sacklunch

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.).
 

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. 

I want to echo sacklunch here. Publishing as an MA student is a bad idea. The only kinds of publications that really matter for your CV are those in major journals in your field. Chances are you won't get an article published in a journal like that as an MA student. Submitting to lesser known, smaller journals, denominational journals, etc. just to get something in will not help you. It will most likely be looked upon with suspicion if you're applying to TT programs. Also, you do not want to publish things that are not of high quality. The internet exists. Digital databases exist. A low quality published article will stay with you forever. If you want to publish something, book reviews are a great entry point. They're low stakes, and with some guidance from faculty member, an MA student can write one. But adcoms honestly are more interested in your writing sample, SOP, and letters, so working to develop those things should be the focus of any prospective applicant.

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. 

These are good questions, and your concern for them at this stage in the game shows me that you’re on the right track. I’d like to add some advice from my experience and knowledge of the field that may be of use. I also want to push back on some of the above opinions, and one in particular.
You should not publish. Anywhere. This remains true until you’re an advanced M* student with some reason to think your perspective is well-enough informed so as not to embarrass your future scholarly self. This is advice I’ve heard from several profs from various top tear schools, and I honestly don’t know of an exception to the rule. Publishing as an M* student is one thing, but publishing before your BA is a mistake. Ask your own faculty and ask PhD students in your field at the schools you want to one day attend.
I’ve been on admissions panels and have heard what senior faculty at top schools are looking for in their M* students: relevant language/field work experience (whichever is applicable for your subfield), a solid foundation in the discipline (evidenced via a clear personal statement and sound writing sample) and, more than probably anything else, strong, strong letters of recommendation from faculty (preferably well-known faculty in your field if possible). As mentioned above, directed research projects with such faculty are very valuable here.
Ask anyone on the job market in RS and they’ll tell you that one’s undergraduate institution counts, and likely more than it should. I’ll curtail the rant here, but it’s ridiculous to put such a high value on one’s undergraduate institution when the process of undergraduate admissions is so hopelessly determined by one’s social location. Of course it’s better for an applicant to have an AB from Harvard not a BA from UMass, but when two applicants are equally qualified, choosing the Harvard alum will almost always mean choosing the one whose parents paid for several SAt tests, a admissions coach, private lessons, rides to and from extracurriculars, not to mention elite secondary school. 
In your case, I’d say that transferring from, let’s say, a regional school ranked #200 to another school ranked around #150 won’t really move the meter in one direction or the other. Take the cheaper option as long as you can get the relevant training necessary for your subfield. Volunteer somewhere that shows you care about humanity, become a teaching assistant if you can, learn a hard skill like manuscript editing, get another language on your transcript, help the world and work on digital humanities projects, things that make the case for you being an interesting person with interesting ideas and a record of hard work.
Best of luck!
 

I'll also add to everyone above who has advised choosing Baylor/Marquette over Oxford.
One other reason that hasn't been mentioned yet is qualifying/comprehensive exams, which are not part of the U.K. system. Those exams are also intended to speak to your teaching, though more implicitly than explicitly (i.e. hiring committees aren't likely to ask what your exams were in). I've used my three exams to develop five different syllabi that I can pull out and include in a job app if asked for, but that has also allowed to be very specific in my cover letters and/or teaching statements about what kinds of courses I'm prepared to teach (which most job apps do ask about explicitly.) Being forced to develop expertise in three or four specific areas under the guidance of some faculty who have expertise in those areas has significant advantages. 

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.

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.

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.

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!

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. 

That's a nice list, well done. I would put Emory first. NYU is underrated on this subforum, though the problem there is funding. Unless you get some sort of extra fellowship money, surviving in NYC on their stipend is difficult. I know two PhD grads from NYU in another discipline in the humanities who left during the summers because of funding issues (they would sublet their rooms). Perhaps the department of interest has extra funds set aside for the summer?

I also have Accordance and love it. The wealth of primary sources you can get is amazing. And the language tools and searches are vast. I haven't used Logos or Bible Works, but I love Accordance and it does everything I need and more. I've never regretted having it.

I knew a student who once purchased Logos. He said: "Logos is the best advertisement for Accordance that I have ever seen." 
 
Seriously though, Accordance is amazing. It'll have its quirk or two on the PC and its a bit expensive, but I literally use it every day and it is fast and effective. Logos is good for secondary literature I've heard, but I'm honestly not too sure how much of it is shovelware. 

I'll gladly speak on the topic. I have tried all three. I have spent relatively little time with Logos, quite a bit with Bible Works, and the most with Accordance. I prefer and have owned Accordance for about five years now (I use it on my PC mostly). The biggest advantage of Accordance is the number of modules they offer. It's true that some of the modules are quite expensive. But for a 'basic' biblical package it's reasonable, I think (e.g. BHS, NA28). On the other hand, if all you ever hope to use is a basic package then the others are certainly (almost as) good (e.g. Accordance's search features with the others!). I have quite a few of the more 'exotic' modules (e.g. Peshitta, Coptic, Targums, Mishnah, Talmuds, etc.), which to my knowledge are either not available on the others or their versions are garbage. For example, I have used Bible Works for some of the ancient Aramaic translations and I was pulling my hair out (e.g. their morphological tagging is often wrong, they don't specify what manuscript/s are used as the base, the apparatus are useless if available at all). If you plan to use the software for years to come (I'm sure you are given you signature) then I couldn't recommend Accordance more. 

I'll gladly speak on the topic. I have tried all three. I have spent relatively little time with Logos, quite a bit with Bible Works, and the most with Accordance. I prefer and have owned Accordance for about five years now (I use it on my PC mostly). The biggest advantage of Accordance is the number of modules they offer. It's true that some of the modules are quite expensive. But for a 'basic' biblical package it's reasonable, I think (e.g. BHS, NA28). On the other hand, if all you ever hope to use is a basic package then the others are certainly (almost as) good (e.g. Accordance's search features with the others!). I have quite a few of the more 'exotic' modules (e.g. Peshitta, Coptic, Targums, Mishnah, Talmuds, etc.), which to my knowledge are either not available on the others or their versions are garbage. For example, I have used Bible Works for some of the ancient Aramaic translations and I was pulling my hair out (e.g. their morphological tagging is often wrong, they don't specify what manuscript/s are used as the base, the apparatus are useless if available at all). If you plan to use the software for years to come (I'm sure you are given you signature) then I couldn't recommend Accordance more. 

Many prefer to read on their computers. I do use my laptop a lot for reading, but I like to print articles/books (sorry, world) I know I will return to in the future (notes in the margins). I have a decent monochrome printer with cheap ink replacements (it's a Brother, if you care).

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).

I could be wrong but I think I read somewhere that the acceptance rate is largely around 60% for the MA since it's seen as a cash cow for the university. With the late deadline (generally a marker of a "Shit, I didn't get accepted anywhere!" school), partial funding, and also accepting of part-time students, I'd tend to think that the acceptance rate is fairly high.

Regarding prep. for doctoral work:
Without dismissing some of the great comments above, I'll suggest to the OP that s/he might take them with some hesitation. There is no magic formula. Everyone is different. And one 'successful' summer is a disaster to another student. I didn't let up my summer before the PhD; I basically kept trucking along (I was doing a summer language intensive program). And honestly, I was far from 'burnt out' by December. Yes, some people may have run dry come December; but plenty of us are fine (and quite happy, in fact). Only you (and perhaps your friends/family) know how you will react to the added stress. Oh, and speaking of added stress, I actually felt less stressed once starting the PhD. There was, at least to my mind, simply less at stake in the first couple years during coursework. I cared less about impressing professors for that golden letter of rec. and instead dug deeper into my own interests. I cared less about my grades (though I did care a great deal). Oh, and professors treat you like you matter and some measure of confidence (and bombast!) follows. Your toils in the trenches are far from over; but now your labors do not go (entirely) unnoticed. Cheers.

Regarding prep. for doctoral work:
Without dismissing some of the great comments above, I'll suggest to the OP that s/he might take them with some hesitation. There is no magic formula. Everyone is different. And one 'successful' summer is a disaster to another student. I didn't let up my summer before the PhD; I basically kept trucking along (I was doing a summer language intensive program). And honestly, I was far from 'burnt out' by December. Yes, some people may have run dry come December; but plenty of us are fine (and quite happy, in fact). Only you (and perhaps your friends/family) know how you will react to the added stress. Oh, and speaking of added stress, I actually felt less stressed once starting the PhD. There was, at least to my mind, simply less at stake in the first couple years during coursework. I cared less about impressing professors for that golden letter of rec. and instead dug deeper into my own interests. I cared less about my grades (though I did care a great deal). Oh, and professors treat you like you matter and some measure of confidence (and bombast!) follows. Your toils in the trenches are far from over; but now your labors do not go (entirely) unnoticed. Cheers.

Less needs to be said after Marx's helpful post. But I will add that it just depends on the grad students you are eyeing. It is far less common, for example, for those in modern subfields of religious studies (American religion, say) to have more than one M*. Most of the those with 2+ M* are in medieval and especially ancient subfields which require, inter alia, a lot of language training. Now look at the average interest of the gradcafe user: they seem to hold (in your words) 'preachy' interests and/or interest in biblical studies. I gather this is simply a reflection of broader American interests in religion (or theology as the case may be). Also: competition. Your professors do not have two M* because the pool of applicants was smaller (though there are of course more doctoral student slots across the country now). There was a time when the MDiv/MTS did not exist; those interested in ministry often got a bachelors in divinity. The unfortunate result of the divinity school M* is that it has forced those of us with no interest in theology to "compete" with many modern divinity students holding two M* (them often holding preaching interests with 'more academic' interests).  

@Lysdexia A few thoughts:
1) It really depends on what your subfield is since RS covers an incredibly broad range of fields. For people doing language heavy work (e.g. NT/HB, ANE, or ancient Mediterranean stuff) two summers of language coursework probably won't cut it. Many people in top programs in those fields have years and years of language work, which usually requires two masters degrees.
2) You can't judge the present by what current professors have, how easy it was for them to get into programs and get jobs, etc. It's just astronomically more competitive now than it was when many professors were applying to grad school and going on the job market. 
3) For some subfields in RS, interdisciplinarity is really exciting for PhD admission. E.g. if you're looking to do philosophy of religion/ethics/theology in an RS program, being able to draw on "cultural studies" broadly speaking (whose theoretical texts are often conversant with literature, history, anthro, philosophy, etc.) is highly attractive. That's becoming a much more common source of theoretical material in RS, so it's not necessary to have an MA in comp lit, for example, but it would certainly demonstrate you know what you're talking about if you're proposing a project that includes something about literature and/or literary theory.
4) A caveat to the above point: Interdisciplinary training is intriguing to RS adcoms because they'd like to think that there's something cutting edge about those students that will add interesting dimensions to their department. Sometimes that's definitely the case, but the job market does not reflect this interdisciplinarity. People who write tight, focused dissertations that make a very strong argument about a very particular thing get hired in response to job postings that are far more often than not written looking for a very particular kind of expertise. Some are so narrow as to be utterly ridiculous. Interdisciplinarity is a good thing, I think, to have in one's back pocket, once a job of some kind is secured because you have more knowledge to draw on for creating courses and making them interesting to undergrads. But for getting a job in the first place, it can be a hindrance. 
5) I have colleagues in my cohort who came in without any masters degree at all. They did just fine in the program and we'll all likely be finishing our dissertations around the same time next spring. Some people are just smarter than others and require less training. Some people know what their interests are from nearly the beginning of their BA and can develop those to maturity without the aid of an MA. I don't have any problem admitting that, for me, I felt I needed two MAs to really get a handle on my interests and fill knowledge gaps that I didn't fill when I was an undergrad. I was in a pop punk band trying to get famous for the majority of my undergrad with the plan of being a high school English teacher if "rock star" didn't work out. I didn't give a shit about school until my senior year when a couple English professors I had each took time to show me that there was something special about my writing ability. Then I started to care school. But I didn't know anything about grad school, PhD programs, etc. I didn't know I wanted to do a PhD until halfway through my first MA. And even then, I realized it probably wasn't going to be in English, my original discipline. Because I have about four times more graduate coursework than my cohort colleagues, I have much more material to draw on for generating courses. And I suppose in some ways my previous MAs have helped to indirectly shape the direction of my dissertation and the way I think about my source material. But at the end of the day, they are just as capable as I am to actually complete the dissertation and finish the program, because our dissertations are so narrowly focused that all of that extra course knowledge could never find its way in directly to my dissertation. Everything else my extra grad work adds are "intangibles" (my particular writing style, my creativity in conference proposals or course design, etc.)
All of that to say: two MAs is by no means necessary, particularly if one's interests are theology, philosophy of religion, ethics, American religious history, etc.--subfields that don't require substantial language training. 

We should distinguish the usefulness of comments from administrators and those of professors (the latter making the decisions for doctoral admissions--not the admins). The comments above are understandable: for it's rather easy to contact e.g. HDS and talk to an admin about what they recommend (and it's rather difficult to discuss these issues with professors). But the opinions of admins on one's academic trajectory are honestly not worth much. It is simply a fact that many doctoral students at the top schools (at least in this country) have two, sometimes three M* before starting their PhD (I am such a one/fool). The notion that there is little point in doing an MDiv after after an MTS has some support, but only from the admin perspective: an MDiv and MTS are awarded on the basis of filling certain requirements and since both degrees have overlapping requirements, the notion of "taking the same class" over again seems an utter waste of time (and esp. money). But from an academic point of view, this is simply wrong. You will not, I trust, be retaking e.g. "Introduction to X"; the point of the second degree is to explore further those interests already cultivated at the first school. 
On the other hand, many MDivs, at least at the 'top US schools', will require you to (re)take the "Introduction to X". Each school is different, however; so only apply if said program allows you to take advanced classes. There are other considerations you should have in mind such as the ability to take classes in other departments (e.g. philosophy). Again, each school has a different policy. The academic freedom available at MDiv/MTS programs in Boston (many courses available through the BTI) comes to mind. Duke Divinity is unlikely the right program for you (you would be much better served in the MA in Religious Studies, which allows you to take any classes you want, even outside of Religious Studies and is generally better funded). Speaking of funding, this is the only real reason why I would chose an MDiv over, say (as others recommend) an MA in Philosophy or Religious Studies. The latter almost always allow the freedom to explore interests in greater depth--depth that is simply not possible in many (all??) MDiv programs. The 'problem' with the MDiv is it's serving two masters: the 'church' and the academy. This makes sense given the professional goals of most divinity students. If your interests overlap between 'church' and academy (which it sounds like they might), then, sure, an MDiv might make sense. But outside of funding, I see no reason to pursue an MDiv over another terminal degree. In sum my advice is apply widely (MDiv, MTS [yes some PhD students have two], MA in Philosophy, RS, History, etc.) and see what funding is offered. The last step should weigh the academic freedom afforded at each program. 
cheers

I don't know Longenecker, nor should I given my interests. Some of his publications listed on Baylor's website and, especially his recent book, would, however, raise eyebrows in some scholarly sectors. When I look at the publications of Levenson, I imagine a very different reaction. I don't think it's terribly productive to criticize Longenecker for (what I assume to be) deep theological commitments in his work. But others will. Even if you do not count yourself among whatever camp Longenecker may or may not locate himself, others will. But because others will, this can all work in your favor. It just depends on where you hope to work.