AbrasaxEos

I'd say keep those presenting jets cool until you hit the PhD program. I think that a lot of people see it as a way to notch up their belt for a nice full CV when they apply, but I often find that presentations by M* students end up being more or less created for this end. I also think (and know from sitting on two) that committees often see presentations that are done as a M* as just this. Plus, if you haven't actually published your work that you presented in some kind of peer-reviewed journal, I hardly think that they are going to think too much of your new reading of Galatians 2. This is probably a little bit harsh, but my advisor told me the same thing as I sat with him wringing my hands over not having done enough presentations. So, if you can pull off a sweet presentation that was subsequently published, maybe it would help - but, take a look through these boards (historically) and note the huffy comments along the lines of "Hmph, I guess 2 [garbage] articles in a peer-reviewed [sectarian theological] journal, 5 [garbage] presentations at SBL and NAPS...isn't good enough for school X!" They are right. Those aren't good enough, you also have to be an innovative thinker, who is excited as hell about her or his subject, can communicate that through the written medium, and is going to probably change the field with their amazing dissertation. On an unrelated note - for LisaTO, if you are asking about the PhD through DRTS @ BU, they notify on the late side. I think I heard (2 years ago) around the first week of March.

BU Ancient Christianity does around 21k (+ health insurance, etc.), which as 11Q13 mentioned, for Boston, is a bit tough! However, it does allow for 4 years of fellowship and only one year of TA, as well as the possibility of making an extra 15k in years 4 and 5 teaching courses at the STH or MET college. When I was working things out way back when (2 years ago), I figured it out that with the exceptions of ND, Emory and Yale, a lot of stipends more or less even out, even if the 'gross' amount is more for some places. One thing to consider though...if you have a spouse, some places can be a lot harder for them to find a job than others (I am here thinking of New Haven, our previous city - a small city packed with overqualified people and precious few decent jobs). Boston is an expensive city, but my wife found a pretty nice job in a month of searching here, as in one where I don't spend any of my stipend except for books and supplies!

This mostly depends on your school, and their particular requirements. I have noted a surprising variance on exams from school to school. Some have 3, others have 4. Some are very traditional, whereas others are a bit different. I would say though, in terms of similarities for your field that a language component will obviously be important. Now, again whether that is you sitting down with or without a dictionary and translating a passage that might be seen or unseen from a wide variety of Greek authors or only the NT can really vary. Some places even do a in-person exam where you sit there with a professor and read a bunch of Greek perfectly. You'll obviously also have to do some other lanaguges, but again, it depends on where and what you are pursuing for them. My own will be Greek, Latin, Rabbinic Hebrew and Coptic, and they are more or less traditional exams selected from a corpus that my advisor and I decide on. In terms of stuyding, I suggest that you consider making a quick outline of whatever you read during your coursework, that way you can easily refer to it should you need to for an exam. Your reading list will be ridiculous, between my EC/Late Antiquity Exam and my Theory exam, I have roughly a book to read every two days between now and next Spring. However, I have read about half of them already and outlined them during coursework or my Master's, so as opposed to having to plow through Bagnall's Egypt in the Byzantine World in two days I can spend those two days reviewing my outline, and perhaps re-reading some particularly worthwhile or important portions. Obviously everyone has their own way of doing things. I more or less retain anything I read as long as I carefully read it once, but find that I need quick and easy 'tags' that bring the major argument to mind, otherwise I totally blank on things sometimes. So, I have worked a lot on creating super concise tags for myself that will work just this way. The nice thing about BU is that they let you take your exams whenever you want (within reason), so I am splitting them up, doing one in May, one in August, and one in December. We technically have 4, but the fourth is a paper that is meant to be either the first chapter/intro to your dissertation or a publishable article, which I have been working on all along, so that is more of an ongoing exam that I'll probably hand in during December at some point. If you have specific questions, message me and I'll try to answer them the best I can.

Such is what he says above, they start you out in a AM, on the way to a PhD - they just won't admit someone who wants to come in for a terminal AM degree. As with most PhD programs, if you finish your exams and decide that a dissertation is not for you, they'll typically give you a M-something for your efforts. Some programs have Post-masters and Post-bachelor tracks, and it sounds like what he is saying is that likely due to his being out of school for a while, they would put him on a Post-bachelor's track.

One thing to think about here, in terms of taking courses with undergrads is as follows: 1. Unless you plan on being a big-time research prof. right out of your PhD (unlikely even if you do plan on it), your first job will most likely be teaching undergrads. Hence, you should have a good sense of how to communicate your ultra-intricate, nuanced view of the synoptic problem to someone who (a) may not care about it and (if they do care, will glaze over if you start using a term like 'redactor.' 2. In this vein, whereas you may not want to have *all* your classes be filled with a lot of undergrads, as it is nice to have a high-level conversation where one can assume that everyone is more or less on the same page - as you move toward TAing, it is good to have a few so that you can practice a manner of speech and presentation that will allow you to share your thoughts clearly. Lots of folks step into the TA year(s) and spend the first few meetings talking over everyone's heads before they realize that they need to work on this aspect of their pedagogy. 3. On the flipside of this, don't be arrogant and assume that due to your 2 years in seminary or grad school that your knowledge is vastly superior to undergraduate students, especially juniors and seniors. I have had a few experiences such as, (a) Junior and Senior-level Classics majors absolutely kicking my butt in both Greek and Latin courses, (having a conversation after class with a senior about a brilliant observation she made during my presentation on some Coptic texts that has now led to a soon-to-be published article - the student did not know Coptic, and actually was a medieval history major, but obviously had the erudition to come up with some excellent thinking. I am constantly surprised and humbled during the classes that I share with undergraduates. 4. Finally, I actually found that my courses at YDS with other 'formally trained' folks were at times less enjoyable than those without. Formal training can allow one to have good classroom conversations, but it also breeds a lot of folks with fairly intractable positions on issues and topics that can really get in the way of open and honest inquiry. I'll take ten undergrads with less training and more openness than ten grad students who think they are the smartest people in the world because they got into an ivy league grad school.

Same deal here, I think the only way to compare the GRE in these transitional years is via percentile, which is what I would think that most institutions will also be doing at least until they get a sense of what the new scores "mean." Similarly, the GRE is kind of your "front door access," in that it isn't going to make or break your application, but will definitely get someone to take a second look. When top-tier schools are getting in the range of 80-100 applications for 1 or 2 spots, they are not going to read through the entirety of every one to check and be sure that the person who got a middling score on the GRE isn't a genius. Such is not to say that one could not be, I know plenty of brilliant people that can't take a standardized test to save their life. Unfortunately, such is the way of doctoral programs. One other mention on score, I think 11Q13 is correct, over 700 was around the 97th on verbal. Math is a bit harder, because it is pretty easy to achieve a perfect score on it, so the higher percentages are closer to a perfect score there. Somtimes the advice is "not to worry about math," which is generally true, though a truly embarassing score on it might give a commitee reason for pause. However, if you are applying to state schools (UNC, UT, any UC, etc.) consider trying to up that score. The reason being that some of the more prestigious fellowships are cross-disciplinary, so the only way that some of these places have of comparing a Religious Studies PhD candidate with a Physics one might be GRE score. So, if the school gives out 6 total "Presedential (or whatever title they give them) Fellowships," they may really be looking mostly at GRE scores and GPAs among accepted students. This does tend to be true mostly with the state schools though, as many private schools have discipline-specific awards. Consider also that in my own experience, when applying to UNC, the difference between the basic funding and the higher tier one was almost 5k, which is a nice little bonus, upping your equivalent hourly pay from $7 to a whopping $9!

Are you referring to the PhD? If so, when I applied two years ago (to the Christianity in Antiquity program) I think I heard back in mid-late February. Don't get too antsy - early submission doesn't mean too much unless it is specified as such on a website or something. Admissions committees meet after the new year in most cases. If it is for another degree, someone else might be able to get back to you better than I on that.

Difficult, yes but not impossible and not the worst idea in the world. I am two years out of the process by now, but in my own experience, along with a number of others with whom I applied, the best results (i.e. multiple acceptances) were from those who literally restarted each letter for each school. It takes some extra time and feels a bit frustrating, especially if you feel as though you are writing a similar letter for each, but I think each letter ends up sounding a bit more genuine and it eliminates the chance of you accidentally leaving something like "my interests in apocalyptic literature would make Prof. John Collins a perfectly suited advisor" in your SOP for Duke. Once you get past the window dressing of good GREs, GPAs, and LORs your SOP is what will really distinguish you from the 10-15 other candidates that probably have similar "hard" stats. Don't cheat yourself out of a chance at admission because you don't feel like putting in a couple of hours of extra work. The field becomes increasingly competitive every year, and with the inflation of so-called achievements, the hard stats of applications start becoming more of a name on the guest list if you will - the invitation to the VIP lounge comes only with the SOP.

It does not. Hermeneia has some odd holes - i.e. they don't have anything on Revelation yet, but have Ignatius, 4 Ezra, 2 Maccabees, and 1 Enoch all set. I think it really depends on who is doing the commentary. I've worked on two of them thus far, one is out and one, though more or less complete for the past two years is not quite out yet. I haven't even heard if a Proverbs is in the works. I also find that Hermeneia can be a mixed bag - some are absolutely amazing, while others (Haenchen on John as a prime example) are just abhorrent. The Anchor Proverbs by Fox is a good one, I've used it a few times for some research I was doing on sayings traditions (albeit there focused on Early Christianity), and it was both technically precise, as well as written in as sprightly a manner as a commentary can be.

For Ishmael/constant, New Haven is a decent place for families. I would go for East Rock, it is both the nicest area, as well as the one with a pretty good number of families. Also, it is served by the Yale Shutte system, which some of the other areas are not. Plus, you have East Rock park right in your backyard, so hikes, play areas, etc. are all easily accessible. East Rock is going to be one of the most expensive areas (for all these reasons), but Wooster Square and Westville are actually more or less similar in price. The best advice I can give though is also to be sure you go see the place you are thinking of throughout the day & night. Some places are seem fine during the day, but degrade a bit at night. New Haven is a super-compressed city and you can very literally go from million-dollars homes near the Divinity School to some downright dangerous areas in two blocks. I think East Rock is the best bet to start out with. After you get a feel for the different areas for a year or so you can branch out. As for Dwight/Edgewood area, that is kind of on the border of a nice and not-so-nice area - so I would steer clear unless you went and visited and were fairly sure about the safety of the area. Westville is out to the west of the Yale campus and you'd need a car to live there. Public transit is absolutely awful in New Haven, and the Yale Shuttle doesn't run out there. The school that constant is talking about is the Worthington Hooker School which is, true to reputation, excellent. However, for this reason, people go to very literally ridiculous lengths to get their children in there. It is very small, and so lots of parents who live within walking distance of the place end up being really disappointed when their kids end up having to go halfway across town to another school. However, they are renovating another school which is also in East Rock (called the East Rock Global Magnet School), and there has been a lot of push by parents in the area who have been unable to get their kids into the Hooker school (yes, they call it that and you'll see bumper stickers that read "Proud Hooker Mom" on cars all over) to make that one the "next" Worthington Hooker. You can go here: http://www.newhavencrimelog.org/ to check out crime statistics in various areas. The truth of the matter is that in New Haven, because it is so small, and because income disparity swings to wildly from area to area, crimes do happen, even in nice areas. I am a tall, fairly imposing male, but I had one instance of a attempted mugging in which I could tell the person was faking a gun under their shirt (mesh jerseys don't work so well for that). Other than that, which was fairly late at night, my wife and I didn't have too much trouble (one car break-in). Overall, people make NH out to be worse than it is, and a lot of the crime is centered around a few areas and is related to squabbles that wouldn't really ever include you. So, having lived in NH for 4 years, in a couple of different areas with a family, I have a decent bit of experience. Please PM me if you have any specific questions, I'd be glad to try my best to answer them for you.

Oh, I am sure such is the case. I think there is a taxi stand there, and I would imagine the cost wouldn't be too bad to go only a mile.

The easiest way to get from Yale to Brown would probably be Amtrak, it costs about 25 bucks and takes about 2 hours (I'm assuming you won't have a car - it would probably be quickest to get in a car and drive up route 95). The station in Providence is about a mile from Brown's campus, so it would be easiest if someone there could pick you up, though it is walkable (I've done it on a few occasions). Relative "danger" is always a bit difficult to tease out, as all three places are very different cities. New Haven has wildly differing neighborhoods that are in extremely close proximity to one another. You can go two blocks from a million (+) dollar home and be in pretty abject poverty. Plus, with lots of Yale students running around at all hours of the night, muggings are somewhat frequent. However, there are some very nice neighborhoods in New Haven, I lived in East Rock for four years, which is where more graduate students live. I had two bikes stolen, one car break-in, and an attempted mugging (a finger under a shirt...seriously?). So, that would be the story from a nice neighborhood in New Haven.

The closest neighborhoods to SCSU are Newhallville and Westville. Don't live in Newhallville. Westville is better, but you won't exactly be right out your front door to get to SCSU, and the apartments are going to be more expensive. The area immediately surrounding SCSU isn't the greatest (the campus itself is pretty nice, but take a drive around and you'll see what I mean). Most students commute, so they have huge parking lots there. If you have a car, I would suggest trying either Westville if you want to be a bit closer or East Rock for a nice neighborhood which is further away. East Rock is heavily dominated by Yale graduates, but there are some SCSU students that live there. One other possibility might be Hamden which is the next town north of the campus (SCSU is actually like 100 feet from the Hamden line), but there are definetly fewer apartments there, and Hamden tends to be more geared towards families. If you want access to things like bars and a social scene, Hamden wouldn't fit that bill. I myself was a Yale graduate student, but my wife went to SCSU for a Master's degree and we spent five years in New Haven, so if you have any other specific questions ask away.

Last year, Princeton was around Feb. 22, and Yale was the 28th. I didn't apply to the other two, so I can't speak to them, though most fall in the Mid-February - Early March range. As most places that give you any money want to know if you are coming by April 15, they want you to have some time to actually make the choice. I think I had heard from all of mine by March 3rd last year.

All good points thus far, but I'll add a few more from my own experience, as someone who has been involved (in a minor way) with a few academic hires at two institutions. 1. There were candidates who had impeccable credentials, went to top-rate programs, had great recommendations from well-known professors, but they had little or no theoretical knowledge beyond their subfield, which is what Wescott outlines above in some sense. With Humanities programs shrinking, if one at a small school is hiring a Religious Studies professor they certainly want them to have a specialty, but they also want someone to teach courses like "Religions of the West/East," "Theories of Religion," etc. If you come out of your PhD program in Early Christianity able to talk about every nuance of the Ophite diagrams, but unable to answer the question - "What is religion/how would you define religion?" in a cogent manner jobs will be tough. 2. In line with this, being able to teach a wide variety of subjects (and proving such through your teaching experience during your PhD) is a big help. It is for this reason that I decided against a New Testament PhD. There might be some justification in doing so if you really want to teach at a confessional institution or a seminary, but the wider you can cast your net, the better. This goes along with the above point, as it is even worthwhile to at least have the ability to say you could teach an intro-level course on Islam, or South Asian religions, or even something like Anthropology/Sociology of Religion. 3. It is sometimes about who your advisor knows, which is reason to work with an advisor that you both want to work with, and knows a lot of people in a lot of places. In one of the hiring committees, a big boost was given to a candidate because of their advisor being a close friend of two tenured members of the committee. The person was obviously well-qualified, but if comes down to only a few folks, such might make a big difference. There is a reason that the folks from the Ivies dominate in a many programs, and it isn't just name recognition. That's all I have for now.

I know a lot of folks who have gotten accepted to PhD programs disappear, but I am trying not to do that. So, as I mentioned on the 2011-12 thread, I check in here from time to time, so if you have questions and concerns ask away and I'll try my best to answer. My area is Ancient Christianity, so I don't know how well I can speak to those who are far outside the field for their applications, however, I did do a BA in Hebrew Bible, and a MAR in Biblical Studies, which straddled the line between HB/NT so I can speak to some extent to those areas as well. Either ask here or send me a PM (probably better to post here for the benefit of all unless it is a sensitive questions of some sort).

I can share some here. My results were as follows: Applied: UNC Chapel Hill, Yale University, Princeton University, Rice University, Fordham University, Boston University Accepted: UNC Chapel Hill, Fordham, Boston University Waitlisted: Yale Declined Further Consideration: Rice (they wanted me to do an interview, but I had already heard from others that I was more interested in) Rejected: Princeton I ended up deciding on BU. My field is Ancient Christianity, and I decided that I really wanted a program that would allow me to gain ability in both my field as well as the larger, theoretical questions that go into the study of Religion. With jobs often wanting folks to have ability in teaching general courses in Religion, I saw a real chance in BU's more comprehensive look at religious phenomenon to be able to confidently say that I could teach an introductory course in Christianity as comfortably as I could in Eastern religious traditions, or even sociology/anthropology of religion. Suggestions: - Statement of Purpose: This is your most important tool. Your GPA, GRE, language preparation, etc. are components, but if you SOP is poorly suited to the place you are applying, all of that is meaningless, and a chasing after the wind. I spent an enormous amount of time tweaking and being sure my SOP was truly tailored for each school, even re-writing some of bits that were similar between them all. In this vein, I also didn't apply anywhere to which I couldn't make a strong case for going (i.e. I didn't waste money or time with schools that were prestigious/had good funding 'just to see'). Keep it within word limits if they post them, if they don't keep it to one or two pages. If you can't communicate exactly why you are perfect for that school in that space, spend some time thinking about whether it is the right place for you, or edit the hell out of it. If it isn't clear yet, I think that there is no part of your application that is more important (other than the fee so that it actually gets read). - Languages: I did not have a voluminous catalog of languages under my belt. I had the those I needed for my concentration, I knew them well and could demonstrate that. I had neither modern research language, I was able to do French this summer, and will do German at some point this year. Languages are helpful, and may be a notch that allows you to climb just a bit over another candidate though. - GRE: Do well. I consider the GRE a kind of gatekeeper, that is, something that lets you in. You don't need an 800/800 (or whatever the new standard is), but you should strive to break 700 on verbal, and show some basic aptitude for math. By 'lets you in' I mean that many programs get a couple hundred applications, and they need some way to weed out substantial portion of these without reading through every one; GRE scores are a good way to do this. - Misc: I have a Bachelor's and Master's, both in Hebrew Bible. I decided to change my field (you can do this!), and am happy I did. My M.A. is from an Ivy league Divinity School. I would suggest for those heading for a M.A./M.Div prior to a PhD to consider an Ivy or at least something comparable (Duke, Emory) if you would also like to try for a good (read: fully funded) PhD program. The truth of the matter is that there are a lot of folks applying from these places (I happen to know that from my alma mater, we had a nice sweep of many spots at the bigger name schools this past application season, with about 7 people applying just in AC/NT), with LORs from profs who everyone has heard of and likely knows. If you are going to spend money on your Master's, at least do it somewhere worthwhile. At least try to apply to some, as they may not be as difficult to get into as some might think. -Final Words: First, don't pay for a PhD. Especially not in RS. You'll enjoy your job if you can find one, but you'll make 40k per year. This was the best advice I got from one of my mentors. He knew of 4 people in the past 10 years who had, despite his and others' warnings, gone into substantial debt to get their PhD. 1 of 4 has a job, and 4 of 4 have 100k+ of debt that will take them 40 years to pay off. If you only get into one program and they don't fund, don't go. Spend a year bolstering applications and try again. If you still don't get in, consider a career change, as this should tell you something about your perceived vs. actual abilities. Second, have support as you apply. Try to find others who are doing the same thing, even if it is not in the same subfield. People you can really meet with and complain to, get really honest criticism about your SOP/writing sample, and people you can grab a celebratory drink with after you get in. It makes what can be a lonely process far more bearable. Hope this helps, and please PM or ask here if you have other questions, I'd be glad to answer.

New here, but I'll echo what Mathetes has here, and add a bit. Ranking is hard to come by with many PhD programs not only because there are not a ton of them, but also because some of the factors that differentiate one from another are difficult to put into any kind of rubric or system. As Mathetes mentions, fit should perhaps be one of your more important aspects in this process. I often hear and see folks complain that they were rejected for admission, reeling off a voluminous list of languages they know, publications, and conference papers as proof that the committee was 'way off' in this rejection. Often times a rejection is based more heavily on the person having a crappy statement of purpose, having a good statement of purpose that does not apply to any faculty in the program, or having a good statement of purpose tailored to a faculty member who simply is not taking on new advisees. Hence, the question you should ask is not solely which program is most highly ranked, but which program has a faculty member(s) that you could study under. Look into some of this info, send a few inquiry emails to folks who might be a good fit (to make sure that their interests are still such, and that they didn't simply write one article about your favorite topic in 1982 and never plan to pick it up again!) Now, on the flip side, you have to be a bit practical. I would try the first process, and narrow your list a bit, as I am sure many of those schools would have suitable faculty and programs. After doing so, then consider practicality. Look at whether the programs fully fund, as paying for a PhD in the Humanities and especially Religious Studies is one of the silliest moves you could make. Look at the relative prestige of the program, as this might be a helpful nudge when you try to get a job in the future. Finally, look at their placement record, as a school may be well-regarded, but their graduates may have poor placement for one reason or another (too long to finish dissertations, not enough teaching emphasis, etc.). Then, apply!