marXian

It would help to know a little more info: Where are you located? Will you be attending part time or full time? Do you feel like you lean more conservative (maybe better put, does your church require that you lean more conservative) or are you looking to be challenged and confronted with points of view that may be new to you? There are a lot of options, but it will helpful to first know some of these things.

I might be misreading some of you on this thread, so if I am, let me know. Some of what I'm saying here has been touched upon in other posts (e.g. Takemycoffeeblack, Starbuck, furtivemode, and others) so sorry for being a little repetitive. It seems the disconnect here is that many seem to be making a more or less general claim that languages simply aren't useful anymore, are great for personal enrichment, but too time consuming for those pursuing a PhD given everything else that has to be done. I do agree that not everyone in every humanities field should have to learn foreign languages; and as I mentioned before, some universities are moving toward a languages-as-needed model like some of you are suggesting. In those cases, learning a foreign language might be deemed to be a huge time sink, and simply not worth it--if someone is studying figures who only write in English or a subject in which it doesn't make sense to know more than English. However, I think it's important to emphasize what furtivemode is saying here and add that it extends beyond philological disciplines like his. I don't think one can become an expert in the work of a foreign figure without not only a basic reading competency (i.e. passing a reading exam) but actual fluency in the language. It's not really a matter of whether or not you think reading in the original language adds to your understanding of a text or it being a good skill for personal enrichment or thinking differently, etc. It's also not just a matter of meeting a minimum requirement (a reading exam.) Obviously, I can only speak from my experience, so that's what I'm offering here. I've not encountered a single professor either at Northwestern or UChicago who works on a German figure (or figures) who has thought that German fluency wasn't absolutely necessary for that kind of work (German, philosophy, and RS professors at NU, theology at UofC div school.) My department (RS at Northwestern) no longer has an official language requirement (something instituted just last year), but I'm still "required" to be fluent in German. It's just the nature of my discipline and what I'm studying. I've passed the UChicago German proficiency exam, but I'm not done. I need to go to Germany this summer just to work on language, and before that I have to continue to work on my own. For what it's worth, I also don't know any philosophy students at NU working on either French or German figures who aren't already fluent in the necessary languages or are working on it currently. They're in the same boat I am. There are just too many things that depend on fluency, if it's relevant to your field (e.g. funding opportunities abroad almost always require reading and speaking ability in the language of the country you want to go to.) To put it as succinctly as possible, if you're planning on studying non-English language things, it's a huge deal; plan on being as competent as necessary in the language or languages that are going to be the most relevant given what is currently acceptable in your field.

When I was applying two years ago, my impression was that the schools that want scans of official transcripts uploaded are doing so to try and to cut down on pieces of the application getting lost/misplaced. Then if an applicant is admitted, he/she can send in official copies to verify. That's how it was for 7 of the 10 schools I applied to, and I had to send in official transcripts to the one I ended up attending (Northwestern) by the end of my first quarter.

I'm not in a philosophy department, but many departments at my university, including philosophy and my own (religious studies), are moving to an "as needed" model where students decide in conjunction with advisers and sometimes the DGS what languages the student should be competent in. There are students in my department studying American religions who won't have to do any language at all, and that seems right. I do theology and philosophy of religion in early 20th century Germany, so I'm doing German and French. The latter isn't going to have a ton of relevance in my work right, but for my field, having two languages just looks better. With regard to German, however, I've needed more than just reading competency. I think most people who are doing work on German figures attempt to spend an academic year in Germany at some point during their PhD to work with scholars there, which requires more than simply being able to read and translate with a dictionary. It seems like most folks posting here are doing analytic philosophy, and it may be in that particular discipline, foreign languages aren't necessary. But from what I've experienced thus far in working with faculty in my department, philosophy, and German, I think if one were studying, say, Kant, fluency in German--not just reading proficiency--would be essential for writing a first rate dissertation. Point is, it's kind of tough to talk about whether or not the language requirement as a whole is antiquated since some people are just going to have to learn one or more languages regardless of the availability of English translations.

I wouldn't worry at all. Adcoms understand that writing samples are usually not publishable quality. I mean, there is certainly a point at which errors and structural issues would hinder a writing sample, but it's not black and white. Based on your advisor's comments, I think you're okay.

axiomness, have you seen this thread on the philosophy forum? Apparently, CU has decided to not accept applicants for the PhD in philosophy for next year.

furtivemode is right. It's really only used to know what competition a program has if an offer is made. It really has no bearing on whether or not an offer is made.

Very conservative Calvinists, the ones who are usually staunch five-pointers, are quite often also dispensationalists, but dispensationalism isn't necessarily a marker of Reformed or Arminian theology. I'm really surprised to hear that most profs at Liberty are Arminian. Learn something new every day!

Wait... I though Liberty was reformed...? This is kind of blowing my mind. I mean, their doctrinal statement is pretty generic; there's an inerrancy bit, but other than that, not much that screams Reformed evangelical... and I know not all evangelicals are necessarily Reformed, even broadly speaking, but most definitely are (at least in my experience.) I'm really more curious than anything else--what do you consider Liberty to be?

FWIW, I do know a few people with conservative backgrounds at some big name schools--you just have to go in knowing what to expect and (to make it incredibly cliché) have an open mind. I have some anecdotal evidence from one of those people, a student I met at UChicago, with a similar background to yours. He attended a small, conservative Christian liberal arts college, then got an MDiv at Liberty. He applied to PhD programs and struck out. After corresponding with a few POIs, he realized his conservative background was a hindrance. He was, however, able to get into a reputable philosophy program for an MA. Applied and struck out again for PhD programs but was accepted to UChicago's MAR as a backup. Finally, upon completing that degree, he was admitted to three top programs in theology and is at one of them now. All of this is to say, another degree from Liberty may not help you get into Duke or any top tier program as much as going to a different, more broadly accepted program. Regarding undergrad GPA, I have a 3.17 and am currently at Northwestern. But I also have two MAs, (3.89 and 3.7). Your most recent degrees are what matter most. Finally, with regard to furtivemode's concern about maybe not being able to get a job at a more conservative school, it really depends on just how conservative we're talking here. Fuller Seminary, for example, has lots of faculty from Duke, and I think a lot of people would consider Fuller conservative--but if you talk to someone from Denver or Dallas Seminary, Fuller is just a bunch of liberal communists! I have a cousin who works at Biola, and he told me they'd love to hire people from top tier schools. The problem, usually, is that most people who go to top tier schools wouldn't be comfortable with signing a conservative school's statement of faith. But if you're a conservative who goes through a top tier program, that probably won't be an issue. Of course, ultra conservative schools (Master's, Moody, tiny bible colleges) would probably look at top tier credentials with suspicion. But those schools are typically rooted in anti-intellectual traditions. You can find plenty of schools on the more conservative-to-middle end of the spectrum that are not part of that. To summarize, you can be more conservative and be successful in a top tier program as long as you're smart about how you navigate through, but you need to demonstrate that your background extends beyond the conservative in order to get in.

For the last year or so I've been listening to "The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps" podcast. It's actually been really helpful in brushing up on the important background stuff I need while also being introduced to some things I knew nothing about. The host, Peter Adamson, teaches at the LMU in Munich. http://historyofphilosophy.net/blog "Philosophy Bites" is also interesting. As far as non-academic stuff, I love "How Did This Get Made?" which is a podcast that just rips on terrible movies. My wife and I have enjoyed watching the movies and then listening to the podcast together.

It's weird to me to hear that a school would say "while you're receiving a stipend" you can't work. In my situation, I was asked not to work my first year. Makes sense, since they want first years to just put their heads down and get through a rigorous year of course work. But after that, nearly everyone is applying for jobs/fellowships that are available within the university (e.g. assistant master in the residential college system, fellowships that give Ph.D students the opportunity to work with a cohort of "honors" undergrads, etc.) all of which are paid out as a monthly stipend but none of which would replace a year of fellowship (as a Fulbright or DAAD year long fellowship would.) Even some of the hourly wage on campus jobs are open to grad students (library jobs, etc.) I suppose the culture at each university is going to be different regarding this.

FWIW, even more conservative seminaries, like Fuller for instance, engage in what has here been described as "non-traditional methods." Not a single Fuller prof. thinks the Torah was authored by Moses, that the whole thing must be read literally, etc. There are certain terms used positively at Fuller, like infallibility, that probably wouldn't be tossed around at a div. school, but by and large, much of what the OP has described as "anathema at Evangelical/Catholic/Orthodox schools" isn't quite right depending on the Evangelical/Catholic/Orthodox school you're looking at. I didn't read every post, so maybe this has already been said, but to bring this back to practical advice to applicants searching for a good fit for an MDiv program, there's a spectrum (obviously--as with most things) and not a stark division between "traditional" and "non-traditional."

To echo a bit of what Body Politics has already said, you'd be able to do work on religion/critical theory/Marxism in an interdisciplinary context, meaning either a joint degree program or a religious studies or sociology department at a university with strong interdisciplinary opportunities. I work, more or less, in the area you describe within a religious studies department (Northwestern), only I do theology specifically. "Critical theory" can obviously mean many things, but in the way you're using it in conjunction with marxism and Enlightenment philosophy, I assume you mean the Frankfurt School. That said, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by not being interested in "literary criticism." The reality is that most of the people who are experts in critical theory (i.e. Frankfurt School) are people in literature departments, either English, comp lit., German, French, etc. There are folks in philosophy departments who this sort of work too, but my point is that even if you're in a religious studies or sociology department at a university, there will be a fair amount of crossover with folks utilizing the same theory for literary criticism. Northwestern has two interdisciplinary certificate programs that might be of interest to you: One in critical theory: http://www.tgs.northwestern.edu/academics/academic-programs/cluster-certificate/humanities/critical-theory/index.html One in "religion and global politics": http://www.tgs.northwestern.edu/academics/academic-programs/certificate/religion-and-global-politics/index.html You would participate in one or both of these as part of your normal coursework toward a Ph.D in religious studies, sociology, or whatever department seemed to suit you the best. As far as religious studies goes, Sylvester Johnson might be a person of interest. He does African American religion, and religion and politics more broadly. Also note that many sociology departments (at least in the US) are not all that interested in critical theory, marxism, etc. That's maybe a bit of a generalization, but my experience has been that social scientists (sociologists, anthropologists, etc.) typically favor more "scientific" methods in their work especially as it regards religion. But if you did work on religion in your sociology degree, you shouldn't have a problem getting into a religious studies department assuming everything else is in order. Feel free to send me a private message if you have more specific questions!

I'd say it's a mix, leaning toward analytic. There are faculty (Lafont, Deutscher, Alznauer, Mills in particular) who are definitely continental folks. You'll also find people in the German/French departments doing continental philosophy (e.g. Peter Fenves and Sam Weber) though you wouldn't be applying to work with them directly if applying to the philosophy department. Deutscher has at least one student, who is almost finished, doing work on Deleuze. But I think it would be correct to say that the philosophy department is mostly analytic folks now, even though it hasn't always been that way in the past. Still, I would apply.

I read the first part of the link and skimmed the rest (didn't look at any of the examples) but the beginning, at least, is dead on in terms of what not to do. It's not a sales pitch, a brag sheet, etc. A lot of people worry about scraping together every meager accomplishment of their academic lives to show committees. You have to be unafraid to let that stuff go. Get to the relevant parts about your preparation, interests, and what makes you a fantastic addition to a particular program. Also, in terms of stating one's interests, the advice is really fantastic; i.e. stating what you're interested in, not what you are going to set out to prove, solve, demonstrate, etc. It seems to me that much or all of it is relevant to applicants in our field.

Don't get me wrong--it is incredibly hard work! I'm only in the second year of my program, but my seventh of grad school over all. I'm completely burnt out on course work. But I also getting along really well with my advisor, am pretty well funded, and love what I study. I don't know if I feel like getting a Ph.D is a joy ride... I think I just feel incredibly fortunate to be where I am. I definitely agree regarding the amount of work this takes though. I guess I'm just not convinced that we're necessarily in all that worse a position than anyone else who has to go out onto the job market with any humanities degree. I don't think you're wrong that some might see us as overqualified, "too smart," etc. or that one probably wouldn't want to give up on a teaching gig after one shot at it or that it would be hard to find employment after two years of being unemployed. And I don't think anyone would be excited about a job at Starbucks or Target after going through a Ph.D program. But I wasn't saying that it'll be easier to get "any job" just because one has a Ph.D. Each and every situation for someone with a degree in the humanities, whether all one has is an A.A. from a community college or a Ph.D from a TT school, presents its own unique challenges and advantages. When I only had a BA in English, getting a job teaching high school English in California was going to be nearly impossible for me without an MA. I was finishing my credential in 2007, right as the economy was falling off a cliff and schools were cutting teachers left and right. So I went to get an MA in English, decided not to go back to high school teaching, started teaching community college, thought I could do better, wanted to do something different, went to seminary, worked as a youth pastor while getting my MA in theology, and now I'm here. In each employment situation, I had certain advantages and disadvantages brought on by my education. I was a long shot for grad school to begin with going into my first MA. I have a 3.17 undergrad GPA, and I really had no clue what grad school entailed. Maybe I feel like I've just always beaten the odds! Ultimately, I don't disagree with you. Getting a Ph.D is incredibly difficult and getting a job afterward is, I'm sure, going to be incredibly difficult. I'm just trying to look on the bright side of things I guess.

I study theology, not HB/OT, but I went to community college, a Cal State, a 2nd/3rd tier state school in Colorado, and then Fuller Seminary, and I'm at Northwestern now. Though I suppose that Northwestern doesn't count for some on this board. I do have a friend who was at Fuller with me (also attended a community college), and he is now at Yale doing NT. It is definitely possible.

Fair enough, but by "can't get a job anywhere," do you mean any type of job anywhere regardless of the qualifications required? As in, for years the people you know couldn't even get a job as a Starbucks barista? My point was only that getting a Ph.D is a risk no matter where you go. We all went into this knowing that there are way more of us than there are jobs. Therefore, "the job market" can't mean only jobs in academia or even only jobs directly related to our field. I don't know about you, but if I can't get a job at a college, a private high school, a publishing house, the government, a church, then I guess I'll have to do what everyone else does and find a job somewhere else--and be thrilled that I had the opportunity to be paid to earn a Ph.D in something I love. I know people don't like hearing that they might have to work a "normal" job, but accepting that as a possibility is probably a good idea.

I'm with you on everything except this point. I think it's probably better to put it this way: 1. No one should be contemplating any PhD program unless he/she cannot imagine doing anything else. If you think you can be talked out of it, do something else. 2. Don't pay for a Ph.D. 3. Given 1 or 2, it's perfectly fine to go to a second tier program as long as earning a Ph.D in religion/theology/etc. is your dream and you don't have to pay to do it. Job prospects are really tough--absolutely. But they're even more bleak if you have your heart set on a job at a T1 school. I know that even jobs at lesser known schools are hard to come by. But if one were to be open to other possibilities including government work, publishing, even teaching high school, things aren't quite as dire.

Some application systems require electronically submitted letters without exception. Others will allow either. Either the program website or the application itself will indicate which methods are allowed.

If you can find a faculty member at your school who would be willing to give you some feedback, I think that's the best way to go (one who has been on an adcom.) I think furtivemode's advisers are basically right. The SOP should demonstrate a bit of how you have arrived at the question/problem you want to address, followed by the identification of that problem and proposing that given the resources of X University and Prof. A and B (or just A) you feel you are the person to address and work on this problem. You're using the problem you've identified, to show 1) why you think you are uniquely suited (or at least suited in an interesting/innovative way) to work on it and 2) why you think the department is the best place for you to do that. I think I basically agree with Lux as well regarding specificity. Identifying a historical period and an "area of interest" within that period is probably a good sweet spot to aim for. Also remember that you're not trying to suggest potential solutions to the problem you're identifying either. If you start outlining exactly how you plan to go about providing an answer, adcoms might think you think you're ready to start the dissertation, which you should not be ready to do entering an American program. I think this is actually all good once you get into your program because it allows for some flexibility for you mentally to really settle in well to the strengths of your program, adviser, and the university.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, get on a list, or whatever--I just want to further answer the OP's question by demonstrating what I was saying in my first post and also correct some of what I said in my first response. I took time out of my day (5 min.) to do some quick research. Here's what I found: Duke had 169 applicants for the 2013 school year and extended offers to 12. That's 7%. For the 2012 school year, they had 195 and extended offers to 20 (10%). UVA had 141 applicants for 2013, and extended offers to 21 (15%). In 2012, they had 151 applicants and made offers to 17 (11%). Northwestern had 50 applicants for 2012 and admitted 5 (10%). I didn't want to spend any more time hunting down other stats, but they're out there. I don't know about the Ivy's, but at least for Duke, the 300+ number (for their religion department) is a bit high. In past years, they have received over 200 though. They also, clearly, admit more than 3 or 4 students. I'm trying to demonstrate that it's really hard to draw conclusions from this. Each school has particular specializations (either tracks or particularly popular faculty.) For instance, because of particular faculty, NU is especially competitive for students studying Catholicism in the US (and American religions more generally) and is maybe not as competitive (yet) in other fields. When I was applying in 2011, I was told by a couple UVA faculty that the TEC track is extremely competitive because they receive so many applications for it. The small admissions figure I gave before (i.e. 1 or 2 students) I think still applies if we're talking about specific tracks even if students are admitted to a program as a whole and not a track. Adcoms still divide up who is going to be admitted by what space they have in their tracks, faculty availability and interest, etc.

A list was more or less compiled of programs that offer full funding plus a stipend guaranteed. That's here: At the risk of starting another fire, it is my opinion, that Ph.D programs in general are very competitive. Yes, if a school receives 300+ applications (like Duke, for instance) and only has 3 or 4 spots, sometimes 1 or 2, that is extremely competitive, and yes, the most competitive probably. But even if a school only gets 60 applications yet makes offers to 4 students--that's still pretty competitive! It seems most programs in religion are able to extend offers to anywhere between 1 and 5 students a year, sometimes more. Last year, NU extended offers to 7 with one on a wait list (but I don't know how many total applied.) That was rather unprecedented I think. All of this sort of info is made public by universities, so you can search something like "program statistics" with a university name, and you should be able to track down the stats for a given program over the last few years. NU has info for every program going back to 2007 on its website. Of course, with seminaries, it might be different. When I was at Fuller, it seemed a dozen or more new PhD students were entering each year, but of course, most are unfunded, and there's a much larger faculty.

Again, I think what adcoms are looking for primarily is a very good description of you as a student. If that recommendation comes from a big name, I think it's only going to make a difference if it's a stellar recommendation. I think it can also make a difference if someone on the adcom happens to know one of your recommenders personally, especially if the LOR is fantastic. Mediocre recommendations are always going to hurt you know matter where they come from and may end up reflecting even more poorly if the adcom knows the recommender either personally or by his/her good academic reputation.