Jump to content

sacklunch

Members
  • Posts

    1,307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from neat in Princeton Theological Seminary vs Duke Divinity School for Later PhD Work   
    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.
  2. Like
    sacklunch got a reaction from vineyard_guy111 in Princeton Theological Seminary vs Duke Divinity School for Later PhD Work   
    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.
  3. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from tqrgx341 in Torn: UChicago MDiv vs HDS MTS   
    Go to Chicago. For what it's worth, Chicago Div has a reputation of being less-seminary-y than all other divinity schools/seminaries in the USA (including HDS), which in your case is a plus. But, really, a full ride + stipend is rare anywhere, and especially so at Chicago, which is notorious for giving less money than the other R1's. 
  4. Upvote
    sacklunch reacted to Theobuckeye in PhD Applications Fall 2019 Season   
    I just found out that I was accepted to Georgetown's Theological and Religious Studies program! This is my third attempt at Georgetown and my seventh (yes, you read that correctly) application cycle. Never give up!
  5. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from marXian in MDIV to MTS   
    I disagree with some of the above comments. Of course, it depends on the PhD program and one's subfield, but many 'top tier' programs accept students with an MDiv (and without any other M* degree). Many also accept students with only (one) MTS/MAR. If you decide to do another masters, my advice is not to do a ThM or similar degree, since: 1) they are usually completely unfunded and 2) a year isn't enough time given your current 'problem' (i.e. uncertain what you want to specialize in). Again, it depends on your subfield (or what you think you want), but you are far better off doing an MTS/MAR or an MA in religion/religious studies (or related field). Either way, it is essential that your second M* allow you freedom in coursework, since you have already done all the MDiv 'fluff' and you don't want to repeat (and repay for that). A ThM will allow that freedom, but if you hope to transition straight from the program, again, you will be applying to PhD programs before the end of your first semester at said program (and, again, consider the funding issue). In the end, you may well end up having to pay (loan) for much of the degree. Anyways, without more information on what you (think you) want to do, we can't really help you.
  6. Like
    sacklunch got a reaction from DavidMM in Jewish Theological Seminary?   
    I have also studied at JTS and it's far from a yeshiva. It's fairly close to the environment you might encounter at e.g. PTS, but obviously the interests at JTS lean rabbinic rather than, say, biblical studies. I can't say that I know anyone with a PhD from JTS. It has a very good reputation, but is so closely associated with Jewish Studies/rabbinics that I suspect having a PhD from there would limit you to certain kinds of jobs. This may be fine for you, but it's something to consider. If the funding situation is as DavidMM says, then you might consider/apply elsewhere. If you want to do rabbinics, you could very well apply to Columbia and take lots of coursework over at JTS; and there are of course lots of top rabbinics scholars at other unis without any official religious affiliation.
  7. Like
    sacklunch got a reaction from Hatsuyuki in Jewish Theological Seminary?   
    I have also studied at JTS and it's far from a yeshiva. It's fairly close to the environment you might encounter at e.g. PTS, but obviously the interests at JTS lean rabbinic rather than, say, biblical studies. I can't say that I know anyone with a PhD from JTS. It has a very good reputation, but is so closely associated with Jewish Studies/rabbinics that I suspect having a PhD from there would limit you to certain kinds of jobs. This may be fine for you, but it's something to consider. If the funding situation is as DavidMM says, then you might consider/apply elsewhere. If you want to do rabbinics, you could very well apply to Columbia and take lots of coursework over at JTS; and there are of course lots of top rabbinics scholars at other unis without any official religious affiliation.
  8. Like
    sacklunch got a reaction from EarlyXianity in Seeking Wise Counsel   
    Your interests are very wide, which is understandable given your background. Attending GC will have wildly different outcomes, as far as your interests and future prospects, than will say BC. I can't speak to the field(s) of Ethics, but I can for biblical studies. Distance learning for languages is difficult, though less so for ancient languages, since most of what they teach in divinity schools is a passive form of learning within a very narrow literature (i.e. only reading the Hebrew Bible or Greek New Testament). I can't say for certain, but my guess is that if you're limited to distance learning, Catholic and secular schools have less biblical studies than Protestant schools. Well, before I ramble more here, tell us what you want out of this, end game.
  9. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from marXian in What are my chances at PhD admission at Duke or U of Chicago Divinity?   
    For most Americans, Oxbridge is just not that competitive. It is very difficult to get full funding as an American there, but what isn't difficult is getting in and even paying for it through US government loans. Every American academic knows this, so they are very skeptical of any American who has a DPhil from basically any non-North American school. And honestly, I can't say I blame them. The few Americans I know who have a DPhil from a well-known European school (including Oxford) just don't seem to be all that well-prepared, academically and professionally, for the US market. They have no teaching experience and their writing is worse than most coming out of even a middling American department.
  10. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from KA.DINGER.RA in What are my chances at PhD admission at Duke or U of Chicago Divinity?   
    For most Americans, Oxbridge is just not that competitive. It is very difficult to get full funding as an American there, but what isn't difficult is getting in and even paying for it through US government loans. Every American academic knows this, so they are very skeptical of any American who has a DPhil from basically any non-North American school. And honestly, I can't say I blame them. The few Americans I know who have a DPhil from a well-known European school (including Oxford) just don't seem to be all that well-prepared, academically and professionally, for the US market. They have no teaching experience and their writing is worse than most coming out of even a middling American department.
  11. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from Rabbit Run in What are my chances at PhD admission at Duke or U of Chicago Divinity?   
    For most Americans, Oxbridge is just not that competitive. It is very difficult to get full funding as an American there, but what isn't difficult is getting in and even paying for it through US government loans. Every American academic knows this, so they are very skeptical of any American who has a DPhil from basically any non-North American school. And honestly, I can't say I blame them. The few Americans I know who have a DPhil from a well-known European school (including Oxford) just don't seem to be all that well-prepared, academically and professionally, for the US market. They have no teaching experience and their writing is worse than most coming out of even a middling American department.
  12. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from lhgr in Should I transfer from my undergraduate institution to better my grad school odds? (CROSSPOSTED)   
    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
  13. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from Deep Fried Angst in Another "Stats Needed for PhD Admissions" Query   
    In short, no, one year of Latin is far from enough. Re a couple points made above. No MA in Classics will accept you, since basically all of them in the US require advanced proficiency in Greek or Latin and intermediate in the other (though you might look at 'ancient history' programs). A post-bacc in Classics is your only real option outside of religious studies/theology programs. And yes, if you expect to get into a decent doctoral program in that field, you are going to spend most of said MA in intro/intermediate language classes. There is no practical option here because academia is anything but practical. Catholic University has a great program, but many of its doctoral students are paying (through loans) for it, so that's something to consider (i.e. they might accept you, but expect you to take on 100k+ to get a degree that, in this job market, may not get you any job you want, unless you enjoy adjucting and making poverty wages). As someone else mentioned, many people in this field have two M* degrees; and I'll add that some of us even have two M* despite the fact that we had decent language exposure in undergrad. I'm not saying this is the norm, but it is not uncommon, which means at places like Notre Dame you are going to be applying against applicants who have been studying Latin and/or Greek since undergrad or even high school, through two M*, putting them a solid number of years beyond you.
  14. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from Boolakanaka in Another "Stats Needed for PhD Admissions" Query   
    In short, no, one year of Latin is far from enough. Re a couple points made above. No MA in Classics will accept you, since basically all of them in the US require advanced proficiency in Greek or Latin and intermediate in the other (though you might look at 'ancient history' programs). A post-bacc in Classics is your only real option outside of religious studies/theology programs. And yes, if you expect to get into a decent doctoral program in that field, you are going to spend most of said MA in intro/intermediate language classes. There is no practical option here because academia is anything but practical. Catholic University has a great program, but many of its doctoral students are paying (through loans) for it, so that's something to consider (i.e. they might accept you, but expect you to take on 100k+ to get a degree that, in this job market, may not get you any job you want, unless you enjoy adjucting and making poverty wages). As someone else mentioned, many people in this field have two M* degrees; and I'll add that some of us even have two M* despite the fact that we had decent language exposure in undergrad. I'm not saying this is the norm, but it is not uncommon, which means at places like Notre Dame you are going to be applying against applicants who have been studying Latin and/or Greek since undergrad or even high school, through two M*, putting them a solid number of years beyond you.
  15. Upvote
    sacklunch reacted to Kuriakos in Southern Baptist Sinkhole   
    FWIW, Baylor is not conservative. Half the department faculty attend gay-affirming liberal churches. I'm about as liberal as it is possible to be and still retain the label Christian and I've had zero problems here. There's no inerrancy or heresy hunting or any of the bullshit you get in SBC schools. 
  16. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from KA.DINGER.RA in Response times for popular journals within the field   
    Perhaps mine was returned so quickly (a bit less than 6 months) from JBL because of what I submitted, which was an edition of an unpublished papyrus fragment. The editor responded that to be published with them I needed to have the papyrus carbon 14 dated and the ink tested. I guess the Jesus' wife fake scared them away. In any case, I guess that means JBL is out of the publishing papyri game (or any other ancient artifact for that that matter), since no reputable institution would allow such tests (which require destroying some of the artifact). 
  17. Like
    sacklunch got a reaction from Spejo_Rolub in Southern Baptist Sinkhole   
    Some good recommendations here. You likely already know this, but I should emphasize that while Brite et al. are far more respected among 'secular' academics/institutions than your current school, they too will almost certainly keep you out of the running for most secular schools/departments. Given the job market you will most certainly never leave the (conservative) Christian (academic) bubble and those outside of it will view what you publish with suspicion, if they read you at all. As others say above, anyone who reads your CV for doctoral admissions at an R1 is unlikely to see the nuance between SBC seminaries. To most outsiders, they are all the same--the risks are too great to invest in you years and hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
    My recommendation, if you want to exit this bubble, is to leave your program immediately and complete a (secular) M* in religion/religious studies or a related field (e.g. a postbacc in classics). Yes, also apply to "theological" M* at R1's, which will signal that you're not super conservative (Yale et al.). But it sounds like your personal situation prevents you leaving the area. 
  18. Upvote
    sacklunch reacted to marXian in So So awa score. Should i even bother to apply to TT programs?   
    The problem with trying to improve the AWA is that it's completely subjective. The very first time I took the GRE, prior to any graduate school and with no studying, I scored a 5.5 on the AWA. The next two times I took it, including after two MA programs and teaching argumentative writing for two years, I could never get higher than a 5. Now, clearly I didn't have to worry with that score. But your verbal score is relatively high and because of that, I'd think that a 4.5 AWA score--at worst--puts you on the fence for some adcoms. Plus the AWA is naturally supplemented by your writing sample. The adcoms will be able to see for themselves whether you can write or not. I agree with sacklunch; don't worry about retaking it. Put your time and energy into your SOP and writing sample.
  19. Like
    sacklunch got a reaction from landontynes in Truett Theological seminary at Baylor Info   
    As to whether they will prepare you for a good doctoral program, yes, they may very well. But that's different from being competitive. Spend some time looking over current doctoral students' backgrounds at good schools and see for yourself. You will find that most come from the usual suspects (i.e. not Truett). In short, the odds are against you, especially if you apply to NT programs (which have the highest number of applicants--and thus can be more competitive). If you can move, basically everyone on here will recommend you go somewhere with a better academic reputation. Again, if you have the means (funding), but need to stay local, you are better off getting an MA in religion, classics, and so on (though these programs are usually more competitive and assume a background in the relevant languages). For most seminaries, the MDiv is simply not designed to help you get into a "secular" doctoral program (or even places like PTS). It is the path followed by many, but only because of the fact that in the USA one's interest in "biblical" topics usually tracks closely with one's personal/religious/whatever commitments. While it's true that this close relationship often bleeds over into one's research interests at the doctoral level, a large part of what you learn/study in an MDiv is moot for many doctoral programs in religion/religious studies. There is, moreover, the additional fear from doctoral program committees at good schools that someone with an MDiv from Truett will be (too) theological and thus not "fit in"; and so on. An MDiv from a top school assuages at least some of those concerns (or at least it does so from the Christian faculty--many other faculty will remain skeptical that any seminary degree is appropriate preparation). /rant
  20. Upvote
    sacklunch reacted to cheaterpen in Interdisciplinary Disadvantage for Religious Studies   
    Just to butt in here and echo @marXian's comments. I think the primary difference between History and Religious Studies (and to that matter, American Studies for you), is that History is a methodological discipline while Religious Studies is a categorical discipline. Religion people are seldom hired in History because they generally don't know the historiography and methodology required to fit in the department (i.e. teach undergraduate survey or research methods seminars). On the other hand, a historian can teach classes on religious history, and but might not grasp the theoretical concerns of being a religionist. That being said, there are some historians who do that wonderfully, and others for whom it's not really a concern. Historians and philosophers tend to care a lot about their methodology, which is why they tend to be unreceptive to religion scholars, unless they can prove their mettle. Same with area studies: religion scholars are worthless in Asian Studies etc. unless they earn their philological chops. Furthermore, because of the whole theology/religious studies debacle, Protestant bias, and lack of methodology (that's not just borrowed from anthropology, history, or literature), the onus is really on religion scholars to 'prove' themselves.
  21. Downvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from historygeek in SOP mistakes: what to avoid   
    The SOP will vary A LOT depending on what type of program you are applying for. I'm sure those in the sciences would not go on and on about their volunteer experience, while those in the humanities might do just that (and it likely will work out well for them).
  22. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from MarthUser in Interdisciplinary Disadvantage for Religious Studies   
    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.
  23. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from marXian in Interdisciplinary Disadvantage for Religious Studies   
    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.
  24. Upvote
    sacklunch got a reaction from xypathos in Any Current Duke Students?   
    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. 
  25. Like
    sacklunch got a reaction from marXian in Some Questions About Teaching for Current PhD 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. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use