marXian

It depends on your area. I think making sure you take a few philosophy courses is a good idea (ancient and early modern are probably the most important.) You don't need a degree in philosophy, but making sure you are familiar with the basics of those periods is a good idea, especially if you're doing theology.

Of course it makes a difference. But I think, as coffeekid has pointed out, someone with religious convictions who has a lot of experience working well in a secular setting could be comfortable in either setting because he/she knows the rules of the game, so to speak, in either context. I'm in the same boat: I have one MA from a public university, one from an evangelical seminary, and I'm currently in a secular religious studies department working on historical theology. There are pros and cons for both settings given one's own personality and convictions, but someone with experience in both could navigate either quite easily.

As everyone has said, it varies widely. I think I posted this on the previous GRE thread, but I had a 161 verbal (89th) with a 5.0 on the analytic section and got into Northwestern (for 2012.) When I initially got the call from my POI, she wanted to congratulate me on my strong writing sample and mentioned that I came highly recommended, so I know that's how I got in. When I was researching programs in 2011, I spoke to Paul Jones and Kevin Hart from UVa, and they both stressed to me how important the GRE is--while also making sure I knew that they didn't like it (neither are American, so no surprise there), but some of their colleagues felt it was indispensable. UVa is a really complex department though (as many posts on other threads have attested), so I'm sure my GRE score wasn't the only thing that kept me out of there. The POIs I contacted from Marquette, Drew, Duke, and Syracuse all stressed different things. Since the PhD application process is so incredibly political and complex, I think the best wisdom is not to blow off any of the components. Try to make every piece as competitive as you possibly can. You don't want to give a committee a tangible reason to reject your application--because even the most competitive applicant on paper could still be rejected from a program for any number of intangible reasons.

I'd second Balatro. It is certainly possible to have a PhD in a different but related field and end up teaching some religion courses, but that is not what you're going to fall into right out of your degree. There are two profs at NU (that I know of) who hold joint appointments in the RS department and English and philosophy respectively, but they finished their PhDs in the 60s, have been at NU forever, and have clearly paid their dues. People coming into the job market for the first time are most likely going to have to look for jobs in the field in which they received their PhD. You might find jobs at the smaller liberal arts colleges you say you're interested in that would be willing to stretch in a more interdisciplinary direction than major research institutions, but again, those will probably be even fewer in number than the already slim number of jobs available in your home field. Another way to approach this might be through your quals. I don't know what it's like at other schools, but at NU, students have the option to take a qual in a different department which is supposed to qualify you to teach courses in that subject, e.g. I'm in religious studies but plan to take a philosophy qual, probably in German Idealism. Does that mean that a philosophy department is going to hire me? Definitely not. But, if I'm lucky enough to end up at a school where the RS department has a good working relationship with the philosophy department, maybe I can teach some cross listed courses eventually. If you're really interested in teaching religion and psychology, I would do the RS PhD with a subfield in psychology.

I do 19th/early 20th century theology/philosophy (Schleiermacher and Tillich mostly.) I'm also working on subdisciplines in critical theory and political theology. *Shameless Plug* If you're interested in American religious history, I highly recommend checking out Northwestern's RS department in the future as you consider PhD programs. We have some great people in the field (Robert Orsi, Sarah Taylor, Sylvester Johnson). We also have a fantastic working relationship with other humanities departments (philosophy, history, German, English, poli sci.) NU has a program called the Interdisciplinary Cluster Initiative/Certificate Program where PhD students from different disciplines can be involved in a "cluster" that is centered around a particular interdisciplinary field with the option to earn a certificate in that field (e.g. I'm a part of the Critical Theory cluster/certificate program as well as a certificate program in Religion and Global Politics, which is new this year.) The certificate goes on your transcripts, prepares you to do one of your quals in something related to it, etc. In other words, it's a fantastic place to be if you have interdisciplinary interests!

You're absolutely right about claiming "expertise." The same thing happens in English departments. Literary theory makes use almost strictly of 20th century continental philosophy/critical theory, and while there are certainly scholars who do have a real expertise in those traditions, a great many of them do not, but utilize them anyway and masquerade a sort of "expertise." But it doesn't seem to matter that much. I've encountered the same thing in the RS field (especially when it comes to phenomenology.) I think it's possible to divide up other humanities in a similar way, but probably more complex given that there isn't the same "tradition" of making specific divisions to know what/where those lines should be. My department has quite a few scholars of Catholicism, but some do ethnography, some do history (from medieval to contemporary), those tend to overlap, and then their objects of study range widely. They would probably object to creating divisions as stark as those in philosophy. But I do agree with your concern: at the very least, I think that scholars utilizing material from outside of their field need to have more accountability.

At NU, the philosophy department is the only one in the humanities that has those subdivisions. I was in a graduate English department elsewhere (where it would also seem to make sense to have those) and no one did. From what I've gleaned from friends in the philosophy department, it matters a great deal to be clear on what you specialize in and what you're competent to speak to. Philosophy is notoriously cutthroat in terms of jobs; what you specialize in and what you are competent in matters more than any other humanities discipline because matching your specialization with the strength of your school is vital in getting a job. That is, if you do philosophy of mind and are in a department that is especially strong in that area, you want people to know that. Those distinctions are way more important in philosophy (as evidenced by The Philosophical Gourmet.) I suppose it doesn't always make sense for other disciplines. It depends on what one does, but specializations and competencies in religion aren't quite as clearly defined as they are in philosophy. That's not to say that there can't be those distinctions, but being an outsider to philosophy, it's easy to underestimate the importance of those in that discipline.

They are certainly not as competitive as programs with full funding and stipends. There aren't any undergrads to make more competitive funding possible. It's too bad because they have a pretty fantastic faculty. But they do reject people. I know of at least two people who applied last year and did not get in. =)

I'd second all the people who are recommending the MDiv given your affiliation especially if it can be paid for. While I was attending Fuller, I started in the MAT, switched to the MDiv for about 8 months, and then switched back to the MAT at the suggestion of a professor with whom I was working closely. I was working in a church as a youth pastor and was having a similar struggle, wondering if I would end up doing part time ministry while pursuing an academic career, etc. In my situation though, I already had an MA in a different field (English) coming into Fuller, I was paying for my time there (not cheap), and I was part of a denomination that doesn't require an MDiv for ordination (Evangelical Covenant.) If it had been my first graduate degree, I may have opted for a different path. If you want to leave the door open for ministry and especially if you don't have to worry about financing your degree, do the MDiv.

161v/154q/5.0aw That's about 89th percentile in verbal, which almost certainly eliminated me from consideration for some programs I applied to. I'm a horrible test taker, so I didn't think retaking was going to improve my scores much. I studied 500 vocab words over and over whenever I could for about 3 months. I also took as many practice tests as I could. Vocabulary really is the key to the verbal section. In the end, it was my writing sample (according to my advisor) and interdisciplinary background that got me into Northwestern. Who the faculty are at a given program and how much they weigh the GRE obviously matters a great deal.

I concur with coffeekid. When I was writing my thesis for my English MA, a professor reminded me that you simply cannot read everything. No one can. Figuring out what is going to be most helpful to your project is what's important. I found it most helpful to get a draft completed that I could build from through the comments from my committee. The first and second drafts were awful, and it was tough to read those comments. But writing a thesis is about helping it find its natural resting place, and the only way to do that is to draft so that you can think through the garbage that shouldn't be in there.

I wasn't clear enough. I'm totally on board with what you're saying about critical theory. I have an MA in English and did most of my work in that degree on theory. When I did my MA in theology, I spent a lot of time thinking and writing about how theory could be used as a tool in hermeneutics. I actually think critical theory could be a productive point of contact for RS and theology. There ARE people in RS who are interested in theory--they just don't know how to jump in. I find myself in the unique position of being a theologian who does critical theory AND I'm in an RS department that largely does ethnography. I have to say, it's extremely exciting. It sounds like you may not be aware of the critical theory work that's been and is being done in theology? I mean, critical theory these days is largely the bread and butter of English departments, but most English students who are worth their salt in theory will acknowledge their discipline knows how to use theory because of people like Mark Taylor and Thomas Altizer. They were (arguably) the first people to take someone like Derrida out of philosophy and apply him to a different humanities discipline (if we were to call theology a part of the humanities.) There is quite a bit of work being done with theory and theology these days, some good some bad (Adam Kotsko and Anthony Paul Smith come to mind as two stars that are rising very quickly.) I will agree that the discipline is a bit behind the times generally, but I know many people who are using theory to write dissertations on constructive theological method. The reality is that RS is a discipline in secular humanities departments. In my experience, theology is typically relegated to divinity schools or done under the banner "philosophy of religion." You may hate what RS does, but I think there's some constructive work to be done there with the help of contemporary theology that can help make theology relevant in the secular academy again. If you think that's a waste of time, I'm okay with that. There are many of us who don't. Also, I think given that theology is a lived discipline (or should be), there's probably something to be gained from theologians engaging in a little bit of ethnographic research. Respectfully, when you say that RS is the worst perspective from which to study religion, all you're doing is adding fuel to the already burning fire that separates theology from RS.

Interesting conversation re: theology and religion. I'm just the fourth theologian to be admitted to Northwestern's theology track (which started sometime in the late 2000s.) Many of the people in the department do ethnography/anthropology/sociology of religion with a few people doing Jewish philosophy, and some doing Islamic studies. There is a rather contentious history between theology and the scientific study of religion. Most people on this forum seem to either be doing biblical studies/early Christianity or theology, though I've seen a few in American religions and Eastern religions people. All that to say, I'm with you, jdmhottness--not everyone who studies religion does theology. (Though part of my work at NU is on how method in religious studies can incorporate some tools from recent critical theory work in theology.) It's certainly interesting to see how the two fields speak to each other within the secular academy.

Haha, nice.

I was accepted into Claremont's joint PhD in Religion/MA in philosophy program last year. When I got the funding information, I saw 50% funding... and then "25% per degree." I don't know who taught them math, but that's 25% funding, not 50%! I have a friend who started there this year, and he told me that it's sort of unspoken knowledge that students who do really well in their first year are offered more funding in the second year, and in later years, there's informal help in getting jobs at local community college to help supplement the cost. Certainly not a traditional funding package, but it sounds like if you're willing to pay some for the first year (or seek external scholarships), it's possible to secure more funding later. They do fund some students 100%, but I have no idea what the typical fully funded student looks like. Overall, I think everyone agrees CGU's funding situation is an absolute mess. Also, I did my MAT at Fuller, and your feeling is correct--go somewhere else for your PhD. I have friends who are doing amazing work in the systematic PhD program there, and I don't think people like Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen or Nancey Murphy are all that invested in the Evangelical tradition (if at all), BUT the reputation is such that you probably won't be able to shake the Evangelical label no matter what you do your dissertation on.

I think what is far more important is that a recommender know you and your work very well so that he or she can speak as strongly as possible to your abilities. If that happens to be a big name scholar or someone with ties to a particular institution, then great. But a letter that's weak or vague could completely back fire and destroy your application, especially if it's from a big name or someone with ties to an institution. When I was getting letters together last year, I was having a really hard time finding a third letter from the pool of faculty at Fuller, since the seminary is so large, you have to take so many courses, etc. After speaking with a number of faculty, I just didn't feel confident that I could get three from Fuller, so I lined up two there that I knew would be solid, and I went outside of the discipline to one of my committee members for my MA in English. He was delighted to write me a recommendation, and I was accepted to two programs. There's certainly a chance that having a non-theology/religion recommendation hurt me with some of my apps, but I think the best bet is always to go with the person who can speak at length about your work and your strengths.

Oh, don't get me wrong--it's still plenty Evangelical, especially on the practical ministry side of things. And I knew plenty of students who were distraught by the existence of someone like Nancey Murphy at FTS (who is not one of the aforementioned atheists.) If you're familiar with the faculty there at all, it probably wouldn't be that surprising to find out which ones are though.

I have a good friend, an Evangelical, who went to Xavier for his undergrad, Denver Seminary for an MDiv, Fuller for an MAT (since his DSem GPA was bad), and is now at Duquesne for his PhD in systematic theology. With the exception of Denver, he's had a great experience everywhere he's been. I was friends with quite a few atheists when I was at Fuller (including a couple professors.) Not that any of them made that public, of course. Being raised an Evangelical myself, I sometimes regret not going outside of the box a little bit for my theological education. I just didn't know enough when I made the switch from English lit. Still, as I mentioned, I was able to find people who weren't Evangelical at all, and I spent a lot of time with them. I think it's probably possible to find people you fit in with just about anywhere you go. As long as you're aware of the potential conflicts you could encounter, I think it's good to go some place that's going to help you see things a bit differently.

I believe just about every well known school (schools who are apart of the Council of Graduate Schools) has agreed to a deadline of April 15 for you to accept/reject offers--if they offer you financial support (which virtually all well-known programs do). The school is well aware of this. If they're making you an offer, they can't demand you accept or decline right then and there (unless they're a school that hasn't agreed to this deadline or they're not offering you a financial package--but you say it's well known, so they probably have and are.) You can see the list of schools here: http://www.cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/CGS_Resolution.pdf You can be as enthusiastic as you want to be, and you probably should be enthusiastic just in case everything else falls through. You're under no obligation to accept or decline their offer now, and they know full well that you can change your mind and go somewhere else if you want. Good luck!

No problem! If you have any questions about the program, feel free to PM me.

I'm a current student in the RS department at Northwestern. We were told that final decisions were hopefully being made by the end of today, maybe by the end of the week. Admitted student weekend is March 8-10, so phone calls will be made soon! Good luck.

After talking to a few different professors (at different institutions), focused but general is certainly the way to go. To put it as concisely as possible, if you're too general, the committee doesn't know what you're really interested in and has no idea who you'd be a good fit with, but if you're too detailed (this is strictly speaking for American schools--the UK system is completely different) then the committee will, as one prof of mine put it, feel that you have nothing left to learn and wish you well on your nearly completed dissertation by throwing your app into the trash pile. In other words, the expectation at most American schools is that you're still figuring out the finer details of your project, though you know more specifically what you'd like to focus on. The degree to which this varies probably depends on whether or not the school typically admits students fresh out of their BA, or if they tend to only admit students that have already completed an MA and expect a high level of competence. There's certainly more to be said, but that's a start.

If you're asking this question, then for you, the answer is almost undoubtedly going to be "Yes." People who attend the places you mentioned and apprecaite the theology being taught there probably feel as though those institutions/faculties are on the right track, in general, with regard to their theology. I went to Fuller Seminary--a post-conservative evangelical institution. I grew up in an evangelical environment, so I knew the ropes, but for me, it was frustratingly conservative at times, and I found that what you're saying about making theology fit "views" (I'm not sure if you're talking about politics here or what) was true for students but not faculty--and true in the opposite sense in that their theology fit their conservative political agenda. (You can imagine which issues were at the forefront over the last three years.) Faculty, however, never engaged in that sort of thinking in my experience. If I were a conservative evangelical, however, I probably would not have felt that way about those students. See what I'm saying? Fuller considers itself to be in the middle of the spectrum (Dallas people say we're a pack of heathen communists, while GTU people say we're all right-wing fundie wackos), and for me, I've found that to be mostly true. But it's really relative. Maybe finding a school that seems to feel that way for you would be good if this is something you're worried about. But definitely don't choose a seminary by trying to match up its theology exactly with yours. Seminary is a place to have all of your theological answers questioned--not have your questions answered. No matter where you go, expect to hear something that challenges your theology--which is good.

adahal, from what I've heard, you should be ok. My understanding is that between the Morse and Thorndale stops, but east of N. Clark are relatively safe areas for city living. Rogers Park can change block to block, but I've heard that those areas are much safer than up around the Jarvis/Howard stops or west of N. Clark.

I'm not sure what your area is, Lux, but continental philosophy and theology has been a growing field over the last decade at least. Kester Brewin, Ingolf Dalferth, Kevin Hart, Graham Ward, Gavin Hyman, Peter Rollins, Clayton Crockett? Zizek? Simon Critchley? Definitely not a minor specialization.