marXian

Oh yeah, if we're talking about all the people throwing it out there as one option along side starting a non-profit, going to live in a Chilean village indefinitely, etc., I knew plenty of those! Damn, I'm a jerk, haha.

To the OP's question (not that I don't find the discussion of the SBC entertaining), there are a few things you need to bear in mind as you're looking for programs. First, a helpful response to what you're looking for depends so much on how conservative you are. You mentioned "Christian Apologetics" which makes me think more conservative, but if I'm wrong let me know. If you are more conservative, that's not necessarily a problem; it's just going to change what you're going to be really interested in and probably affect what you mean when you say "philosophy." Second, there are very big differences between "philosophy of religion," "systematic theology," "philosophical theology" and everything else you listed that you should bear in mind when looking for programs. Chances are you're not going to be teaching courses across all of the disciplines you listed, at least not right out of the gate, and only if you end up teaching at a smaller liberal arts college/Christian school. You simply can't do all of those in a PhD program (as your major field), so you're going to have to pick an area to focus on. That doesn't mean, however, that if you do historical theology, for example, there's going to be no philosophy involved--just the opposite, actually. A dissertation on Thomas Aquinas is going to require a lot of philosophy. Philosophical theology and systematic theology are usually considered "constructive" disciplines, which means less historical work and more theoretical work, but historical theology can offer something constructive and constructive theology can be (and should be) grounded in historical work. At the end of the day, though, it really sounds like an interdisciplinary theology department (like at ND) or a religious studies department is really going to best suit your needs. Third, even if you're conservative, be wary of conservative theology departments and how they treat philosophy. If you look at a lot of ST programs at seminaries (that aren't mainline or PTS or something) you're going to find that philosophy is not really valued. That's not the case across the board (people mentioned Fuller, I went there, philosophy matters there), but if you do end up going more conservative, the "philosophy" that is taught is really just apologetics (which may not be a problem for you.) Theology in these programs is treated as if there are no philosophical underpinnings whatsoever. But if you're truly interested in the relationship between philosophy and theology, I don't think more conservative schools are going to be a good option. Lastly, here's a good list to start from for funded PhD programs in theology/religious studies that are open to interdisciplinary approaches: Princeton Seminary (Theology), Yale (Religious Studies), Harvard (Religious Studies), Duke (Religious Studies), UChicago Div School (Theology), Northwestern (Religious Studies), Loyola Chicago (Theology), Notre Dame (Theology), Marquette (Theology), Syracuse (Religious Studies), UVA (Religious Studies) As an aside, all of these religious studies programs have tracks in theology or philosophy of religion. For the ones that have theology tracks, Northwestern and Yale for example, actual systematic theology is done in those departments as well as historical theology and philosophy of religion.

I'm sure there were way more than I realized. I think it was just because I got into a small group of people all interested in philosophy and theology and all interested in PhD programs. I knew very few people outside of that group who were applying. Edit: Now that I think about it though, I guess I'm vaguely aware that a lot of people there want to go on to do biblical studies PhDs so maybe I didn't notice as much because I knew that wasn't going to be my field so I wasn't competing for the attention of MMT and the like.

I know exactly what you're talking about, and it's not elitist at all I don't think. I don't know if it makes me angry... maybe just more confused! At Fuller, I only knew of a small group of us who were really serious about PhD programs. Most people were just interested in ministry and not thinking about a PhD at all. But then there were people like you're describing who would be like, "I'm really interested in doing a PhD that combines theory in performance studies with New Testament studies. Maybe at Duke or something." They would say Duke because a lot of biblical studies profs at Fuller went to Duke. And I would think, hmm... do you know if anyone else does anything remotely like that? I could maybe imagine a project that does that--I mean, I wouldn't be completely shocked to hear someone does something along those lines. But these were not people who had put a lot of very serious thought into what potential projects are actually viable options, much like what Alex is describing. They had some general interests and just assumed they could mash those together and go do a PhD combining all of them. I occasionally get emails from friends of friends who are looking for advice on how to begin this process, and I always begin by telling them to be as realistic as possible about 1) the viability of their project based upon what is being done in the field and 2) their own limitations with regard to grades, institution, GRE, etc. There is definitely a group, usually seminary students, who skip those steps and take the attitude Alex is describing. It's not elitist to think that's a bad way of approaching this process. I think it's just being realistic.

Ah, sorry, my mistake!

Right. Which is why I was addressing the people who were saying not to discount the ancient languages when I said that those languages wouldn't be requisite. I was confused because your first reply to me essentially said "languages might not be requisite, but they'll make you competitive." So I didn't know which languages you were referring to because it seemed like you were addressing me and not Windfish. Regarding your last point about only needing reading comprehension...if Windfish (or anyone else) is planning on studying German figures, speaking German is absolutely essentially and giving presentations in the language is not the reason. Most of us who study German theological figures want to go to Germany for a year of our program because, frankly, that's where all the best scholars on those figures are by and large. To win a DAAD research grant or a Fulbright or something like that, demonstrating that you know the language beyond reading comprehension is essential (the DAAD, for example, has a language evaluation form that goes with your application package that evaluates your speaking and listening comprehension abilities to be completed by a German prof at your uni.) Furthermore, De Gruyter in Berlin is the major academic publishing house for all things related to German theology. Yes, many people over there speak English, but you're just going to have a much easier time establishing a relationship with the people there if you speak German. They publish encyclopedias, dictionaries, volumes upon volumes of edited essays, new editions of texts, etc. in both English and German and are always looking for competent academics to head up those projects. Someone who doesn't speak German is not going to get those jobs. If you're working on a German figure, even someone widely translated into English, fluency or at least advanced competency in German (speaking, writing, reading) is absolutely essential by the time you're deep into your program.

Are we talking about ancient languages or French and German? I can definitely attest that for someone doing more contemporary theology, getting started on French and German now is a good idea but only because it's tough to start those from scratch once you start your PhD. I started from *almost* scratch, and it has not been easy. But I was referring to the suggestion that having a long list of ancient languages under your belt will help if your proposed field is contemporary theology. Ancient languages are going to be seen as only peripherally relevant to an application in contemporary theology and not something I would think would be the first thing an adcom goes to in deciding between two candidates in that field in particular. Anything at all you can do to start in on French and German (especially German) is going to be helpful in the long run.

If you're working in theology beyond the 18th century, I can guarantee that the ancient languages are not going to be requisite. There may be other reasons a person decides to add ancient languages (e.g. 19th century theological reception of ancient philosophy, etc.) but unless it is central to what you're studying, you just won't have the time to become proficient in that many languages. There's too much philosophy to worry about. I study the early 20th century, and I'm expected to be well versed in Kant's critical and practical philosophy and philosophy of religion, the Idealist tradition, Marx, and especially neo-Kantianism, a field that almost no actual philosophers are working on (so it's hard to find primers). I have barely used any of my Greek knowledge from seminary and none of my Hebrew (I know the ANE, and ancient med folks here will hate hearing that...) Your adviser is going to only be concerned about language insofar as it is going to help you write the dissertation. I had considered adding Latin since many of the figures I read (Weber, Troeltsch, Otto) cite things in Latin, use Latin phrases, refer to texts written in Latin, etc., but ultimately it was just going to take too much time away from other areas that were more important to develop expertise in.

If you can do anything to try and raise it above 150, I think will help, but keep in mind that the quant score will never be the deciding factor between you and another applicant. If your application makes it to the final round of cutting, the adcom would much sooner make a decision on the nuances of the writing sample or the LORs than decide by quantitative GRE score. Test score matter more in the early rounds, but even then, it's the verbal and writing scores that are the most important.

I think you're making the right choice. As has been said in the past on this board, US institutions care a lot about official competencies when they're looking for faculty to hire. Coursework and exams allow you to do that in a way that the US schools all recognize. The other way to establish those is to publish, but most people who are trying to write a dissertation don't have a whole lot of time to publish broadly in their field let alone in areas that would constitute a subfield (which, IMO, is important to do.) The dissertation is on such a narrow slice of the broader field that it's not always a clear indication that one is competent in the broader field (which sounds crazy, but read a book published from a dissertation and you'll see what I mean.) You're probably going to have an easier time getting a job with a degree from Emory rather than Oxford (though by no means an easy time!)

PSA: Academia is a never ending parade of rejections.

"Different programs are run differently." Yes, indeed. No one in a humanities field is writing a 125 page thesis. Faculty would absolutely make a student cut that in half at least. Also, as Macrina mentioned, you're usually not doing field work for a theology degree, especially not a ThM. Research in the library is not field work. There's no IRB approval, no data collection (at least not in the same way), data analysis, etc. Now, in religious studies, some people do ethnography, so there's a significant amount of field work involved. But, as I mentioned in my first post on this thread, there aren't very many terminal MA programs in RS. Most people posting here are interested in the MDiv/MA/MTS, etc.

It probably varies school to school. With regard to the specific disciplines you've mentioned, some schools that house those fields have amazing language departments (bigger research unis usually), and it's just standard that incoming PhD students take the undergrad language courses on top of their normal load in their first or second year (I did that during my first year.) It also depends on what you're studying. If you want to do historical studies, i.e. anything before the 18th century, you need to have Latin. The modern languages are not terribly difficult to learn, and most departments recognize that. Latin is tough for most people, so if you're planning on doing something in medieval Christianity or the Reformation, you do need to have some Latin under your belt to be competitive. If you're doing more contemporary ethics/phil of religion, it's not going to be as important as other application factors especially if you want to do American/English phil. of religion. I had one semester of college German that I had taken 4 years prior to my application. My original plan didn't include German philosophy/theology but that changed basically as soon as I started. Now I wish I had done more German prior to starting my program. Even though I've already passed the German reading exam, I'm nowhere near fluent and am still really slow at reading. I'm trying to get some money to go to Germany this summer for two months just to work on improving my language skills which is something I maybe wouldn't have had to do had I done more prep before. You need to figure out what languages you will probably need. If you're studying figures from a foreign country, you will eventually need to be fluent in their language in order to write a good dissertation (especially if it's German.) If you're doing something historical, you need the relevant historical languages. If your language prep matches what you're proposing, that will definitely help.

I have to disagree. ThMs are usually designed to get people through in a year. I've known many students at Fuller Seminary in the ThM program who finished in a year. That's because as they were doing their 3-4 year MDiv, they were already beginning to narrow in on an area of interest, work closely with the professor who would eventually mentor them, and were basically able to expand a good seminar paper into the thesis--which is exactly what you should do for a thesis. And I also wrote my thesis for my first MA in a little under a year. It was English, not theology/religion, but still, it's definitely possible. This little piece of advice probably doesn't belong on this thread, but I'll say it anyway: Your thesis/dissertation is not the culmination of your career's work. It's the beginning of it. Spending ages and ages writing a dissertation--let alone a master's thesis--is the wrong way to go. That's why getting a thesis done in a year should never be thought of as wishful thinking. Even though many PhD students are unable to meet this goal, the standard timeline for most PhD programs is to write the dissertation in years 4 and 5. That's two years. That's what you have funding for from the department. A thesis, though a big deal while you're writing it, needs to be seen as one milestone, your first really, on the way to much bigger things.

If you're interested in historical theology and/or church history, languages aren't quite as important as they are for those doing philological work on texts, say, from the Ancient Near East. in the latter sorts of disciplines, you need to develop advanced proficiency in a number of ancient languages (usually more than the standard "2 foreign languages" requirement in most programs). In the former disciplines, you need to be really, really good at Latin--that's probably most important. Next would be German, but after that you probably won't need anything else. Some humanities departments are phasing out the standard 2 modern research languages requirement and moving to a "foreign languages as needed" requirement. Some departments only require two languages, and whether they're modern or not doesn't matter. All that to say--you may not need French. You can't get into a ThM program unless you have an MDiv or equivalent. It's sort of "in between" a M* degree like an MTS or MDiv and a PhD. They're usually one year of advanced study where you work closely with one prof and then you write a thesis (so you could technically finish it in one year.) They can be helpful for those who have a M* degree but want another year to figure out a solid direction to propose for PhD applications. But an MTS is totally fine for applying to PhD programs. Especially if you're applying to secular RS departments that have theology tracks (e.g. Yale, Northwestern, UVA, etc.), all "theological" degrees tend to be viewed the same. That is, an MA in theology, an MDiv, an MTS, are all M* degrees to those departments--what matters is where you got them, the level and quality of work you did there, who you worked with, etc. There may be some situations in which one is preferred over the other, but not being in one of those situations myself, I don't know what those would be.

awells27, I would KILL to have been able to stay in Southern California! IU is doing you a favor. I did grow up around Pasadena, so I'm biased, but the Chicago winter this year was...horrifying. It snowed AGAIN today. I understand why my friends at Fuller who were from the Midwest ended up just staying in Pasadena. Go to UCLA. Stay warm forever.

Good news for you: Both your assumptions are wrong! There are people going into ministry at the big name div schools/seminaries, but there are plenty of people going into academia at them as well (including a ton of people on this board.) Those schools are not conservative (as compared to other seminaries) so not being a Christian is not an issue in the least. derewigestudent is in that boat and can probably offer you some insight on what it's like to not practice what you're studying. It sounds to me like a div school could be the perfect place for you. Also--I think it's a really common misconception that people in RS departments practice what they study. Some do and some don't, but even the ones who do attempt to bracket that to a certain professional degree (I'm talking secular RS depts.)

It isn't universally true that one must have a M* degree. As others have already said, it really depends on the subfield. It's feasible that if the area of study is not language intensive, especially not ancient languages, one could get in from undergrad provided one did RS as a major. Outside of that though, an MA or MDiv is really useful for developing a competitive PhD app. It allows you to work on narrowing in on your specific interests. It gives you the opportunity to produce a strong writing sample. You have the chance to work closely with faculty who will be able to write you fantastic letters. These are all possible in undergrad, but typically they're easier to accomplish at the grad level. A M* degree is also necessary for people who either went to lesser known or unknown undergrads (especially bible colleges or tiny liberal arts colleges) or those who didn't do that well in undergrad and want to prove they're cut out for PhD work. Regarding tradition, don't confuse religious studies with theology. The RS "tradition" is extremely shallow, going back only to the mid 19th century. I mean, the tradition of the Western literary canon is almost a thousand years longer. So I'd maybe buy that argument for someone applying to a seminary or Catholic university wanting to do historical theology or something else historical, but not so much for people wanting to do American religion at an RS department. People doing studies in late antiquity or ancient religions/texts within a religious studies department are less concerned about the tradition in RS than they are with the reception history and tradition surrounding their specific field--which, in my view, is maybe only tangentially related to the history of RS. Btw, there are, I think, fewer than 5 terminal MA programs in "religious studies." Most of us who go into a PhD program in RS come from other fields (theology, classics, history, etc.) which is why so many of us end up at seminaries or div schools for our M* degrees. I'm also not sure that MA and MDiv programs in our discipline(s) are "cash cows" across the board. That isn't to say that cash cow programs in the humanities don't exist (e.g. the UChicago MAPH), but seminaries aren't unable to give everyone a full ride because they want to turn a huge profit. Seminaries have a specific mission in mind that differs from "standard" M* programs in the humanities; as such, they draw and admit students from all undergrad disciplines. That means admissions standards are generally lower, and the number of people in these programs is very high (comparatively.) Most seminaries also don't have undergrads whose tuition helps to fund grad students as in other M* degree situations. I think seminaries would fund all of their students if they could--they will never have the money to do so. Div schools and seminaries attached to major universities are a slightly different story and do have some money to give, but again, similar mission with similar admissions standards so there are just way too many students. In my first grad program (MA in English) there were about 20 students total at any given time in the two year program, all funded with a stipend for two years, and the money largely came from undergrad tuition (among other gov't sources.) In exchange, we had to teach to sections a semester of freshman composition. At seminaries and div schools there are hundreds, sometimes a couple thousand students (like at Fuller Seminary) with no undergrads to teach. It just isn't possible to offer the same kind of funding. In other disciplines, I would say one should never pay for a M* degree. There are plenty of programs across the country like my English MA (in most humanities disciplines) such that if one were to encounter an unfunded program, I'd say it either is treated as a cash cow by the university, or the university just doesn't care that much about the program, so it's probably not very good. Because other disciplines that are housed within a larger university are only going to have a handful of grad students at any given time in their M* degree, so to not be able to fund them should raise an eyebrow. Philosophy is maybe the only humanities discipline with some obvious exceptions where either no students have funding or only a few do (e.g. Tufts, Georgia State.)

My guess is that it's the online degree that's the hang-up. I went to a community college, had a 2.9 GPA from there, didn't really get it together until my senior year at a state school, etc., but I was able to get into a good PhD program (after two MAs). I don't know what your life situation is, but if this is something you are really, really passionate about, getting a second BA, maybe even from CU's religion dept., might be something to consider. My first MA (from the University of Northern Colorado!) is in English. I knew that based upon my undergrad GPA (English major, 3.17) and the second tier status of my MA school, that it would be really hard to get into a good English PhD program. I also realized that I was maybe more interested in theology/philosophy during the course of that degree. So I went to seminary to get a second MA, kept the door open for the possibility of a PhD in either English or religion/theology, then discovered that religion/theology programs are generally more interdisciplinary and that there would be more options for me to apply to. And there's no theology/religion GRE subject exam (thank God.) At one point in the middle of that second MA, I considered getting a third MA in philosophy so that I could apply to an even wider range of PhD programs, but because I had been carefully assessing programs, figuring out fit, etc., by the time I entered my final year, I knew that I had reached a point where I felt ready to just apply to PhD programs without another degree first (though a third MA was my backup plan.) All of this to say, when you hear back from CU, you need to take what they say in stride, own up to the fact that you have deficiencies in your academic history, and figure out exactly what you need to do to get competitive and get back out there. And it may take longer than you want it to--I was hoping to be done by now, but here I am in my seventh year of graduate school just finishing the second year of my PhD. But if you are dead set on academia, can't picture yourself doing anything else at all, then it won't matter to you how long it takes to get there.

This hurts the German part of my brain....

FYI, Talbot is a seminary. The thread linked above will definitely answer questions regarding the differences between "Christian apologetics" and "philosophy of religion," which are definitely not the same thing. Two things in your post which aren't addressed in that thread: A seminary education is very, very general but usually still academically rigorous enough to earn you acceptance to a PhD program. I went to Fuller (MA in theology) and am now getting a PhD in religious studies (emphasis in theology). With regard to your hesitation, you should know upfront that the path to teaching at the university/seminary level is not for people who are unsure. I don't say that to discourage you at this point since you're an undergrad (or at least not yet a grad student.) But if you go on to a master's program, you should use that time to figure out as quickly as you can whether or not advanced study is for you. You should definitely not pursue a PhD unless you decide that you simply can't see yourself doing anything else. That route is really really taxing both mentally and physically, and even though a lot of people think they know what's in store before they start (I thought I did), you really don't know just how much work it is until you're doing it. It's more than just increased reading and writing and higher expectations in terms of the rigor of your ideas. There's grant and fellowship applications. Conference proposals. Publication submissions. Participation in department and university life. Academic politics. Course work, comps, and a dissertation are milestones that you complete and then you're done with them. The others are things you're going to have to deal with for the rest of your working life if you want to build a career. People do present at conferences and try to publish at the masters level, but there is a completely different pressure to do that at the PhD level. If you can't see yourself fully engaged in all of those activities in addition to spending years studying a very narrow slice of something you're interested in, then I would not recommend pursuing a PhD. Like I said, you don't have to decide that now. If you think you might be interested in that route, finding a funded or partially funded masters program would be a good next step.

I'm not a 2014 applicant, but I'll throw in my .02. What everyone has said so far is, I think, absolutely right. In general, it has to do with your whole package as an applicant, with some aspects being weighed more heavily than others. Faculty at some schools I applied to (in 2012) mentioned up front that I needed to be above 90% in my verbal GRE score and preferably way above. I was at 89% (161) and that may or may not have had something to do with my rejections from those programs! This is important to remember: Almost everyone applying is excellent. I'm convinced that it's the details that get you in, and what those details are is going to be very specific to your AOI, your POIs, the departments and universities you're applying to, etc. I think if I had had a better sense of what those were for myself when I was applying, I would've done more to emphasize different factors for different schools. Instead my special details (e.g. the fact that I have an MA in English and have a strong background in critical theory) were emphasized the same in every application. Consequently, (in my view) I ended up being accepted to two schools that care about that kind of background a lot, whose departments are equipped and looking for students with backgrounds like that (not only that kind of background of course) and that have larger university environments that are very friendly to theologians doing work in critical theory. For all the research I did when I was applying, I look back now and see that I should've taken some schools off of my list probably and added others that I decided not to apply to. That isn't to say, of course, that I think I was rejected specifically because I emphasized those things--maybe certain schools just didn't find it that important or interesting, whereas others clearly did. My experience is obviously very specific to me, my interests, etc. but I think that's the point I'm wanting to make. Find what that thing (or things) is for you in relation to your AOI and exploit it as much as it makes sense for the schools to which you're applying. Maybe it's that you know a lot of languages really, really well. Maybe you've been on an archaeological dig in Jerusalem. Whatever it is, find it.

There's no official enforcement, but just about every school and every department in the country abides by that deadline as a courtesy mostly to each other so that all schools have a more or less equal opportunity to make admissions decisions and woo their prospective admits (and to give students some time to make the decision.) There is definitely precedent for leverage on this point. That a school would threaten to withdraw financial support and the admissions offer is, in a word, total garbage. I don't know what school that is, but if they really want you, they'll give you a more reasonable amount of time to decide (i.e. until April 15.) Almost every school that has an annual admissions process (as opposed to a rolling admissions process) abides by this, so really, there's no reason any school should think it's too special not to.

If you're interested in going on to get a PhD, go with the MAT. It's flexible enough at Fuller that you should be able to get in all the courses you want/need. I would second Kuriakos though. There's no reason to go into substantial debt for either an MDiv or MAT. I also really enjoyed my time at Fuller, and it was good enough to get me into a funded PhD program, but f I had known more about seminaries, div schools, etc. when I was applying, I would've tried to go somewhere else and gotten some or all of it paid for.

Well when your position on justification is that you can contribute nothing to your own salvation and literally everything you do is sin, then I guess go nuts!