PhDs hold tenure-track jobs at TT US schools. What you are ignoring is how little this matters once you finish the PhD. Remember, in the US you have roughly 10% (or less) chance of getting any tenure-track job. Most of the few jobs that actually exist could care less if your PhD adviser was someone famous (chances are they won't know who said person is or care). What they care about most, again, is teaching experience. Your list of fancy recommenders makes no difference to nearly everyone hiring.
4. You're simply wrong about the yearly process for US doctoral students. You don't have a year to write the dissertation. Most take 3-4 years - the same amount of time most UK students take, but the US students usually begin in their fourth year. The result is more time learning and honing skills valued by hiring committees in this country, esp. teaching.
5. All of your points make complete sense at your stage (post M*) (folks during/post PhD tend to leave the forum). Your experience of academia is (understandably) narrow and chiefly limited to discovery and research, which is of course part and parcel of the process, but it is only one part of the day-to-day work of most academics in this country (many in fact have no time for research).
6. I hate to harp on this point again, but, whatever path you follow, you are unlikely to get a tenure-track job anywhere in the US regardless of the school. I can tell you that I know zero people who were even interviewed for a tenure-track job this last season. These are people with PhDs from, among others, Duke, Chicago, Harvard, and Yale. Surprisingly, graduates from the elite schools fare worse at getting jobs at lower-ranked schools than graduates from lesser-known programs. I also applied and failed to get an interview (I have my PhD from one of the aforementioned schools and I'm now a postdoc). You will probably have to do something else once you finish (again, if you make it past all the hurdles of entry and graduate). This is the reality. It's no longer about whose the better academic (actually it never really was), but more of a lottery. 

To add onto @True_hope's argument. British universities are 1) known for allowing a dissertation that wouldn't see the light of day at a mainstream school and/or 2) use American students as the cash cow our student loan system is, taking us in and pushing us back out with a very poor dissertation, but with a PhD/DPhil none the less and they get $100k+ for it, knowing that you're all but unemployable in the US and abroad.

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.

No matter how hard I searched for such programs, I always found human greed and avarice. It is even surprising because logically, God is found by people who are pure in motives and thoughts, then why does such dirt grow in these communities? I don't want to dissuade you or anything like that, but I advise you to study this topic yourself. I hope that in your case you will succeed, but unfortunately, it didn't work out that way for me. From time to time, I read articles like Bible Verses that inspire, especially when I'm having trouble or sad since I just haven't found a similar program that would suit me. Everyone has their way, and I hope that you will be able to find what you are looking for

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. 

What do you want to do? Going from philosophy to systematic theology isn’t uncommon.
But if you’re wanting to teach philosophy, you need to get a PhD in Philosophy. Systematic Theology is an increasingly niche field that it is getting harder and harder to find jobs for.
If your field was philosophy of religion, you could theoretically, teach systematic theology at a smaller seminary or divinity school.
Outside of Fordham, BC, etc., no philosophy department is going to touch you with a PhD in Theology.

If you were doing a subfield that looked at religion + science, your engineering and NASA experience would be invaluable. In biblical studies, not so much. It's neat and will help you stick out as "that NASA person" but that's about it.

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!

I appreciate your support and also your answers. It does seem like languages are king when it comes down to it. I will strive to apply what you have told me. Thank you @sacklunch . Best to you. If your training has been for naught, may that be changed. If it has not, may it never.

Can confirm - I know several recent PhD grads from HYC in theology that are 1) forced to take a part-time lecturer position at their school, sometimes called the new grad gap year, 2) are on #2+ post-doc, 3) said fuck it and moved to Europe or Asia to teach, or 4) gave up on academia and went to other fields.
Enter into this with an open mind and don't close any career doors just yet.